Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
cp04-12-2016HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL
MEETING AGENDA
TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2016
CITY CENTER — COUNCIL CHAMBERS
(The City Council is provided background information for agenda items in advance by city staff, committees and boards. Many
decisions regarding agenda items are based upon this information as well as: City policy and practices, inputfrom constituents,
and other questions or information that has not yet been presented or discussed regarding an agenda item)
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER — 5:30 P.M.
(a) Approve the Council agenda and any agenda additions and/or corrections
2. INVOCATION — Riverside Assembly of God Church
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. RECOGNITION OF GIFTS, DONATIONS AND COMMUNITY SERVICE TO THE CITY
�a) Resolution No. 14546 — Accepting Donation from Glen Kurth
b) Arbor Day Proclamation
PUBLIC COMMENTS
(T is is an opportunity or members of the public to address the City Council on items not on the current agenda. Ifyou have a
question, concern or comment, please ask to be recognized by the mayor state your name and address for the record. Please
keep comments under 5 minutes. Individuals wishing to speakfor more than five minutes should ask to be included on the agenda
in advance of the meeting. All comments are appreciated, butplease refrain from personal or derogatory attacks on individuals)
5. CITIZENS ADDRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
(a) Regular Meeting of March 22, 2016
(b) Workshop of March 22, 2016
CONSENT AGENDA
(The items listedfor consideration will be enacted by one motion unless the Mayor, a member of the City Council or a city
staff member requests an item to be removed. Traditionally items are not discussed.)
7. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA I
(a) Consideration for Approval of Issuing Parade Permit to American Legion Post 906 for Memorial
Day Parade on May 30, 2016
(b) Consideration for Approval of Supporting First Annual Law Enforcement Memorial Association
Rod Run on September 24, 2016
(c) Consideration for Approval of Resolution No. 14547 — Resolution Establishing Location for
Traffic Control Devices (Stop Sign at Echo Drive and Hwy 15 Service Road)
(d) Consideration for Approval of Transfer of FAA Airport Funding Entitlements to City of Dodge
Center
(e) Claims, Appropriations and Contract Payments
PUBLIC HEARINGS (6:00 P.M.)
ASSESSMENT HEARING AND PROJECT AWARD FOR 2016 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA APRIL 12, 2016
PROGRAM PROJECT — LETTING NO. 1, PROJECT NO. 16-01
a. Approve/Deny Resolution No. 14548 — Resolution Adopting Assessment
b. Approve/Deny Resolution No. 14549 — Resolution Accepting Bid & Awarding Contract
9. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 16-0757 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 54 (STORM WATER MANAGEMENT) OF THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON CODE
OF ORDINANCES ADDING LANGUAGE IN SECTION 54.23 (FIRST READING, SET
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION FOR APRIL 26, 2016)
COMMUNICATIONS REQUESTS AND PETITIONS
(T e purpose oj this portion oj the agenda is to provide the ounci with information necessary to craft wise policy. Includes
items like monthly or annual reports and communications from other entities)
10. HUTCHINSON POLICE SERVICES 2015 YEAR END REPORT
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
11. APPROVE/DENY ORDINANCE NO. 16756 — AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE PROPERTY AT
13 4TH AVENUE NE, 15 4TH AVENUE NE AND 17 4TH AVENUE NE FROM R-2 (MEDIUM
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO C-2 (AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE COMMERCIAL) AS
REQUESTED BY CITY OF HUTCHINSON — PROPERTY OWNER (SECOND READING AND
ADOPTION)
NEW BUSINESS
12. APPROVE/DENY AWARDING BIDS AND THE PROJECT FOR AQUATIC CENTER
13. APPROVE/DENY ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FROM KEYSTONE COMPENSATION GROUP
TO PROVIDE JOB EVALUATION AND COMPENSATION STUDY CONSULTING
SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON
14. REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF SUSTAINABLE PURCHASING POLICY
15. APPROVE/DENY PROJECT AWARD FOR 2016 STREET SEAL COATING PROJECT —
LETTING NO. 3, PROJECT NO. 16-03
a. Approve/Deny Resolution No. 14550 - Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract
16. REVIEW OF 2016 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REPORT
17. REVIEW OF HUTCHINSON SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 423 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL
PLAN
18. APPROVE/DENY SETTING COUNCIL WORKSHOP FOR APRIL 26, 2016, AT 4:15 P.M. TO
REVIEW DEBT MANAGEMENT PLAN
GOVERNANCE
(The purpose o t is portion of the agenda is to deal with organizational development issues, including policies,
performances, and other matters that manage the logistics of the organization. May include monitoring reports, policy
development and governance process items.)
2
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA APRIL 12, 2016
19. MINUTES FROM COMMITTEES, BOARDS OR COMMISSIONS
a) Library Board Minutes from February 22, 2016
�b) Resource Allocation Committee Meeting Minutes from February 3, 2016
c) Liquor Hutch Quarterly Report for January — March 2016
MISCELLANEOUS
20. STAFF UPDATES
21. COUNCIL/MAYOR UPDATE
ADJOURNMENT
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL
ci=V�f�
Request for Board Action
79 M-W
Agenda Item: Recognition of Cash Donation from Glen Kurth
Department: Finance
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 4/12/2016
Application Complete N/A
Contact: Andy Reid
Agenda Item Type:
Presenter:
Reviewed by Staff ❑
Recognition of Gifts/Donations
Time Requested (Minutes): 1
License Contingency N/A
Attachments: Yes
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OF AGENDA ITEM:
As you know, a new scoreboard was purchased in 2015 for VMF baseball field. Glen
Kurth graciously decided to
fund the entire cost of $26,846 by paying 50% in 2015 and 50% in 2016. Mr. Kurth issued a check to the City for the
remaining balance of $13,423 on March 30, 2016.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Accept the cash donation of $13,423 from Glen Clancy Kurth towards the new scoreboard.
Fiscal Impact: Funding Source:
FTE Impact: Budget Change: No
Included in current budget: No
PROJECT SECTION:
Total Project Cost:
Total City Cost: Funding Source:
Remaining Cost: $ 0.00 Funding Source:
CITY OF HUTCHINSON
RESOLUTION NO. 14546
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DONATIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Hutchinson is generally authorized to accept donations of real and
personal property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 465.03 for the benefit of its citizens,
and is specifically authorized to accept gifts and bequests for the benefit of recreational services
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 471.17; and
WHEREAS, the following persons and entities have offered to contribute the cash amounts
set forth below to the city:
Name of Donor Amount Donation Date
Glen Kurth $ 13,423.00 3/30/2016
WHEREAS, all such donations have been contributed to the new scoreboard installed at
Veteran's Memorial Field in 2015.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is appropriate to accept the donations offered.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS:
THAT, the donations described above are hereby accepted by the City of Hutchinson.
Adopted by the City Council this 12th day of April 2016.
ATTESTED:
Matthew Jaunich
City Administrator
APPROVED:
Gary T. Forcier
Mayor
r4
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, Arbor Day is a day set aside for the planting of trees; and
WHEREAS, The Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing (3M) company and
the Hutchinson Utilities Commission have been sponsors for Arbor Day; and
WHEREAS, the sponsors and the City of Hutchinson recognize the
significant environmental benefits and aesthetic value of the urban forest; and
WHEREAS, Arbor Day is an opportunity for students in the City to learn
about the value of trees and the urban forest,
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Gary Forcier, Mayor of the City of Hutchinson do hereby
proclaim Friday, April 29, 2016, as:
Arbor Day
in the City of Hutchinson, Minnesota.
I further proclaim that the 3M Company of Hutchinson and the Hutchinson
Utilities Commission are noted as the official sponsor of Arbor Day in 2016. Their
initiatives of planting trees to improve air quality, reduce storm water runoff, and
save energy for heating and cooling will provide benefits to all of Hutchinson's
citizens for years to come.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 12th day of April,
2016.
Gary Forcier, Mayor
City of Hutchinson, Minnesota
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2016
CITY CENTER — COUNCIL CHAMBERS
(The City Council is provided background information for agenda items in advance by city staff, committees and boards. Many
decisions regarding agenda items are based upon this information as well as: City policy and practices, inputfrom constituents,
and other questions or information that has not yet been presented or discussed regarding an agenda item)
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER— 5:30 P.M.
Mayor Gary Forcier called the meeting to order. Members present were Chad Czmowski, Bill Arndt,
Mary Christensen and John Lofdahl. Others present were Matt Jaunich, City Administrator, Marc
Sebora, City Attorney and Kent Exner, City Engineer
(a) Approve the Council agenda and any agenda additions and/or corrections
Motion by Arndt, second by Czmowski to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously.
2. INVOCATION — Oak Heights Covenant Church
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. RECOGNITION OF GIFTS, DONATIONS AND COMMUNITY SERVICE TO THE CITY
Council Member Arndt thanked the McLeod County Fairgrounds for hosting the Fishing and Hunting
Expo as well as the Snowmobile Show. Many people came to town for these events and stayed in the
city's hotels and motels.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
(]his is an opportunity or members of the public to address the City Council on items not on the current agenda. Ifyou have a
question, concern or comment, please ask to be recognized by the mayor state your name and address for the record. Please
keep comments under 5 minutes. Individuals wishing to speakfor more than five minutes should ask to be included on the agenda
in advance ofthe meeting. All comments are appreciated, butplease refrain from personal or derogatory attacks on individuals.)
5. CITIZENS ADDRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL
Planning Director, Dan Jochum introduced new employee Jim Tiegs, Building Inspector and Kyle
Dimler as the new Building Official.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
(a) Regular Meeting of March 8, 2016
Motion by Czmowski, second by Lofdahl, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried
unanimously.
CONSENT AGENDA
(The items listedjor consideration will be enacted by one motion unless the Mayor, a member of the City Council or a city
staff member requests an item to be removed. Traditionally items are not discussed.)
7. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA I
(a) Consideration of City Assessment Agreement with McLeod County
(b) Consideration for Approval of Renewing Food Vendor License for Northstar BBQ
(c) Consideration for Approval of Resolution No. 14537 — Resolution Ordering the Abatement of
Hazardous Property Conditions at 430 Water Street Northwest in the City of Hutchinson
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2016
(d) Consideration of Resolution No. 14540 — Resolution to Sell at Auction Surplus Property (Paving
Equipment)
(e) Consideration of Resolution No. 14541 - Resolution for GreenCorps Member Application
(f) Consideration of Resolution No. 14542 - Resolution Establishing Support for Improvements to
Highway 212
(g) Consideration of Items for 2016 Pavement Management Program Project — Letting No. 1, Project
No. 16-01
i. Resolution No. 14544 - Resolution Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Ordering Preparation
of Proposed Assessment
ii. Resolution No. 14545 - Resolution for Hearing on Proposed Assessment
(h) Claims, Appropriations and Contract Payments
Items 7(g) and 7(h) were pulled for separate discussion
Item 7(g) had further discussion. Council Member Lofdahl asked if all pavement projects
projected will be done. Exner informed Lofdahl and the Council that there will be further
discussion with the Resource Allocation Committee. Exner will present before the Council at
the April 12, 2016, City Council Meeting.
Item 7(h) had further discussion. Council Member Lofdahl mentioned the check register showed
a payment to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for $80,123.60. Lofdahl
confirmed with Exner that this was payment for City of Hutchinson's portion for the work done
on the trail.
Motion by Lofdahl, second by Christensen, to approve the consent agenda. Motion carried
unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS (6:00 P.M.) - NONE
e purpose o t is portion oJ the agenda is to provide the ounci with information necessary to craft wise policy. Includes
tems like monthly or annual reports and communications from other entities.)
8. PUBLIC WORKS 2015 YEAR END REPORT
Kent Exner, City Engineer/Public Works Director, presented the Public Works Group 2015 Annual
Report Summary to the Council. The Public Works Group includes Engineering, Operations &
Maintenance, and Water & Wastewater. Mr. Exner covered the vast amounts of accomplishments in
2015 and goals for 2016 that are part of the Public Works group. Mr. Exner distributed the
department's formal report to the council members.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
9. APPROVE/DENY SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED BY
MIDCOUNTRY BANK LOCATED AT 210 HASSAN STREET
Planning Director, Dan Jochum, presented before the Council. Mr. Jochum explained that the
Planning Commission met to discuss the conditional use permit to allow the construction of a bank
drive-through. The motion to approve the project failed on a 3 to 3 vote at the Planning
2
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2016
Commission meeting. Staff has since been working with the adjacent businesses to work out a new
plan. Mr. Jochum informed the Council the new plan will be discussed at the April Planning
Commission meeting and he will bring it back to the council on April 26th. At this time, Mr.
Jochum requests the Council table the site plan and conditional use permit as requested by
Midcountry Bank located at 210 Hassan Street.
Motion by Czmowski, second by Christensen, to table site plan and conditional use permit as
requested by Midcountry Bank located at 210 Hassan Street. Motion carried unanimously.
10. APPROVE/DENY ORDINANCE NO. 16756 — AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE PROPERTY AT
13 4TH AVENUE NE, 15 4TH AVENUE NE AND 17 4TH AVENUE NE FROM R-2 (MEDIUM
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO C-2 (AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE COMMERCIAL) AS
REQUESTED BY CITY OF HUTCHINSON — PROPERTY OWNER (FIRST READING, SET
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION FOR APRIL 12, 2016)
Planning Director, Dan Jochum, presented before the council. Mr. Jochum explained the property
requested to rezone would make zoning consistent with the Highway 7 Corridor Study and Small
Area Plan. Staff believes this property has the highest investment use for commercial property.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning on a 5 to 1 vote. Mr. Jochum
requests the council approve Ordinance No. 16756, the rezoning of said property.
Motion by Czmowski, second by Lofdahl, to approve Ordinance No. 16756. Motion carried
unanimously.
11. APPROVE/DENY RESOLUTION NO. 14539 - RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS OF
FACT AND REASONS FOR APPROVAL OF PROCHNOW ADDITION PRELIMINARY AND
FINAL PLAT
Administrator Jaunich distributed to the Council an email he had received from Robert Hornick, the
property owner of the northwest corner of Hwy 7 & Hwy 15. Jaunich noted he believed that staff
had legally followed the process for notifying property owners of a public hearing that had been
held before the Planning Commission on this topic. Planning Director, Dan Jochum, presented
before the Council. Mr. Jochum explained the purpose of approving the final plat is to combine
several smaller lots into one larger lot to facilitate development at some point in the future. The
Planning Commission approved the preliminary and final plats unanimously. Mr. Jochum requests
the council approve Resolution 14539, the preliminary and final plats of the Prochnow Addition.
Motion by Christensen, second by Arndt, to approve Resolution No. 14539. Motion carried
unanimously.
12. APPROVE/DENY PROJECT AWARD FOR WATER TOWER (GOLF COURSE ROAD)
RECONDITIONING PROJECT — LETTING NO. 4, PROJECT NO. 16-04
(a)Resolution No. 14543 - Resolution Accepting Bid & Awarding Contract
City Engineer, Kent Exner presented before the Council. Mr. Exner explained that on February 18,
2016, the City received three bids to recondition the water tower on Golf Course Road. Staff
reviewed and discussed the bids with the Resource Allocation Committee and recommends
awarding the project to the low bidder, Osseo Construction Co. LLC of Osseo, WI.
Motion by Czmowski, second by Lofdah, to approve project award for Water Tower (Golf Course
Road) Reconditioning Project — Letting NO. 4, Project NO. 16-04. Motion carried unanimously.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2016
GOVERNANCE
(T e purpose o t is portion of the agenda is to deal with organizational development issues, including policies,
performances, and other matters that manage the logistics of the organization. May include monitoring reports, policy
development and governance process items.)
13. MINUTES FROM COMMITTEES, BOARDS OR COMMISSIONS
a) Hutchinson Housing & Redevelopment Authority Board Minutes from February 16, 2016
�b) City of Hutchinson Financial and Investment Reports for February 2016
c) Planning Commission Minutes from January 10 and February 16, 2016
MISCELLANEOUS
14. STAFF UPDATES
John Lofdahl — Council Member Lofdahl noted that he and Mayor Gary Forcier talked with
Representative Dean Urdahl and Representative Glenn Gruenhagen about the Ridgewater College
assessments.
Matt Jaunich — Mr. Jaunich noted that the pool bid due date has been pushed back one week to April 5,
2016. Early registration deadline for League of Minnesota Cities annual conference is April 2r. The
conference is June 14 — 17 . Mr. Jaunich also noted that he, Mayor Gary Forcier and Council
Member Mary Christensen will be attending Government Day at the Hutchinson High School.
Gary Forcier — Mayor Forcier congratulated the Hutchinson High School winter sports teams for
representing the city well at the state tournament level.
15. COUNCIL/MAYOR UPDATE
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Arndt, second by Czmowski, to adjourn at 6:44 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
.19
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL
REVIEW 2016 GOALS & OBJECTIVES
MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2016 AT 4:00 PM
CITY CENTER — COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. Call to Order
Mayor Forcier called the workshop to order at 4:00 p.m. Members present included Mary
Christensen, John Lofdahl, Bill Arndt, and Chad Czmowski. Others present were: Matt Jaunich,
City Administrator, Marc Sebora, City Attorney, Kent Exner, City Engineer, Dolf Moon, Miles
Seppelt, Mark Schumann, Tom Kloss, Andy Kosek, Dan Jochum, and Dan Hatten
DISCUSSION/REVIEW ITEMS
Matt Jaunich, City Administrator, explained that the discussion item before the Council today is
Administrator/City Objectives for 2016 and Beyond. With this discussion, Jaunich would like to
get feedback from the council. This is a collaborated effort of Jaunich and the staff. Jaunich
would also appreciate the council sharing their visions so the staff can work towards those
visions.
Future and Current Objective
Study the idea of looking to reorganize the structure of the City. Staff is looking at hiring a third
parry to assist in the reorganization.
2016 Objectives
1. Objective 41 — Work with the HR Director on a Salary & Classification study. This would
study every position the city has.
2. Objective 42 — Work with the PRCE Director and Staff on Delivering the Aquatic Center
Project
3. Objective 43 — Work with the Finance Director on the Establishment of a Financial
Management Plan
4. Objective 44 — Conduct an Employee Engagement and Retention Survey — this would be
department heads and all employees in those departments
5. Objective 45 — Work with PRCE Director on coming up with a Concessions Plan for our Rec
Facilities (Pool & Ballfields) and staff on coming up with concessions plan with the new
aquatic center, recreation center, Roberts park, and civic arena
6. Objective 46 — Organize and conduct a "So you want to be a Council Member" Workshop.
Filing opens May, 2016 so Matt plans to have something prior to this. The hope would be to
spark some interest in residents to run for a board, commission or council seat
7. Objective 47 — Assist in the completion of the remaining 2016 Capital
8. Objective 48 — Fill the Facility Manager Position
9. Objective 49 — Work with the Finance Director in Reviewing the City's Debt Management
Plan
10. Objective #10 — Work with Planning and Zoning Director and Building Department on
Organizing a "Contractor's Meeting" for our Building Community
11. Objective 411 — Work with City Attorney and Council in Establishing Bylaws for the City
Council
12. Objective #12 — Update the City's Drug & Alcohol Testing Policy
13. Objective #13 — Assist the EDA Director on the EDA's Workforce Development Plan
14. Objective 414 — Monitor the Business Model Change at Creekside
15. Objective #15 — Set a Goal Setting/Review of End Statements Workshop
16. Objective 416 — Work with the EDA Director on the Development of the Hutchinson
Enterprise Center
17. Objective 417 — Work with the PRCE Director to develop a multi -use Ballfield and Tennis
Facility Plan in Conjunction with the School District
18. Objective 418 — Work with the Public works Staff to begin the process of identifying the
City's role in improving the Community Waterbodies
19. Objective #19 — As an entire organization, Jaunich would like to focus on increasing the
accessibility to all City public buildings and infrastructure
20. Objective 420 — Preparation for the Planned State Trunk Highway 15/Main Street
Reconstruction project through Downtown Hutchinson (2020 bidding process & construction
start)
21. Objective 421 — Continue to Support the Efforts to Improve Trail Corridors of Value/Benefit
to the City
Future Objectives
1. Look at the PILOT arrangement between the City and HUC (2017 or 2018)
2. Look at Creating a Plan to eventually Replace/Update the City's Playground System (2017 or
2018)
3. Look at Options to Renovate the City Center (2017-2018)
4. Leadership development/training for all levels (including council) that includes some LEAN
training (2017 or 2018)
5. We need to have a Discussion on the Long Term Plan of the Hutchinson Joint Planning
Board (2017)
6. Look at Establishing a Citizens Academy to help Foster Future Leaders for Committees,
Commissions, Boards and the City Council
7. Look at reestablishing the Employee Wellness Committee to Promote Employee Wellness
Initiatives
8. Establish a long-term plan for the Police/Fire Training Facility (2017 or 2018)
Additional Items to Address in 2016
1. Council Involvement in Committee Appointments
2. Meeting with County Commissioners
3. Founder's Park and Interpretive Signage Project
4. State Amateur Baseball Tournament
5. Mayor and Council Salaries
6. State of the City report
Council Member Lofdahl suggested since meetings will be arranged with County Commissioners,
meetings should also me arranged with Senators and Representatives.
Adjournment
Motion by Christensen, second by Czmowski, to adjourn the workshop at 5:16 p.m. Motion
carried unanimously.
ATTEST:
Gary T. Forcier
Mayor
Matthew Jaunich
City Administrator
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL c'=y-fAa�
Request for Board Action 7AL =-ft
Agenda Item: Parade Permit
Department: Police
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 4/12/2016
Application Complete N/A
Contact: Daniel T. Hatten
Agenda Item Type:
Presenter: Daniel T. Hatten
Reviewed by Staff ✓❑
Consent Agenda
Time Requested (Minutes): 2
License Contingency No
Attachments: Yes
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OF AGENDA ITEM:
I am in receipt of a letter from Roger Olson and the American Legion Post 96 in partnership with VFW Post 906 in
reference to the 2016 Memorial Day Parade. This request requires Hassan St be closed to public traffic between 3rd
Ave SE and 1 st Ave NE during the hours of 9:00 am to 10:00 am for the Annual Memorial Day Parade. My staff and I
have reviewed the request and are confident that we can meet the needs of VFW Post 906 and American Legion Post
96.
The Annual Memorial Day Parade and Program, will be held on Monday, May 30, 2016. The Parade will assemble in
the east parking lot behind Landy Lodge Bar and Grill. The parade will begin at 9:30 am and proceed on Hassan St
SE, North up to the McLeod County Veterans Memorial Park. The program in the park will begin at 10:00 am.
In case of inclement weather, the program will be held at Christ The King Church.
The Police Department looks forward to working other city departments, the VFW, and American Legion Post 96 to
insure another safe and successful Memorial Day Parade and Program.
The American Legion and VFW Posts are asking for the Hutchinson City Council to wave the parade permit fees
based on the fact they are non-profit organizations organizing a community event honoring our military.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
I recommend approval.
Fiscal Impact: $ 1,000.00 Funding Source: Police
FTE Impact: 6.00 Budget Change: No
Included in current budget: Yes
PROJECT SECTION:
Total Project Cost:
Total City Cost: Funding Source:
Remaining Cost: $ 0.00 Funding Source:
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL ci=V�f�
Request for Board Action 79 M-W
Agenda Item: 1 st Annual LEMA Rod Run
Department: Police
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 4/11/2016
Application Complete N/A
Contact: Daniel Hatten
Agenda Item Type:
Presenter: Daniel Hatten
Reviewed by Staff ✓❑
Consent Agenda
Time Requested (Minutes): 2
License Contingency N/A
Attachments: No
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OF AGENDA ITEM:
Al Liepold, and Glen Roger, are requesting approval to host the first annual LEMA Rod Run on September 24, 2016
from 6:00 am until 11:00 am. This events goal is to have over 100 vehicles and 100 motorcycles staged for viewing
prior to leaving on a road tour. The vehicles and motorcycles will be escorted out of Hutchinson by the Hutchinson
Police Department.
These gentlemen are requesting the Hutchinson City Council authorize the closing of 3rd Ave NW from Glen St NW to
Water St NW. The cross streets of Water, James and Glen will blocked off at 3rd Ave allowing all businesses along
the route to have access to their business from Highway 7 W.
This gentlemen are also requesting the use of sound amplification equipment for music and communication to the
attendees.
They are also requesting the use of park area around the Law Enforcement Park including the grassy area just west
of the park.
After reviewing this plan the Hutchinson Police Department looks forward to working with the organizers to ensure a
successful event.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
The Police Department Recommends approval.
Fiscal Impact: $ 200.00 Funding Source: the Event
FTE Impact: 3.00 Budget Change: No
Included in current budget: No
PROJECT SECTION:
Total Project Cost:
Total City Cost: Funding Source:
Remaining Cost: $ 0.00 Funding Source:
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL ci=V�f�
Request for Board Action 79 M-W
Agenda Item: Consideration of Resolution No. 14547 (Traffic Control Devices)
Department: PW/Engineering
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 4/12/2016
Application Complete N/A
Contact: John Olson
Agenda Item Type:
Presenter: John Olson
Reviewed by Staff ❑
Consent Agenda
Time Requested (Minutes): 0
License Contingency N/A
Attachments: Yes
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OF AGENDA ITEM:
The intersection of Echo Dr SE and Highway 15 Service Road (aka Oakland Ave SE) is the only service road
intersection remaining in the City that does not have a 3-way stop condition.
Originally, the 2-way stop condition was maintained to accommodate northbound ambulance traffic.
Since the location of the ambulances has moved from that area, and because several near misses have been
observed at this location, Public Works staff recommended changing to a 3-way stop condition, as is typical for
service road intersections.
Traffic Control Resolutions are reviewed by the City Engineer, Police Chief, and Public Works Manager.
1. "STOP" for northbound traffic on Echo Dr SE at its intersection with Highway 15 Service Road (aka, Oakland Ave
SE)
2. "STOP AHEAD" for northbound traffic on Echo Dr SE located approximately 115 feet south of the aforementioned
"STOP" sign.
3. 12" STOP BAR" pavement marking for northbound traffic on Echo Dr SE at its intersection with Highway 15
Service Road
Staff recommends approving the attached Traffic Control Resolution.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Consideration to approve/reject Resolution No. 14547 Establishing Location of Traffic Control Devices.
Fiscal Impact: Funding Source:
FTE Impact: Budget Change: No
Included in current budget: No
PROJECT SECTION:
Total Project Cost: $ 150.00
Total City Cost: $ 0.00 Funding Source: General Fund - Streets & Alleys
Remaining Cost: $ 150.00 Funding Source:
RESOLUTION NO. 14547
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING LOCATION
FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
WHEREAS, the Police Chief, City Engineer and Public Works Manager agree that the following areas
have traffic control concerns which warrant traffic control devices, and;
WHEREAS, the Hutchinson City Council has the authority to establish locates as points where traffic
control devices shall be erected, pursuant to Section 7.04, Subdivision 1 of the Hutchinson City Code,
and;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HUTCHINSON:
That the Council hereby establishes the following traffic control devices shall be installed and enforced:
1. "STOP" sign for northbound traffic on Echo Dr SE at its intersection with Highway 15
Service Road (aka, Oakland Ave SE).
2. "STOP AHEAD" sign for northbound traffic on Echo Dr SE, located approximately 115
feet south of the aforementioned "STOP" sign.
3. "12" STOP BAR" pavement marking for northbound traffic on Echo Dr SE at its
intersection with Highway 15 Service Road.
Adopted by the City Council this 12th day of April, 2016.
Gary Forcier
Mayor
ATTEST:
Matt Jaunich
City Administrator
0- NWA 15S
µti
JTO
C WD
w
r _
A
Print Date: March 31, 2016
1:638
LOGi S
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL ci=V�f�
Request for Board Action 79 M-W
Agenda Item: Consideration of transfer of FAA Entitlements to City of Dodge Center
Department: PW/Engineering
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 4/12/2016
Application Complete N/A
Contact: John Olson
Agenda Item Type:
Presenter: John Olson
Reviewed by Staff ❑
Consent Agenda
Time Requested (Minutes): 0
License Contingency N/A
Attachments: Yes
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OF AGENDA ITEM:
Each year eligible airports are assigned $150,000 of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) entitlement funds for
federally eligible projects. In an effort to make maximum utilization of available federal funds throughout the State of
Minnesota, airports transfer entitlement funds to other airports from time to time.
The City of Hutchinson has benefited from two past transfers:
2009 - $93,000 from City of Tracy, used for construction of Hangar #1720
2014 - $24,000, from City of Dodge Center, used for design of runway, taxiway, apron reclamation project
The City of Dodge Center has requested $75,000 in FAA entitlements from the City of Hutchinson. Also, they have
agreed to reassign $51,000 of FAA entitlements back to the City of Hutchinson, upon request or within two years.
The City of Hutchinson has no federally eligible projects in the near future, so it would not be a burden to the City to
allow for this transfer of FAA entitlement money, especially considering that $51,000 of entitlements would be
returned upon request or within two years.
Therefore, Public Work staff recommends transferring $75,000 of FAA entitlement funds to the City of Dodge Center
and assigning Matt Jaunich, City Administrator, as the authorized signator of an an agreement for reassignment of
$51,000 of FAA entitlement funds from the City of Dodge Center back to the City of Hutchinson.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Consideration to approve/reject transfer of $75,000 of FAA entitlement funds to the City of Dodge Center and entering
into an agreement reassigning $51,000 of entitlement funds from the City of Dodge Center back to Hutchinson..
Fiscal Impact: Funding Source:
FTE Impact: Budget Change: No
Included in current budget: No
PROJECT SECTION:
Total Project Cost: $ 0.00
Total City Cost: $ 0.00 Funding Source:
Remaining Cost: $ 0.00 Funding Source:
N
April 12, 2016
City of Hutchinson
Hutchinson Municipal Airport — Butler Field
Operations & Maintenance
1400 Adams St SE
Hutchinson, MN 55350
Phone (320) 234-4219 Fax (320) 234-6971
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council members
From: John Olson, Public Works Manager
CC: Matt Jaunich, City Administrator
Kent Exner, DPW/City Engineer
Subject: FAA Entitlement Transfer
It is the goal of airports in the State of Minnesota to utilize federal money in the state as
efficiently and effectively as possible. Toward that end, airports occasionally enter into
agreements to transfer FAA entitlements that will be lapsing, in order that the funds allocated to
airports within Minnesota will stay within the State of Minnesota.
The City of Hutchinson has benefitted from FAA entitlement fund transfers in the past. The first
time was in May of 2009. The City of Tracy transferred $93,000 of its FAA entitlement to the
City. Those funds helped to construct Hangar 41720, a 5,600 sq. ft. hangar that was used by Life
Link III, and is now utilized by ASI Jet. The City indicated its willingness to reciprocate, should
the City of Tracy determine it was in need of FAA entitlement funds. There has been no request
for a transfer of FAA entitlement funds from the City of Tracy, to -date.
In June, 2014, $24,000 of FAA entitlement was transferred from the City of Dodge Center to the
City of Hutchinson. The City of Hutchinson utilized these funds to help with the design of the
runway/taxiway/apron reclamation project. Again, as with the City of Tracy, an offer to
reciprocate was made. At the time of the transfer in 2014, the City of Dodge Center did not
indicate whether they would be looking for reallocation of funds at any specific date.
In December of 2015, the City of Dodge Center's airport engineer contacted us to determine
whether we would be in a position to allocate FAA entitlement funds to Dodge Center. In
subsequent conversations, the final request from the City of Dodge Center was for $75,000, with
repayment of $51,000 within two years, when requested by the City of Hutchinson.
There are no large FAA entitlement projects planned for the airport, so the City is in a position to
reciprocate and repay the $24,000 to the City of Dodge Center, and to allow them to utilize up to
$51,000 of entitlement funds that get repaid to the City of Hutchinson.
I recommend the City enter into the attached agreement with the City of Dodge Center, MN
regarding the transfer of FAA entitlement money.
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA AND THE CITY
OF DODGE CENTER, MINNESOTA
I.
This document is a memorialization of the Agreement between the City of Hutchinson and
the City of Dodge Center. It reflects an agreement based on mutual consideration between both of
those agencies in that the City of Hutchinson does hereby authorize $75,000 of Federal AIP
Entitlement Dollars, earmarked for the Hutchinson Municipal Airport, to be transferred to the City of
Dodge Center for their use at the Dodge Center Municipal Airport, subject to the following
reimbursement.
II.
The City of Hutchinson agrees to sign and file Order 5100.38b, Appendix 16, "Entitlement
TranferAgreement'' with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration.
This action will finalize the above -stated transfer of Federal AIP Entitlement dollars. However, in
full consideration of this agreement, the City of Dodge Center agrees to pay an amount of up to
$51,000 in available 2016, 2017 or 2018 Federal Entitlement dollars back to the City of Hutchinson
within the next twenty four months (24) upon request by the City of Hutchinson for use on AIP
eligible projects at the Hutchinson Municipal Airport. The City of Dodge Center will do so within
thirty days (30) of the request and will require no documentation nor place any conditions upon this
request.
III.
All parties acknowledge that this agreement is in full consideration which will allow for
$75,000 of Federal Entitlement money to be transferred to the City of Dodge Center on or about
April 15, 2016 wherein twenty four months (24) from that date the City of Dodge Center will transfer
back up to $51,000 of available 2016, 2017 or 2018 Federal Entitlement dollars upon request by the
City of Hutchinson.
This Agreement is fully stated and cannot be canceled, modified, or in any way changed
without express written permission of both parties.
Matt Jaunich
City of Hutchinson - City Administrator
Lee Mattson
City of Dodge Center - City Administrator
Request for FAA Approval of Agreement for Transfer of Entitlements
In accordance with 49 USC § 47117(c)(2),
Name of Transferring Sponsor: City of Hutchinson, MN
hereby waives receipt of the following amount of funds apportioned to it under 49 USC § 47117(c) for the:
Name of Transferring Airport (and Locid): Hutchinson Municipal -Butler Field (HCD)
for each fiscal year listed below:
Entitlement Type
(Passenger, Cargo Fiscal Year
or Nonprimary)
Amount
Nonprimary 2013
$ 5,572
Nonprimary 2016
$69,428
Total
$75,000
The Federal Aviation Administration has determined that the waived amount will be made available to:
Name of Airport (and Locid) Receiving Transferred Entitlements: Dodge Center Municipal (TOB)
Name of Receiving Airport's Sponsor: City of Dodge Center, MN
a public use airport in the same state or geographical areas as the transferring airport for eligible projects
under 49 USC § 47104(a).
The waiver expires on the earlier of December 31, 2016 (date) or when the availability of apportioned
funds lapses under 49 USC § 47117(b).
For the United States of America, Federal Aviation Administration:
Signature:
Name:
Title:
Date:
FAA Form 5100-110 (1/16) SUPERSEDES PREVIOUS EDITION Page 1
Certification of Transferring Sponsor
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. I understand that knowingly and
willfully providing false information to the federal government is a violation of 18 USC § 1001 (False
Statements) and could subject me to fines, imprisonment, or both.
Executed on this 12th day of April, 2016.
Name of Sponsor: City of Hutchinson
Name of Sponsor's Authorized Official: Matthew Jaunich
Title of Sponsor's Authorized Official: City Administrator
Signature of Sponsor's Authorized Official:
Certificate of Transferring Sponsor's Attorney
I, Marc Sebora , acting as Attorney for the Sponsor do
hereby certify that in my opinion the Sponsor is empowered to enter into the foregoing Agreement under
the laws of the state of Minnesota . Further, I have examined the foregoing
Agreement and the actions taken by said Sponsor and Sponsor's official representative has been duly
authorized and that the execution thereof is in all respects due and proper and in accordance with the
laws of the said state and 49 USC § 47101, et seq.
Dated at Hutchinson, MN (City, State), this 12th day of April , 2016
Signature of Sponsor's Attorney:
FAA Form 5100-110 (1/16) SUPERSEDES PREVIOUS EDITION Page 2
C
DQDGE CENTER
May 29, 2014
Attn: Lee A: Mattson
City Clark -Administrator
City of Dodge Center
35 East Main Street
PO Box 430
Dodge Center, MN 55927
rn _ ci.dodgecentor.mrim
F 0
Uty of i'lutchinson
Hutchinson Municipal Airport — Butlor Field
Operations & Maintenance
1400 Adams St SE
Hutchinson, MN 55350
Phone (320) 234-4219 Pax(320)234-6971
Re: Agreement for Transfer of lntitlements (FAA All')
Dear Mr. Mattson .
Based upon upcoming planned airport improvuments, the Hutchinson Municipal Airport is in
a position to accept from the City o€' Dodge Center, MN the transfer of$24,000 of 2011 ATP
entitlements. A copy of the agreement for transfer of entitlement documents that was sent on
May 23, 2014 is attached.
The Hutchinson Airport is grateful for the transfer of entitlement. The Hutchinson Airport
will use this transfer of entitlement to fund part of a project to rehabilitate the runway,
taxiway and Apron of the Hutchinson Municipal Alrpom
The Hutchinson Airport is willing to reciprocate. Should tho Dodge Center Airport be
looking for a transfer of entitlements and the Hutehinsan Airport be Ina position to provide
an appropriate agreement in the Futuro, Elie Hutchinson Airport would be happy to oblige.
if you have any questions regarding the enclosed agreement or the process, please don't
hesitate to call me. You may also contact Silas Parmar, Bolton & Menk Consulting
Engineers & Surveyors, by calling (507) 625-4171.
John Olson
Public Works Manager
cc: Tract Headtnss, PAA
Silas Farmer, Bolton & Menk
An: Agreement ibrTrorder of Entitlements
Lee A. Mattson Julle A. Beth
Gly Administrator Finance Director
BIII Ketchum
Mayor
35 East Main Street, P. O. Box 430, Dodge Center, MN 55927 • (507) 374-2575 • Fax (507) 374-2694
U.S. Department
of Transportations
Federal Aviation
Administration
AGREEMENT FOR TRANSFER OF ENTITLEMENTS
In accordance with section 47117C(2) of Title 49 U.S.C. (hereinafter called the "Act).
Hereby waives receipt of the following amount of funds apportioned to It for each fiscal year
specified under section 47174®(1) of the Act.
Amount Fiscal Year
$ :Z4 -00o 20 (1
$ 20
20
TOTAL $ 2t , p Oy
On the condition that the Federal Aviation Administration makes the waived amount available
to:
for eligible projects under section 47104(x) Act. This waiver shall expire on earlier of
?XX ar when the availability of apportioned funds would lapse under section 47117(b) of
the Act.DATE
FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
BYe.—c�
TITLE
DATE A 1 Ll I&
FOR a' iY O'F air' C Ewkz—
name of Tmnsfecgr S ❑ Sar
BY
Zl-
TITLE tJ•�- ��
DATE` 3 yif
CERTIFICATE OF SPONSOR'S ATTORNEY
I, + acting as Attorney for the Sponsor do hereby
certify:
That I have examined the foregoing Agreement and find that the Sponsor has been duly
authorized to make such transfer and that the execution thereof Is in all respects due and
proper and In accordance with the laws of the State of ,mQ, and the Act
Dated at, IDa e NNXc r- this day of Mc,7�'S, 201'
(Signature of Sponsor's Attorney)
Title
FM FOM 510cm 10 (I mea)
CHECK REGISTER FOR CITY OF HUTCHINSON
CHECK DATE FROM 03/23/2016 - 04/12/2016
Check Date
-----------------
03/30/2016
Check
--------------
190366
Vendor Name
------------------------------------------------------------
HUTCHINSON, CITY OF
Description
REPLENISH -N IS H -------CASH-----------------------------------------
REPLENISH ATM CASH
Amount
-------------,000.00
5,000.00
04/12/2016
190367
A.M. LEONARD INC
BLADE ONLY FOR 34617 POCKETBOY
98.95
04/12/2016
190368
ABSOLUTE LOGISTICS LLC
VALLEY CITY LOAD
8,625.00
04/12/2016
190369
ACE HARDWARE
SINGLE SIDED KEY
686.29
04/12/2016
190370
VOID
0.00
04/12/2016
190371
AEM MECHANICAL SERVICES INC
HIGH DRY DEHUMIDIFIER NOT WORKING
688.71
04/12/2016
190372
AFG TRANSPORTATION FUNDING LLC
HAUL- WOODBURY
700.00
04/12/2016
190373
AHLGREN ELECTRIC
PARK- WIRE NEW DOOR OPENER
362.75
04/12/2016
190374
ALLIED PRODUCTIONS & SALES
CLEAR- COM MAIN STATION, BELT, SPOT LIGH
1,795.00
04/12/2016
190375
ALPHA WIRELESS
MONTHLY UHF DISPATCH -APRIL
53.44
04/12/2016
190376
AMENT, ADAM
WE CARE ABOUT KIDS SUPPLY
193.96
04/12/2016
190377
AMERICAN BOTTLING CO
MISC PURCH
170.00
04/12/2016
190378
AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSN
2016 MEMBERSHIP- R. CZECH
79.00
04/12/2016
190379
AMERIPRIDE SERVICES
TOWEL, MOPS
89.53
04/12/2016
190380
ARCTIC GLACIER USA INC.
ICE
228.04
04/12/2016
190381
ARNESON DISTRIBUTING CO
MARCH PURCH
415.80
04/12/2016
190382
ARROW TERMINAL LLC
CLEAR SEAL, CABLE TIE
115.92
04/12/2016
190383
ARROWHEAD SCIENTIFIC INC
SURE SEAL EVIDENCE BAG
107.32
04/12/2016
190384
ARTISAN BEER COMPANY
MARCH PURCH
1,080.76
04/12/2016
190385
ASSESSCO ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
ASBESTOS INSPECTION/TESTING
1,195.00
04/12/2016
1190386
AUTO VALUE - GLENCOE
Q -BOND ADHESIVE KIT
183.28
04/12/2016
190387
AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS CO
MONTHLY SERVICE AGREEMENT- FEB
2,000.00
04/12/2016
190388
B & C PLUMBING & HEATING INC
PRO FLO CARTRIDGE -WATER FOUNTAIN
69.74
04/12/2016
190389
B.T. LOCK & KEY LLC
REKEY SWITCH LOCK ON WATER PUMP
147.00
04/12/2016
190390
B.W. WELDING
BUILDUP HAMMERS & MACHINE TO FIT CARBID
975.04
04/12/2016
190391
BARNUM GATE SERVICES INC
GATE CODES
695.57
04/12/2016
190392
BCA
PROCESS FINGERPRINTS FOR SHREDDING CO
19.75
04/12/2016
190393
BELLBOY CORP
MARCH PURCH
2,956.58
04/12/2016
190394
BEN MEADOWS
CHAIN SAW BOOTS JAY S
227.33
04/12/2016
190395
BERGER PLUMBING HEATING AC
FAUCET REPAIR
85.00
04/12/2016
190396
BERNICK'S
MISC PURCH
617.04
04/12/2016
190397
BETTER HALF EMBROIDERY
SHIRTS & EMBROIDERY
32.60
04/12/2016
190398
BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE
MARCH PURCH
21,601.44
04/12/2016
190399
BUREAU OF CRIM. APPREHENSION
CJDN CONNECT
390.00
04/12/2016
190400
BUSINESSWARE SOLUTIONS
MARCH COST TO PRINT
4,426.68
04/12/2016
190401
C & L DISTRIBUTING
MARCH PURCH
64,830.81
04/12/2016
190402
CANNON RIVER WINERY
MARCH PURCH
138.00
04/12/2016
190403
CARS ON PATROL SHOP LLC
REMOTE START & SECURE RUN/IDLE- 2013 DOD
479.99
04/12/2016
190404
CARVER COUNTY COURT ADMIN
BAIL- H. DANSBY
390.00
04/12/2016
190405
CHEP RECYCLED PALLET
08-B GRADE 48X40
6,000.00
04/12/2016
190406
COALITION OF GREATER MN CITIES
CGMC LEGISLATIVE ACTION DAY 3/16/16
165.00
04/12/2016
190407
COLD SPRING GRANITE CO
NS -3 COMP NICHE PLAQUE- BRYANT
460.00
04/12/2016
190408
COMDATA CORPORATION
MISC PURCH
470.30
04/12/2016
190409
CORNER POST EROSION CONTROL
VIKING COKE ST DRAINAGE SWALE, CLEAR CUR
425.00
04/12/2016
190410
COUNTRYSIDE FLAGPOLE
SOLID BRASS FLAG SNAPS, 5X8 FLAGS
261.00
04/12/2016
190411
CREEKSIDE SOILS
DIRTY CONCRETE-VMF CLEANUP
11.65
04/12/2016
190412
CROW RIVER AUTO & TRUCK REPAIR
ENGINE MISFIRE- 2001 FORD PICKUP
228.95
04/12/2016
190413
CROW RIVER GOLF CLUB
BANQUET OPEN FOOD, RENTAL 3/28/16
536.88
04/12/2016
190414
CROW RIVER WINERY
MAR PURCH
1,536.12
04/12/2016
190415
DALE A. ZORMAN TRUCKING SERVICE INC
HAUL TO CROSSLAKE
4,325.00
04/12/2016
190416
DAVE'S PALLET SERVICE
#2 4 WAY PALLET
5,460.00
04/12/2016
190417
DIGITAL ALLY INC
MOUNTCAMERA
35.00
04/12/2016
190418
DOG -ON -IT -PARKS
DOI ROLL BAGS
235.00
04/12/2016
190419
DOMINO'S PIZZA
PIZZAS -SAFETY MEETING 3/22/16
263.50
04/12/2016
190420
DOWNHOLE WELL SERVICES
RADIAL VIEW COLOR VIDEO INSPECTION MUNIC
1,500.00
04/12/2016
190421
DPC INDUSTRIES INC
FERRIC CHLORIDE 38%
4,642.37
04/12/2016
190422
DROP -N -GO SHIPPING INC
DELIVERY TO MICHAEL RICHARD
1,067.75
04/12/2016
190423
DUNDEE
J. MKAY FATHER-IN-LAW FUNERAL
70.50
04/12/2016
190424
DYNA SYSTEMS
NUT, CAP
1,943.36
04/12/2016
190425
E2 ELECTRICAL SERVICES INC
WWTP FLAG LIGHT QUOTE
3,580.09
04/12/2016
190426
I ELK RIVER COMPOSTING INC
ICOMPOST DELIVERED 3/7-3/8/16
25,935.68
CHECK REGISTER FOR CITY OF HUTCHINSON
CHECK DATE FROM 03/23/2016 - 04/12/2016
Check Date
-----------------
04/12/2016
Check
-15-----------
190427
Vendor Name
------------------------------------------------------------
EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECH
Description
---- RHIN--------------------------------------- OLE, ------------ -------------,382.10
GO RHINO PUSH BUMPER, GAMBER CONSOLE, CUP
Amount
1,382.10
04/12/2016
190428
FAMILY REXALL DRUG
MENTHAL FOR E-7 MEDICAL BAG
6.59
04/12/2016
190429
FARM -RITE EQUIPMENT
FILTER
172.58
04/12/2016
190430
FASTENAL COMPANY
FLAT CHISEL, BULL POINT
770.36
04/12/2016
190431
FINANCE & COMMERCE
LETTING NO.3/PROJECT # 16-03 BIDS & CONS
207.06
04/12/2016
190432
FIRE SAFETY USA INC
RESCUE TOOL, MIC KEEPER
546.75
04/12/2016
190433
FIRST CHOICE FOOD & BEVERAGE SOLUTI
COFFEE
228.00
04/12/2016
190434
FIRST CLASS BUILDERS
UB refund for account: 1-357-1255-0-00
40.84
04/12/2016
190435
FRONTIER PRECISION INC
WEB TRAINING
250.00
04/12/2016
190436
G & K SERVICES
MATS & TOWEL
392.02
04/12/2016
190437
GEB ELECTRICAL INC
INSTALL RECEP IN DISPATCH
547.40
04/12/2016
190438
GEMPLER'S INC
LEAF/LITTER BAG COLLAPSIBLE
124.80
04/12/2016
190439
GK2 PROMOTIONS
POLICE PENS
516.08
04/12/2016
190440
GLOBAL EQUIP CO.
SURFACE MOUNTED CORDER GUARD BULLNOSE
66.08
04/12/2016
190441
GRAINGER
STROBE LIGHT, RED, SURF, ROUND
286.68
04/12/2016
190442
GRAPE BEGINNINGS, INC
MARCH PURCH
2,898.75
04/12/2016
190443
GRIMES DESIGN
15' PLAIN RUBBER HOSE
184.55
04/12/2016
190444
GRO-WELL BRANDS
BARK, CHIPS
5,627.95
04/12/2016
190445
GTS
M. JAUNICH- REG ID 90967470- 2016 MN CIT
515.00
04/12/2016
190446
H. MULLER TRUCKING INC
HAUL- EAST GRAND FORKS
1,270.00
04/12/2016
190447
H. MULLER TRUCKING INC
HAULING 3/18/16
2,745.00
04/12/2016
190448
HACH COMPANY
PHOSPHAX CLEANING SOLN 1L
1,406.37
04/12/2016
190449
HAGER JEWELRY INC.
PLAQUES
182.50
04/12/2016
190450
HAWKINS INC
30% SODIUM HYDROXIDE
2,875.74
04/12/2016
190451
HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD
REPAIR HOLUX GPS
152.50
04/12/2016
190452
HENRY'S WATERWORKS INC
COMPLETE PENTAGON PLUG LID
814.84
04/12/2016
190453
HI -LINE INC
COUPLER PUSH BUTTON
75.96
04/12/2016
190454
HILLYARD / HUTCHINSON
APPARATUS BAY CLEANING SUPPLIES
513.28
04/12/2016
190455
HOHENSTEINS INC
MARCH PURCH
127.00
04/12/2016
190456
HOLT MOTORS INC
REPLACE FICM MODULE PROGRAM
1,668.15
04/12/2016
190457
HOLT TOUR AND CHARTER INC.
47 PAX COACH BUS- MILAN MN- 5/14/16
1,320.00
04/12/2016
190458
HUTCHINSON AREA HEALTH CARE
APRIL CAM & SA
2,396.58
04/12/2016
190459
HUTCHINSON BOYS LAX TEAM
BIO BAG HAND OUT 2016
500.00
04/12/2016
190460
HUTCHINSON CO-OP
#2 B5 DIESEL, OFF ROAD DYED
13,845.15
04/12/2016
190461
HUTCHINSON DOWNTOWN ASSOC.
HUTCH FAMILY DENTISTRY- MAIN ST SLEIGH R
300.00
04/12/2016
190462
HUTCHINSON HUSKIES BASEBALL
1/2 PAGE AD, HUTCH HUSKIES GAME DAY FROG
75.00
04/12/2016
190463
HUTCHINSON LEADER
LIFESTYLE GUIDE 2016
1,168.00
04/12/2016
190464
VOID
0.00
04/12/2016
190465
HUTCHINSON UTILITIES
DAMAGE PREVENTION SEMINAR
150.34
04/12/2016
190466
HUTCHINSON WHOLESALE
FUEL OIL MIX
782.50
04/12/2016
190467
HUTCHINSON, CITY OF
REPLENISH ATM
5,000.00
04/12/2016
190468
HUTCHINSON, CITY OF
EVENT CENTER RENTAL 3/22/16
24.93
04/12/2016
190469
INTERSTATE POWER COMPANIES INC
BAGGER- MAR-MTO BORED TO SIZE SPRKT
339.93
04/12/2016
190470
INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM MINNEAPOL
31 MHD, BSL1055
515.45
04/12/2016
190471
J & K CONCRETE SAWING & CORING
CORE DRILLING 3 HOLES AT WWTP
750.00
04/12/2016
190472
J & N SPECIALTY IMPORTS LLC
MARCH PURCH
298.32
04/12/2016
190473
JAUNICH, MATT
MCLEOD COUNTY ADMIN MTG, PARKING FED COU
40.20
04/12/2016
190474
JESERITZ, PAUL
MNAKATO- FIRE SCHOOL
215.75
04/12/2016
190475
JJ TAYLOR DIST OF MN
MARCH PURCH
8,389.57
04/12/2016
190476
JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO.
MARCH PURCH
31,320.30
04/12/2016
190477
KDUZ KARP RADIO
ELVIS/ORBISON TRIBUTE 3/20/16
320.00
04/12/2016
190478
KEEPRS INC
GLOCK G17, GLOC G26, GLOCK G17 MAGAZINE,
151.99
04/12/2016
190479
KENNEDY SCALES INC
SCALE -TRIP CHARGE, CABLE
2,963.29
04/12/2016
190480
KERI'S CLEANING
CLEANING 3/1-3/15, CITY CENTER, LIB, SEN
5,050.00
04/12/2016
190481
KODRU MOONEY
REPLACEMENT ACTUATOR FOR FORCE MAIN #2
3,387.00
04/12/2016
190482
L & P SUPPLY CO
JD TS 4X2 GATOR
4,687.94
04/12/2016
190483
LANDSCAPE CONCEPTS INC
MCCORMICKS LIFT STATION- RED MULCH
1,968.00
04/12/2016
190484
LAW OFFICE OF JOE PEZZUTO
WAGE GARNISHMENT
159.56
04/12/2016
190485
LETG LLC
POCKETJET 6 PLUS ENGINE, USB CABLE
406.00
04/12/2016
190486
LOCHER BROTHERS INC
MARCH PURCH
33,163.84
04/12/2016
190487
ILUTHENS, RANDY
JUB refund for account: 3-105-0340-6-02
23.18
CHECK REGISTER FOR CITY OF HUTCHINSON
CHECK DATE FROM 03/23/2016 - 04/12/2016
Check Date
-----------------
04/12/2016
Check
--------------
190488
Vendor Name
------------------------------------------------------------
M -R SIGN
Description
---------------------- RIGH----------------------------------------------------------13
ONW WAY LEFT &RIGHT
Amount
220.13
04/12/2016
190489
MADDEN GALANTER HANSEN LLP
SERVICES RENDERED THRU 2/29/16
4,968.92
04/12/2016
190490
MAIN STREET SPORTS BAR
EDA MEETING
107.37
04/12/2016
190491
MANZANITA MICRO LLC
PFC 40 XM #176- HOURLY LABOR AND SHIPPIN
125.00
04/12/2016
190492
MARSHALL CONCRETE PRODUCTS
RECYCLED BASE - ARCHERY RANGE SIGNS/ NWO
20.00
04/12/2016
190493
MCLEOD COUNTY ATTORNEY
20% PROCEEDS CASH FORFEITURE CONTROLLED
386.60
04/12/2016
190494
MCLEOD COUNTY CHIEFS POLICE ASSN
2016 MEMBERSHIP- REGULAR MEMBERS
100.00
04/12/2016
1190495
MCLEOD COUNTY COURT ADMINISTRATOR
BAIL- B. RASMUSSEN
300.00
04/12/2016
190496
MEDICA
MEDICAL INSURANCE FOR APRIL 2016
119,847.24
04/12/2016
190497
MENARDS HUTCHINSON
GALV STRUT
794.54
04/12/2016
190498
VOID
0.00
04/12/2016
190499
MESSAGE MEDIA
MONTHLY ACCESS FEE -APRIL
30.00
04/12/2016
190500
MESSNER, KEITH
ADA TRAINING- MANKATO
24.46
04/12/2016
190501
MICHAEL RICHARD WASTEWATER MICROBIO
MICROSCOPIC EXAM OF ACTIVATED SLUDGE SAM
1,050.00
04/12/2016
190502
MICROBIOLOGICS INC
ENTEROBACTER AEROGENES, ESCHERICHIA
552.73
04/12/2016
190503
MINNEAPOLIS, CITY OF
APS TRANSACTION FEES- FEB
55.80
04/12/2016
190504
MINNESOTA DEPT OF HEALTH
WATER LICENSE RENEWAL- M. LIEN
23.00
04/12/2016
190505
MINNESOTA FIRE SERVICE CERTIF BOARD
FIREFIGHTER RE -CERTIFICATION FOR MULTIPL
140.00
04/12/2016
190506
MINNESOTA SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION
T. LEIDER- BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS MSA
200.00
04/12/2016
190507
MINNESOTA STATE COMMUNITY & TECHNIC
DETROIT LAKES FIRE SCHOOL- G. FELLER
130.00
04/12/2016
190508
MINNESOTA VALLEY TESTING LAB
BOD
274.40
04/12/2016
190509
MMC
BOILER FLAME FAILURE
2,536.27
04/12/2016
190510
MN SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
MNSPE & LOCAL CHAPTER MEMBERSHIP- NSPE D
364.00
04/12/2016
190511
MRPA
REGISTRATION- D. MOON -CURLING
22.00
04/12/2016
190512
MRPA
PLAYGROUNDS FOR ALL- S. WITTE
49.00
04/12/2016
190513
MURPHY GRANITE
REFUND FOR CEMETRY STAKING FEE- CUSTOMER
80.00
04/12/2016
190514
NARTEC INC.
NARTEC CO -2 COCAINE TEST AMPULES
67.50
04/12/2016
190515
NATIONAL RECREATION & PARK ASSN
NRPA MEMBERSHIP- D. MOON
165.00
04/12/2016
190516
NEIL NELSON & ASSOCIATES
STRATEGIES FOR EFFECTIVE INTERVIEW CLASS
2,070.00
04/12/2016
190517
NERO ENGINEERING
PARK LIFT STATION CONSTRUCTION, WWTF FOR
13,869.80
04/12/2016
190518
NORTH AMERICAN SAFETY INC
PYRAMEX ITEK INDOOR/OUTDOOR LENS
117.20
04/12/2016
190519
NORTH CENTRAL LABORATORIES
LITER A -15Y AMMONIA ISA, NITRIC ACID
1,899.48
04/12/2016
190520
NORTHERN BUSINESS PRODUCTS
INK CRG
387.29
04/12/2016
190521
NU -TELECOM
APRIL PHONE SERVICE
4,376.50
04/12/2016
190522
O'REILLYAUTO PARTS
CAPSULE
307.92
04/12/2016
190523
OFFICE DEPOT
PADFOLIO, IPAD VINTAGE
1,362.02
04/12/2016
190524
OFFICE OF MN IT SERVICES
FEB SERVICE
103.85
04/12/2016
190525
PAUSTIS WINE COMPANY
MARCH PURCH
4,391.97
04/12/2016
190526
FELLER, GREG
DETROIT LAKES REGIONAL FIRE SCHOOL
451.48
04/12/2016
190527
PERSCHAU, LOUANN
REFUND- DATE CONFLICT AARP DRIVER SAFETY
18.00
04/12/2016
190528
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS
MARCH PURCH
30,427.89
04/12/2016
190529
PIKE TRANSFER LLC
HAUL- COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
750.00
04/12/2016
190530
PLOTZ, GINA
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES- ICE SHOW DIRECTOR
1,848.75
04/12/2016
190531
POLE PAINTING PLUS
HWY 15 & SOUTH GRADE RD PRIME & PAINT PE
8,600.00
04/12/2016
190532
POSITIVE ID INC
ID CAR D-J.TIEGS
19.40
04/12/2016
190533
PRO AUTO MN INC.
OIL CHANGE & WEATHERTECH MATS & MUD FLAP
342.15
04/12/2016
190534
QUADE ELECTRIC
12V BATTERIES -FIRE ALARM PANEL BATTERIES
1,681.90
04/12/2016
190535
QUILL CORP
QB LASER IBLS
562.93
04/12/2016
190536
RJLTRANSFER
HAULING 2/17-3/9/16
1,438.65
04/12/2016
190537
RATH,DARYL
FIRESCHOOL- ALEXANDRIA
292.08
04/12/2016
190538
RBSCOTT EQUIPMENT
RETURN ROLLER -TURNER
80.01
04/12/2016
190539
REINER ENTERPRISES INC
FLAT BED TRUCKING 2/22-2/24
23,743.66
04/12/2016
190540
REYNOLDS, ALLISON
PARENT COACHING
35.00
04/12/2016
190541
RITE INC
MAINT PLAN THRU 5/4/17
915.71
04/12/2016
190542
RTVISION
ANNUAL ONEOFFICE/EGRAM SUPPORT & MAINT 4
1,668.00
04/12/2016
190543
RUNNING'S SUPPLY
FLASHLIGHT, PANTS, EAR PLUGS, EYEGLASS P
1,332.12
04/12/2016
190544
SAM'S CLUB
CONCESSIONS & OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,482.59
04/12/2016
190545
SCHOOL DIST # 423
JAN ACTIVITIES
8,509.94
04/12/2016
190546
SEBORA, MARC
COURT EXPENSES
223.18
04/12/2016
190547
SECURITY BANK & TRUST
UB refund for account: 2-670-5670-0-01
18.93
04/12/2016
190548
ISEH
I HUTCH SC STORM SYSTEM DESIGN
4,663.86
CHECK REGISTER FOR CITY OF HUTCHINSON
CHECK DATE FROM 03/23/2016 - 04/12/2016
Check Date
-----------------
04/12/2016
Check
- -5-4 -----
-15-6-5-45
190549
Vendor Name
------------------------------------------------------------
SHRED-IT USA INC
Description
ON SITE ED-------------------------------------------------
ON SITE SHRED- MARCH
Amount
--------------107. 0
107.30
04/12/2016
190550
SIMONSON LUMBER CO
2X10-8 #2
7.39
04/12/2016
190551
SIRCHIE FINGERPRINT LABORATORIES
NITRILE GLOVES
86.30
04/12/2016
190552
SORENSEN'S SALES & RENTALS
I TILT TE80, W/4" BIT
81.00
04/12/2016
190553
SOUTH CENTRAL TECH COLLEGE
FIRE SCHOOL- P. JESERITZ, M. STRUGES
240.00
04/12/2016
190554
SOUTHERN WINE & SPIRITS OF MN
MARCH PURCH
14,455.18
04/12/2016
190555
SOUTHWEST CHAPTER MSPE
46TH ANNUAL INSPECTOR- K.EXNER, K.MESSNE
180.00
04/12/2016
190556
SPARTAN STAFFING
WK ENDING 3/20/16
2,256.00
04/12/2016
190557
ST CROW SAVATREE
2016 PRUNING PROGRAM- DALE ST & 2ND AVE
8,910.00
04/12/2016
190558
ST ONGE, FRANK
CANCELLING DEPOT RESERVATION JUNE 5TH
40.00
04/12/2016
190559
STANDARD PRINTING
2015 ANNUAL REPORT
526.25
04/12/2016
190560
STAPLES ADVANTAGE
PENCILS, SHARPENER
349.77
04/12/2016
190561
STAR TRIBUNE
SUBSCRIPTION 4/13-7/13/16
194.48
04/12/2016
190562
STATE OF MINNESOTA
10% PROCEEDS- CASH FORFEITURE CONTROLLED
193.30
04/12/2016
190563
STEWARD ENTERPRISE INC
GREASE DRUM, BAR & CHAIN OIL
1,800.02
04/12/2016
190564
STRATEGIC EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLY
BAGS, PLASTIC 20Z
260.78
04/12/2016
190565
STREICH TRUCKING
LOAD- 3/16-4/1/16
6,442.50
04/12/2016
190566
STREICHERS
DISTRACTION DEVICE LOW ROLL 11
902.00
04/12/2016
190567
STURGES FLOOR COVERING
REPLACE BASE IN CHIEF'S OFFICE
65.00
04/12/2016
190568
STURGES, MATT
FIRE SCHOOL-ALEXANDRIA
559.55
04/12/2016
190569
SUBWAY WEST
EDA MEETING
67.27
04/12/2016
190570
SUNCOAST GARDEN PRODUCTS INC.
TIGER HAMMOCK CYPRESS
4,286.40
04/12/2016
190571
TASC
May 2016 Flex Adm. Fees
104.80
04/12/2016
190572
TEMPLIN, NICHOLAS
BASEBALL REFUND
156.00
04/12/2016
190573
THE RETROFIT COMPANIES, INC
RECYCLE OLD LIGHT BULBS
344.21
04/12/2016
190574
THOMSON REUTERS-WEST
DISCOUNT PLAN CHARGES- FEB
901.75
04/12/2016
190575
TIEGS, JIM
SAFETY FOOTWEAR
278.20
04/12/2016
190576
TITAN MACHINERY
OIL PRESSURE LIGHT & HARNESS
887.22
04/12/2016
190577
TOMARK SPORTS
ADDITIONAL GROUND SOCKET, YELLOW SOCKET
2,869.60
04/12/2016
190578
TOWN & COUNTRY GLASS
LAMINATE TINT BACKG LASS
211.77
04/12/2016
190579
TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO
TELCO AMPLIFIER- DOOR SAFETY SWITCH
754.00
04/12/2016
190580
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
CONF REGISTRATION MN SHAD TREE D. SCHUET
195.00
04/12/2016
190581
UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO OF AMERICA
LIFE & LTD INSURANCE FOR APRIL 2016
2,170.90
04/12/2016
190582
US BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE
03/20-04/20/16 CONTRACT ALLOWANCE
430.29
04/12/2016
190583
USA BLUE BOOK
ELIMINATOR EARMUFFS, 20' PIPE MOUNT FLOA
105.79
04/12/2016
190584
USAQUATICS
HUT13016 HUTCHINSON AQUATIC CENTER
73,441.60
04/12/2016
190585
VERIZON WIRELESS
FEB03-MAR02 USAGE
2,942.15
04/12/2016
190586
VIKING BEER
MARCH PURCH
26,294.01
04/12/2016
190587
VIKING COCA COLA
MISC PURCH
550.40
04/12/2016
190588
VIVID IMAGE
LOGO DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, 1 YR DOMAIN NA
244.50
04/12/2016
190589
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN
3/1-3/15/16 DISPOSAL FEES
4,949.26
04/12/2016
190590
WEST CENTRAL SANITATION INC.
MARCH REFUSE HAULING FEES
44,943.74
04/12/2016
190591
WINE COMPANY, THE
MARCH PURCH
274.30
04/12/2016
190592
ZELLAS
MANUFACTURER'S SUMMIT DINNER
828.40
04/12/2016
190593
ZEP SALES AND SERVICE
CHERRY BOMB, ANTI BAC FOAMING HAND SOAP
458.64
04/12/2016
190594
HUTCHINSON UTILITIES
MAR UTILITIES 2/29 - 3/31/16
128,639.36
GRAND TOTAL
913,024.82
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL ci=V�f�
Request for Board Action 79 M-W
Agenda Item: Assessment Hearing & Project Award for 2016 PMP Project (L1/P16-01)
Department: PW/Eng
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 4/12/2016
Application Complete N/A
Contact: Kent Exner
Agenda Item Type:
Presenter: Kent Exner
Reviewed by Staff ❑
Public Hearing
Time Requested (Minutes): 20
License Contingency N/A
Attachments: Yes
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OF AGENDA ITEM:
The City received three (3) bids (see attached Bid Tabulation) for the 2016 Pavement Management Program project
letting on Wednesday, March 16th. The apparent low bidder is Wm. Mueller & Sons Inc. of Hamburg, Minnesota, with
a bid of $2,413,998.03 (approximately 12% lower than the final Engineer's Estimate). Please note that this proposed
contract award amount includes the base bid (Linden Ave., Milwaukee Ave. & Church St.), alternate bid #1 (West
Shore Dr.) and alternate bid #3 (Madson Ave.). This award recommendation, not including alternate bid #2 (Grove
St.), was deemed necessary due to funding limitations. This project's total cost and associated funding contributions
were reviewed by the Resource Allocation Committee and are accounted for within the City's proposed 2016
Infrastructure Improvement Program.
City staff will provide a brief overview of the project scope, bids and associated improvement special assessments
prior to opening the public communication portion of the Assessment Hearing. City staff has worked closely with
adjacent property owners as this project has proceeded to address any construction and assessment issues.
The final Assessment Roll and necessary Resolutions to award this project are attached. We recommend approving
the provided Assessment Roll and Resolutions.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Approval of Assessment Roll & Resolutions
Fiscal Impact: Funding Source:
FTE Impact: Budget Change: No
Included in current budget: Yes
PROJECT SECTION:
Total Project Cost: $ 2,935,909.00
Total City Cost: $ 2,309,726.00 Funding Source: Bonding & Utility Funds
Remaining Cost: $ 626,183.00 Funding Source: Improvement Special Assessments
RESOLUTION NO. 14548
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT
ASSESSMENT ROLL NO. SA -5113
LETTING NO. 1/PROJECT NO. 16-01
WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution and notice of hearing the Council has met and reviewed the
proposed assessment for improvement of:
2016 Pavement Management Program: Linden Avenue (Harrington to TH 15), Madson
Avenue (Dale to Lynn), Milwaukee Avenue (Dale to dead end), Church Street (Linden to
Miller), West Shore Drive (South Grade Court to approx. 1500 LF to southeast) and Grove
Street (2nd Ave SWto Washington); roadway reconstruction/rehabilitation by construction of
grading, curb and gutter, draintile installation, bituminous/concrete surfacing,
stormwater/drainage, water distribution, sanitary sewer, street lighting, sidewalk,
landscaping, restoration and appurtenances,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON,
MINNESOTA:
1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is
hereby accepted, and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract
of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the
assessment levied against it.
2. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period often (10)
years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 2017 and shall bear
interest at the rate of _ percent per annum as set down by the adoption of this assessment resolution. To
the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from November 1, 2016, until the 31st
day of December 2017. To each subsequent installment when due, interest shall be added for one year on all
unpaid installments.
3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time priorto certification of the assessment to
the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of
payment, to the City Finance Department, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is
paid by the 15th day of November, 2016; and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City Finance
Department the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to the 31 st day of
December, of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15, or
interest will be charged through December 31, of the next succeeding year.
4. The Administrator shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County
Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County, and such assessment shall be collected and
paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes.
Adopted by the Council this 12th day of April 2016.
Gary Forcier, Mayor
Matt Jaunich, City Administrator
RESOLUTION NO. 14549
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT
LETTING NO. 1/PROJECT NO. 16-01
Whereas, pursuant to an advertisement for bids forthe furnishing of all labor and material forthe improvement of:
2016 Pavement Management Program: Linden Avenue (Harrington to TH 15), Madson Avenue
(Dale to Lynn), Milwaukee Avenue (Dale to dead end), Church Street (Linden to Miller), West
Shore Drive (South Grade Court to approx. 1500 LF to southeast) and Grove Street (2nd Ave
SWto Washington); roadway reconstruction/rehabilitation by construction of grading, curb and
gutter, draintile installation, bituminous/concrete surfacing, stormwater/drainage, water
distribution, sanitary sewer, street lighting, sidewalk, landscaping, restoration and
appurtenances,
bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with
the advertisement:
Bidder
Base Bid
Alternate 1
Alternate 2 Alternate 3
Wm Mueller & Sons Inc of Hamburg MN
$1,598,993.79
$161,422.85
$280,197.71 $653,581.39
R & R Excavating Inc of Hutchinson MN
$1,785,720.90
$138,230.40
$317,044.83 $764,309.76
Duininck Inc of Prinsburg MN
$1,858,622.60
$149,988.65
$298,232.70 $725,901.75
and whereas, it appears that Wm Mueller &
Sons Inc of Hamburg
MN is the lowest responsible bidder;
and whereas the Engineer's recommendation is for award of the
Base Bid along with Alternate 1 and Alternate
3 in the amount of $2,413.998.03.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
BY THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUTCHINSON,
MINNESOTA:
The mayor and city administrator are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with
Wm Mueller & Sons Inc of Hamburg MN in the amount of $2,413,998.03 (Base Bid, Alternate 1 and
Alternate 3) in the name of the City of Hutchinson, for the improvement contained herein, according to
the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City
Engineer.
2. The City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made
with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be
retained until a contract has been signed, and the deposit of the successful bidder shall be retained until
satisfactory completion of the contract.
Adopted by the Hutchinson City Council this 12th day of April 2016.
Mayor, Gary Forcier
City Administrator, Matt Jaunich
COMPILED BY:
PVANDERVEEN
ASSESSMENT ROLL NO. 5113
LETTING NO. 1/PROJECT NO. 16-01
2016 Pavement Management Program -Phase 1: Linden Avenue (Harrington to TH 15), Madson Avenue (Dale to Lynn), Milwaukee Avenue (Dale to dead end),
Church Street (Linden to Miller), West Shore Drive (South Grade Court to approx. 1500 LF to southeast) and Grove Street (2nd Ave SW to Washington);
roadway reconstruction/rehabilitation by construction of grading, curb and gutter, draintile installation, bituminous/concrete surfacing, stormwater/drainage,
water distribution, sanitary sewer, street lighting, sidewalk, landscaping, restoration and appurtenances.
COST PER
FRONT FOOT:
COMPUTED BY: PVANDERVEEN
$58.50 STREET COST/FF
CHECKED BY: KENT EXNER
1ST HEARING 02/09/2016
NUMBER OF YEARS 10
2ND HEARING 04/12/2016
INTEREST RATE:
2015 BOND FUND 12/01/1900
ADOPTED: 04/12/2016
FIN ACCT# 336-4700-36101
u O
O.
G
CITY PID NO.
COUNTY PID
NO.
PROPERTY ADDRESS
OW NER NAME
OWNER ADDRESS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ADDITION OR SUBDIVISION
FF
CREDIT
FF
TOTAL
FF
TOTAL
ASSESSMENT
TOTAL
CREDIT
TOTAL
DEFERRED
ASSESSMENT
TOTALACTIVE
ASSESSMENT
BASE BID: Church
St SW & Milwaukee Ave SW
1 01-116-30-09-0990
23-165-0050
735 Church St SW
CKSherwood LLC
1031 P,.irie View Dr SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot
Peterson's Subd ivision
100.00
0.00
100.00
$5,850.00
$8.00
$0.00
$5,850.00
2 01-116-30-09-1000
23-165-0060
725 Church St SW
Darlene Trebelhorn
725 Church StSW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot
Peterson's Subd ivision
80.00
0.00
80.00
$4,680.00
$0.00
$0.00
$4,680.00
3 01-116-30-09-1010
23-165-0070
715 Church St SW
Matthew Hoffman
715 Church St SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot
Peterson's Subd ivision
82.40
0.00
82.40
$4,820.40
$0.00
$0.00
$4,820.40
4 01-116-30-09-1020
23-165-0080
705 Church St SW
David&Rita Tifft
705 Church StSW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot
Peterson's Subd ivision
100.00
0.00
100.00
$5,850.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,850.00
5 01-116-30-09-1030
23-165-0090
704 Church St SW
Dale&Una Stu-
613 Montrose Blvd#106
Buffalo MN 55313
Lot
Peterson's Subd ivision
100.00
0.00
100.00
$5,850.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,850.00
6 11163-009-1040
23-165-0100
714 Church St SW
Richard Anderson&Belva Sorenson
714 Church St SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 10
Peterson's Subdivision
82.40
0.00
82.40
$4,820.40
$0.00
$0.00
$4,820.40
7 01-116-30-09-1050
23-165-0110
724 Church St SW
Philip R&Barba,. EClaggett
724 Church St SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 11
Peterson's Subdivision
80.00
0.00
80.00
$4,680.00
$0.00
$0.00
$4,680.00
8 01-116-30-09-1060
23-165-0120
734 Church St SW
Angela Kahl
734 Church St SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 12
Peterson's Subdivision
100.00
0.00
100.00
$5,850.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,850.00
9 01-116-30-09-0300
23-112-1720
547 Milwaukee Ave SW
Richard D&Angela M Kuttner
547 Milwaukee Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
W140'.f Lot 82 & W140'.f N 17277-Lot 83
& W110'of S 1/2 of Lot 83
Lynn Addition
66.00
0.00
66.00
$3,861.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,861.00
10 01-116-30-09-0260
23-167-0370
595 Milwaukee Ave SW
Bruce&Phyllis Norton
595 Milwaukee Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 6& W15' of Lot 7, Block 6
Daschers Addition
75.00
0.00
75.00
$4,387.50
$0.00
$0.00
$4,387.50
11 01-116-30-09-0270
23-167-0380
583 Milwaukee Ave SW
Justin TNass&KzleeA Fisher
583 Milwaukee Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
E45' of Lot 7&W1/2 of Lot 8, Block 6
Daschers Addition
75.00
0.00
75.00
$4,387.50
$0.00
$0.00
$4,387.50
12 01-116-30-09-0280
23-167-0390
571 Milwaukee Ave SW
Duane& Susan Schmeling
571 Milwaukee Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
E30'of Lot8&W45'of Lot9,Block6
DaschersAddtion
75.00
0.00
75.00
$4,387.50
$0.00
$0.00
$4,387.50
13 01-116-30-09-0290
23-167-0400
559 Milwaukee Ave SW
JackA&Karen LBe
559 Milwaukee A-SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 10& E15' of Lot 9, Block 6
Dascher's Addition
74.30
0.00
74.30
$4,346.55
$0.00
$0.00
$4,346.55
14 01-116-30-09-0330
23-112-1700
600 Lynn Rd SW
Dwight&Joann Fre Rag
600 Lynn Rd SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 81
Lynn Addition
0.00
0.00
0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
15 01-116-30-09-0430
23-167-0250
555 Harrington St SW
Margo LKaping
555 Harrington St SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 9, Block5
Daschers Addition
64.00
0.00
64.00
$3,744.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,744.00
16 01-116-30-09-0440
23-167-0260
675 Milwaukee Ave SW
Chad &Angela Paehlke
675 Milwaukee Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 10, Block5
Daschers Addition
64.10
0.00
64.10
$3,749.85
$0.00
$0.00
$3,749.85
17 01-116-30-09-0450
23-167-0270
665 Milwaukee Ave SW
Nathan A Fink
665 Milwaukee Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 11, Block5
Daschers Addition
64.10
0.00
64.10
$3,749.85
$0.00
$0.00
$3,749.85
18 01-116-30-09-0460
23-167-0280
655 Milwaukee Ave SW
David SJohnston
14278th Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 12, Block5
Daschers Addition
64.10
0.00
64.10
$3,749.85
$0.00
$0.00
$3,749.85
19 01-116-30-09-0470
23-167-0290
639 Milwaukee Ave SW
Marlys Palmer
639 Milwaukee Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 13, Block5
Daschers Addition
64.10
0.00
64.10
$3,749.85
$0.00
$0.00
$3,749.85
20 01-116-30-09-0480
23-167-0300
635 Milwaukee Ave SW
Skyl.,A Hopkins
635 Milwaukee Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 14, Block5
Dascher's Addition
64.10
0.00
64.10
$3,749.85
$0.00
$0.00
$3,749.85
21 01-116-30-09-0490
23-167-0310
625 Milwaukee Ave SW
Nicholas Karl Vacek
305 Charles St SW
Hutch mon MN 55350
Lot 15, Block5
Daschers Addition
64.10
0.00
64.10
$3,749.85
$0.00
$0.00
$3,749.85
22 01-116-30-090500
23-167-0320
590 Merrill St SW
Lor,.ine Ne iD
590 Merrill StSW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 16, Block5
Daschers Addition
64.10
0.00
64.10
$3,749.85
$0.00
$0.00
$3,749.85
23 01-116-30-09-0510
23-167-0440
560 Milwaukee Ave SW
Joshua MCWin
560 Milwaukee Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 1& E15.5' of Lot 2, Block 7
Daschers Addition
75.00
0.00
75.00
$4,387.50
$0.00
$0.00
$4,387.50
24 01-116-30-09-0520
23-167-0450
572 Milwaukee Ave SW
Kelly J Jensen
572 Milwaukee Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
E112 of Lot 3& W44.5' of Lot 2, Block 7
Daschers Addition
74.50
0.00
74.50
$4,358.25
$0.00
$0.00
$4,358.25
25 01-116-30-09-0530
23-167-0460
580 Milwaukee Ave SW
Teresa A Boehme&Kevin L01eson
580 Milwaukee Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
E45' of Lot 4&W1/2 of Lot 3, Block 7
Daschers Addition
75.00
0.00
75.00
$4,387.50
$0.00
$0.00
$4,387.50
26 01-116-30-090540
23-167-0470
1615 Merrill St SW
Chns& Darlene Johnsen
615 Merrill St SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 5& W15' of Lot 4, Block 7
Daschers Addition
75.00
0.00
75.00
$4,387.50
$0.00
$0.00
1 $4,387.50
27 01-116-30-090550
23-167-0480
616 Merrill StSW
Elaine ESaar
15210 McKenzie Blvd
Minnetonka MN 55345
Lot 1&E1/2 of Lot 2, Block 8
Daschers Addition
96.15
0.00
96.15
$5,624.78
$0.00
$0.00
$5,624.78
28 01-116-30-09-0560
23-167-0490
630 Milwaukee Ave SW
Barry P Trebelhorn
725 Chureh St SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot EX W10'&W1/2 of Lot 2, Block 8
Daschers Addition
96.15
0.00
96.15
$5,624.78
$0.00
$0.00
$5,624.78
29 01-116-30-09-0570
23-167-0500
642 Milwaukee Ave SW
Makayka J S-in
642 Milwaukee Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
W10' of Lot 3& All of Lot 4, Block 8
Daschers Addition
74.10
0.00
74.10
$4,334.85
$0.00
$0.00
$4,334.85
30 01-116-30-09-0580
23-167-0510
656 Milwaukee Ave SW
Aaron V&Sky M Kohman
656 Milwaukee Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 5, Block8
Daschers Addition
64.10
0.00
64.10
$3,749.85
$0.00
$0.00
$3,749.85
31 01-116-30-09-0590
23-167-0520
664 Milwaukee Ave SW
Tama,.J Whman
1664 Milwauk"Ave SW
illuthimon MN 55350
iLot6,Blok8
I Daschers Addition
64.10
0.00
64.10
$3,749.85
1 $0.00
$0.00
$3,749.85
32 01-116-30-09-0600
23-167-0530
676 Milwauk"Ave SW
Timothy&Carol Wakefield
676 Milwauk"Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 7, B11ock8
Daschers Addition
64.10
0.00
64.10
$3,749.85
$0.00
$0.00
$3,749.85
33 O1-116-30-09-0610
23-167-0540
688 Milwaukee Ave SW
I Lance L Shellenbarger R-Trust
17939225th St
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 8, Block8
Desch ersAddition
64.00
0.00
64.00
$3,744.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,744.00
34 O1-116-30-09-0620
23-167-0550
690Mi6auk"Av SW
Cityof Hutchinson
111 Hassan St SE
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 9, Block8
Dasc rsA ition
(Ha rnngton St R/0/W
0.00
0.00
0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
COMPILED BY:
COMPUTED BY:
CHECKED BY:
NUMBER OF YEARS
INTEREST RATE:
ADOPTED:
PVANDERVEEN
PVANDERVEEN
KENT EXNER
10
ASSESSMENT ROLL NO. 5113
LETTING NO. 1/PROJECT NO. 16-01
2016 Pavement Management Program - Phase 1: Linden Avenue (Harrington to TH 15), Madson Avenue (Dale to Lynn), Milwaukee Avenue (Dale to dead end),
Church Street (Linden to Miller), West Shore Drive (South Grade Court to approx. 1500 LF to southeast) and Grove Street (2nd Ave SW to Washington);
roadway reconstruction/rehabilitation by construction of grading, curb and gutter, draintile installation, bituminous/concrete surfacing, stormwater/drainage,
water distribution, sanitary sewer, street lighting, sidewalk, landscaping, restoration and appurtenances.
$58.50
1ST HEARING
2ND HEARING
2015 BOND FUND
FIN ACCT#
COST PER FRONT FOOT:
STREET COST/FF
02/09/2016
04/12/2016
12/01/1900
336-4700-36101
u d CITY PID NO.
a z
COUNTY
PID NO.
PROPERTY ADDRESS
OWNER NAME
OWNER ADDRESS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ADDITION OR SUBDIVISION
FF
CREDIT
FF
TOTAL
FF
SA5113
TOTAL
ASSESSMENT
SA5113
TOTAL
CREDIT
SA5113 TOTAL ACTIVE
TOTAL
ASSESSMENT
DEFERRED
35 01-116-30-10-0200
23-112-1470
795 Milwaukee Ave SW
Douglas L&G-Ww,Trust
795 Milwaukee Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Tac[ 75'x 132'x 75'x 168.12'of Lot 75
Lynn Addition
126.00
0.00
126.00
$7,371.00
$0.00
$0.00
$7,371.00
36 01-116-30-10-0210
23-112-1540
785 M ilwaukee Ave SW
Robert& Dianne Tepley Living Trus[
785 Milwaukee Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
80' x 132'of Lot 75
Lynn Addition
80.00
0.00
80.00
$4,680.00
$0.00
$0.00
$4,680.00
37 01-116-30-10-0220
23-112-1530
775 Milwaukee Ave SW
Gloria Herrmann
775 Milwaukee Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
80'x 132'of Lot 75
Lynn Addition
80.00
0.00
80.00
$4,680.00
$0.00
$0.00
$4,680.00
38 01-116-30-10-0230
23-112-1520
765 Milwaukee A -SW
Gordon C&Karen MStowell
765 Milwaukee Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Tac[ 100'x 132'of Lot 75
Lynn Addition
100.00 1
0.00
100.00
$5,850.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,850.00
39 01-116-30-10-0240
23-112-1510
755 Milwaukee Ave SW
Bonnie KLickMt
745 Ca ig Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
80'x 132'of Lot 75
Lynn Addition
80.00
0.00
80.00
$4,680.00
$0.00
$0.00
$4,680.00
40 01-116-30-10-0250
23-112-1500
745 Milwauk"A-SW
Patrick S McKay
745 Milwaukee Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
85' x 132'of Lot 75
Lynn Addition
85.00
0.00
85.00
$4,972.50
$0.00
$0.00
$4,972.50
41 01-116-30-10-0260
23-112-1490
735 Milwaukee Ave SW
Amanda l Bernstein
735 Milwaukee Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
80'x 132'of Lot 75
Lynn Addition
80.00
0.00
80.00
$4,680.00
$0.00
$0.00
$4,680.00
42 01-116-30-10-0270
23-112-1560
725 Milwaukee Ave SW
Charles) Heil
725 Milwaukee Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
E8 of S132 o Lot 75 W56 7 S132 o Lot
76
Lynn Addition
64.00
0.00
64.00
$3,744.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,744.00
43 01-116-30-10-0280
23-112-1580
715 Milwaukee Ave SW
John R&Cindy LDill-
715 Milwaukee Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
E64'of W12O'of S132'of Lot 76 EX E'1 0.7'
Lynn Addition
63.30
0.00
63.30
$3,703.05
$0.00
$0.00
$3,703.05
44 01-116-30-10-0290
23-167-0160
705 M ilwaukee Ave SW
V. nesse K Schaffer Eta l
705 Milwau kee Ave SW
Hutch in -n MN 55350
Lot 16, Block 4, Dascher's Addition&
E6 0 573.42 of Lot 76,
Lynn Addition
58.43
0.00
58.43
$3,418.16
$0.00
$0.00
$3,418.16
45 01-116-30-10-0300
23-112-1840
705 Dale St SW
Vincent Haag
705 Dale St SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 88 EX E715.53'
Lynn Addition
100.00
0.00
100.00
$5,850.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,850.00
46 01-116-30-10-0310
23-112-1830
784 M ilwaukee Ave SW
Gary Haveaeier Rev LivTrust
784 Milwaukee Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
W108.68'ofthe E715.53'of Lot 88
Lynn Addition
108.68
0.00
108.68
$6,357.78
$0.00
$0.00
$6,357.78
47 01-116-30-10-0320
23-112-1920
774 Milwaukee Ave SW
Estelle M Natwick
774 Milwauk"Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
W110'x141.6'of E606.85'of Lot88
Lynn Addition
110.00
0.00
110.00
$6,435.00
$0.00
$0.00
$6,435.00
48 01-116-30-10-0330
23-112-1910
764 Milwaukee Ave SW
KerryA Ku-,
764 Milwaukee AveSW
Hutchinson MN 55350
W80'x141.6'of E496.85'of Lot88
Lynn Addition
80.00
0.00
80.00
$4,680.00
$0.00
$0.00
$4,680.00
49 01-116-30-10-0340
23-112-1900
754Milweuk"A-SW
Gene L&LaurelARunke
754 Milwauk"Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
W90'x 140.9'of E416.85'of Lot 88
Lynn Add ition
90.00
0.00
90.00
$5,265.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,265.00
50 01-116-30-10-0350
23-112-1890
744 Milwau kee Ave SW
Wildflower Properties LLC
2222nd Ave SE
Hutchinson MN 55350
W70'x 140.8'of E326.85'of Lot 88
Lynn Addition
70.00
0.00
70.00
$4,095.00
$0.00
$0.00
$4,095.00
51 01-116-30-10-0360
23-112-1870
734 M ilwaukee Ave SW
L-ine V& Lois Gams Rev Trust
734 Milwaukee Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
W85'x 140.5'of E256.85'of Lot 88
Lynn Addition
85.00
0.00
85.00
$4,972.50
$0.00
$0.00
$4,972.50
52 01-116-30-10-0370
23-112-1880
724 M ilwaukee Ave SW
Jeanette Feuskee
301 Glen St SW#112
Hutchinson MN 55350
W67'x 140'of E171.85'of Lot 88
Lynn Addition
67.00
0.00
67.00
$3,919.50
$0.00
$0.00
$3,919.50
53 01-116-30-10-0380
23-112-1860
714 Milwaukee Ave SW
Michael R&AshleyA Wagner
714 Milwaukee Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
W67'x 140'of E104.85'of Lot 88
Lynn Addition
67.00
0.00
67.00
$3,919.50
$0.00
$0.00
$3,919.50
54 O1-116-30-10-0390
23-112-1850
706 Milwaukee Ave SW
NRuth Thompson&Mona Wehde
704 Milwaukee Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
1 E37.85'of S132'of Lot 88
Lynn Addition
38.29
0.00
38.29
$2,239.97
$0.00
$0.00
$2,239.97
55 O1-116-30-10-0400
23-167-0560
704 M lwaukee Ave SW
NRuth Thompson&Mon. Wehde
704 Milwaukee Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 10, N -k8
Dascher's Addition
52.25
0.00
52.25
$3,056.63
$0.00
$0.00
$3,056.63
BASE BID: Church St SW & Milwaukee Ave SW -SUB-TOTAL:
4,109.95
0.00
4,109.95
$240,490.58
$0.00
$85,217.00
$240,432.10
COMPILED BY:
PVANDERVEEN
ASSESSMENT ROLL NO. 5113
LETTING NO. 1/PROJECT NO. 16-01
2016 Pavement Management Program - Phase 1: Linden Avenue (Harrington to TH 15), Madson Avenue (Dale to Lynn), Milwaukee Avenue (Daleto dead end),
Church Street (Linden to Miller), West Shore Drive (South Grade Court to approx. 1500 LF to southeast) and Grove Street (2nd Ave SW to Washington);
roadway reconstruction/rehabilitation by construction of grading, curb and gutter, draintile installation, bituminous/concrete surfacing, stormwater/drainage,
water distribution, sanitary sewer, street lighting, sidewalk, landscaping, restoration and appurtenances.
COST PER
FRONT FOOT:
COMPUTED BY: PVANDERVEEN
$52.00 STREET COST/FF
CHECKED BY: KENT EXNER
1ST HEARING 02/09/2016
NUMBER OF YEARS 10
2ND HEARING 04/12/2016
INTEREST RATE:
2015 BOND FUND 12/01/1900
ADOPTED:
FIN ACCT# 336-4700-36101
u d
a
CITY PID NO.
COUNTY
PID NO.
PROPERTY ADDRESS
OWNER NAME
OWNERADDRESS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ADDITION OR SUBDIVISION
FF
CREDIT
FF
TOTAL
FF
SA5113
TOTALACTIVE
ASSESSMENT
SA5113
TOTAL
CREDIT
SA5113
TOTAL
DEFERRED
TOTAL
ASSESSMENT
BASE BID: Linden Ave SW & ALTERNATE 3: Madson Ave SW
56 01-116-30-09-0790
23-130-0070
764 Lynn Rd SW
Arturo Solis
764 Lynn Rd SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot
M-ill's Su bd ivision
0.00
0.00
0.00
$8.00
$8.00
$0.00
$8.00
57 01-116-30-09-0800
23-130-0080
511 Linden Ave SW
Farms K Helmbrecht
511 Linden AveSW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot EX E97'
M-ill's Su bd ivision
90.00
0.00
90.00
$4,680.00
$0.00
$0.00
$4,680.00
58 01-116-30-09-0801
23-130-0090
509 Linden Ave SW
Gail V Plus.-& Jenn'rfer L Barrick
55339 County Road 38
Buffalo Lake MN 55314
E97' of Lot
M-ill's Subdivision
97.00
97.00
0.00
$5,044.00
$5,044.00
$0.00
$0.00
59 01-116-30-09-0880
23-130-0180
525 Linden Ave SW
Ruth L Pasqualetto
49 Corte Pinto-
San Clemente CA 92673
Lot 14
M-ill's Subdivision
66.00
0.00
66.00
$3,432.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,432.00
60 01-116-30-09-0890
23-130-0190
535 Linden Ave SW
Leslie&Betty E Ruskamp
535 Linden AveSW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 15
M-ill's Subdivision
66.00
0.00
66.00
$3,432.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,432.00
61 01-116-30-09-0900
23-130-0200
545 Linden Ave SW
Brian LRoulet&Amy LProchaska
545 Linden Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 16
M-ill's Subdivision
66.00
0.00
66.00
$3,432.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,432.00
62 01-116-30-09-0910
23-130-0210
547 Linden Ave SW
Yeni Gnselda Farl.s Farias
547 Linden AveSW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 17
M-ill's Subdivision
66.00
0.00
66.00
$3,432.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,432.00
63 01-116-30-09-0920
23-131-0015
585 Linden AveSW
Rhonda Henderson
585 Linden AveSW
Hutchinson MN 55350
W'ly Portion of Lot 1, Block 1
Fischers Addition
63.85
0.00
63.85
$3,320.20
$0.00
$0.00
$3,320.20
64 01-116-30-09-0921
23-131-0010
575 Linden Ave SW
Chad& Stephanie Jankowski
575 Linden Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
E'ly Portion of Lot 1, Block 1
Fisher's Addition
68.15
0.00
68.15
$3,543.80
$0.00
$0.00
$3,543.80
65 01-116-30-090980
23-165-0040
734 Merrill St SW
AmyT Schmit
734 Merrill St SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot
Peterson's Subd ivision
115.00
115.00
0.00
$5,980.00
$5,980.00
$0.00
$0.00
66 01-116-30-09-0990
23-165-0050
735 Church St SW
CKShenwood LLC
1031 Pairie View Dr SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot
Peterson's Subd ivision
115.00
115.00
0.00
$5,980.00
$5,980.00
$0.00
$0.00
67 01-116-30-09-1060
23-165-0120
734 Church St SW
Angel. Kahl
734 Church St SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 12
Peterson's Subdivision
115.00
115.00
0.00
$5,980.00
$5,980.00
$0.00
$0.00
68 01-116-30-09-1070
23-165-0130
685 Linden Ave SW
David L&Sheil. McGaw
685 Linden AveSW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 13
Peterson's Subdivision
120.40
120.40
0.00
$6,260.80
$6,260.80
$0.00
$0.00
69 01-116-30-10-0480
23-165-0170
734 Harrington St SW
CKShenwood LLC
1031 Pairie View Dr SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 17
Peterson's Subdivision
0.00
0.00
0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
70 01-116-30-160010
23-162-0010
805 Merrill St SW
Fredenck&Jean Haffley
805 Merrill StSW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lott
Hansen's Addition
84.00
0.00
84.00
$4,368.00
$0.00
$0.00
$4,368.00
71 01-116-30-16-0020
23-162-0020
550 Linden Ave SW
CherylA Loh,-
550 Linden AveSW
Hutchinson MN 55350
E'ly Part of Lot 2&W20'of Lot
Hanson's Addition
49.28
0.00
49.28
$2,562.56
$0.00
$0.00
$2,562.56
72 01-116-30-16-0021
23-162-0025
552 Linden Ave SW
Andrew W Dammann
552 Linden Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
W'ly Part of Lott
Ha nso n's Ad d itio n
55.72
0.00
55.72
$2,897.44
$0.00
$0.00
$2,897.44
73 01-116-30-16-0030
23-162-0030
540 Linden Ave SW
to emy IN & A my
Jere my N Koehler&Amy E Dahos-
540 Linden Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
E55' of Lot 3&W45'of Lot
Ha nson's Addition
100.00
0.00
100.00
$5,200.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,200.00
74 01-116-30-16-0040
23-162-0040
530 Linden Ave SW
William J&Janice Kreitlow
530 Linden AveSW
Hutchinson MN 55350
E30' of Lot 4&W70'of Lot
Ha nson's Addition
100.00
0.00
100.00
$5,200.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,200.00
75 01-116-30-16-0050
23-162-0050
1520 Linden Ave SW
Paul W Schreiner
520 Linden AveSW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 6&E15'of Lot
Ha nson's Addition
100.00
0.00
1 100.00
$5,200.00
1 $0.00
$0.00
$5,200.00
76 01-116-30-16-0060
23-162-0060
830 Lynn And SW
Jeremy&Rebecca Stark
830 Lynn Rd SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot
Ha nson's Addition
110.00
110.00
0.00
$5,720.00
$5,720.00
$0.00
$0.00
77 01-116-30-160330
23-132-0010
804 Merrill St SW
TroyA Olson
804 Merrill St SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 1, Blockl
Sioux Addition
115.00
115.00
0.00
$5,980.00
$5,980.00
$0.00
$0.00
78 01-116-30-16-0460
23-133-0100
805 Church St SW
Edward RAnderson
10855 Noble AveN
Brooklyn Park MN 55443
Lot 10, Blockl
Sioux 2nd Addition
115.00
115.00
0.00
$5,980.00
$5,980.00
$0.00
$0.00
79 01-116-30-16-0750
23-133-0400
804 Church St SW
Mitchell D& Mianda L Melberg
804 Church St SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 1, Block4
Sioux 2nd Addition
115.00
115.00
0.00
$5,980.00
$5,980.00
$0.00
$0.00
80 01-116-30-16-0880
23-133-0530
1805 Harrington St SW
William J&Julie Juaine
805 Harrington St SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 14, Block4
Sioux 2nd Addition
115.00
115.00
0.00
$5,980.00
$5,980.00
$0.00
$0.00
81 06-116-29-11-0930
23-151-0040
805 Fanklin St SW
Green Jacket LLC
5269 St Mary's Rd
Minnetrista MN 55364
Lot 14, Block 19
Bonniwell's 2nd Addition
132.00
132.00
1 0.00
$6,864.00
$6,864.00
$0.00
$0.00
82 06-116-29-11-1070
23-146-0050
746 Main St
Brenda Erickson
746 Ma in St
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 5, Subdivision of Block 11
n Bon iwe sSemn
Addition
132.00
132.00
0.00
$6,864.00
$6,864.00
$0.00
$0.00
83 06-116-29-11-1080
23-146-0060
745 Fanklin St SW
Angel, Robertson
745 Fanklin St SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 6, Subdivision of Block 11
n Bon iwe sSemn
Addition
132.00
132.00
0.00
$6,864.00
$6,864.00
$0.00
$0.00
84 06-116-29-12-0850
23-145-0450
746 Fanklin St SW
David HG-
746 Fanklin St SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 5, Block 12
Bon Secon
Addition
132.00
132.00
0.00
$6,864.00
$6,864.00
$0.00
$0.00
85 06-116-29-12-0860
23-145-0460
115 Linden AveSW
Kieler Constmction & Holdings Inc
3600 Holly Ln, Suite 10
Plymouth MN 55447
Lot 6, Block 12
Bon sSecon
Addition
132.00
132.00
0.00
$6,864.00
$6,864.00
$0.00
$0.00
86 06-116-29-12-0950
23-145-0550
746 Glen St SW
JemmeA & Elrosa Meyer
746 Glen St SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 5, Block 13
Bonnwo sSecon
Addition
128.50
128.50
0.00
$6,682.00
$6,682.00
$0.00
$0.00
87 06-116-29-12-0960
23-145-0560
745 Brown St SW
Lind. M&Ambe,M Woller
610 Minnesota St NW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 6, Block 13
Bonnwo sSecon
Addition
128.50
128.50
0.00
$6,682.00
$6,682.00
$0.00
$0.00
-12-1050
23-145-0650
746 Brown St SW
Mith A& Mega n A Pu lka bek
746 Brown St SW
Huthinson MN 55350
Lt 5, Blok 14
Bon sSecon
Ad d'fton
128.50
128.50
0.00
$6,682.00
$6,682.00
$0.00
$0.00
EE-12-1060
23-145-0660
743 Grove St SW
Maksim&Elena Volkov
743 Grove St SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lt 6, Block 14
Bon sSecon
Addition
128.50
128.50
0.00
$6,682.00
$6,682.00
$0.00
$0.00
COMPILED BY:
COMPUTED BY:
CHECKED BY:
NUMBER OF YEARS
INTEREST RATE:
ADOPTED:
PVANDERVEEN
PVANDERVEEN
KENT EXNER
10
ASSESSMENT ROLL NO. 5113
LETTING NO. 1/PROJECT NO. 16-01
2016 Pavement Management Program - Phase 1: Linden Avenue (Harrington to TH 15), Madson Avenue (Dale to Lynn), Milwaukee Avenue (Dale to dead end),
Church Street (Linden to Miller), West Shore Drive (South Grade Court to approx. 1500 LF to southeast) and Grove Street (2nd Ave SW to Washington);
roadway reconstruction/rehabilitation by construction of grading, curb and gutter, draintile installation, bituminous/concrete surfacing, stormwater/drainage,
water distribution, sanitary sewer, street lighting, sidewalk, landscaping, restoration and appurtenances.
$52.00
1ST HEARING
2ND HEARING
2015 BOND FUND
FIN ACCT#
COST PER FRONT FOOT:
STREET COST/FF
02/09/2016
04/12/2016
12/01/1900
336-4700-36101
u d CITY PID NO.
a
COUNTY
PID NO.
PROPERTY ADDRESS
OWNER NAME
OWNER ADDRESS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ADDITION OR SUBDIVISION
FF
CREDIT
FF
TOTAL
FF
SA5113
TOTALACTIVE
ASSESSMENT
SA5113
TOTAL
CREDIT
SA5113 TOTAL
TOTAL
ASSESSMENT
DEFERRED
90 06-116-29-12-1160
23-145-0750
437 Linden Ave SW
Megan M Wolff
437 Linden Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
S111'of Lot 5, Block 15
Bon sSecon
Addition
58.50
0.00
58.50
$3,042.00
$8.00
$0.00
$3,042.00
91 06-116-29-12-1170
23-145-0770
431 Linden Ave SW
Amanda F Word-
431 Linden Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
S111' of Lot 6, Block 15
Bon Secon
Addition
58.50
0.00
58.50
$3,042.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,042.00
92 06-116-29-12-1180
23-145-0780
746 Grove St SW
Jaime P&Hill DBar..11
746 Grove St SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lots 7-0 EX N60', Block 15
Bon Secon
Addition
117.00
117.00
0.00
$6,084.00
$6,084.00
$0.00
$0.00
93 06-116-29-13-0140
23-207-0090
806 Franklin St SW
Robert DWirr
806 Franklin St SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
N104' of E132' of Lot 11
Au rtors PatS12
Section 06-116-29
132.00
1 132.00
0.00
$6,864.00
$6,864.00
$0.00
$0.00
94 06-116-29-13-0190
23-207-0100
900 Hwy 15 South, Unit A
West Central Indust Inc
PO Box 813
Willmar MN 56201
W41.25'of Lot 11
An rtors Pat512
Section 06-116-29
41.25
0.00
41.25
$2,145.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,145.00
95 06-116-29-13-0200
23-207-0140
900 Hwy 15 South
Wes[ Central Industries Inc
PO Box 813
Willmar MN 56201
Lot 15
Auditors Plat S12
Section 06-116-29
170.75
0.00
170.75
$8,879.00
$0.00
$0.00
$8,879.00
96 06-116-29-13-0210
23-207-0160
216 Linden Ave SW
David W & Lori Broil
216 Linden Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
N132' of Lot 18
A777 -77s S12
Section 06-116-29
132.00
0.00
132.00
$6,864.00
$0.00
$0.00
$6,864.00
97 06-116-29-13-0230
23-218-0010
805 Brown St SW
Gary )&Ardena MStibal
805 Brown St SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 1 Auditor's Plat of Lot 19
A777 -77s S12
Section 06-116-29
143.50
132.00
11.50
$7,462.00
$6,864.00
$0.00
$598.00
98 06-116-29-13-0330
23-218-0120
804Brown StSW
William F&Jessia LJarman
23435735th Avenue
Da -I MN 55325
Lot 15 Auditor's Plat of Lot 19
o Au rtors Pat512
Section 06-116-29
90.50
0.00
90.50
$4,706.00
$0.00
$0.00
$4,706.00
99 06-116-29-13-0340
23-218-0130
324 Linden Ave SW
Kot- Rental LLC
789 E 10th St
Litchfield MN 55355
Lot 16 Auditor's Plat of Lot 19
o Au rtors Plat S12
Section 06-116-29
55.00
0.00
55.00
$2,860.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,860.00
100 06-116-29-13-0350
23-155-0010
800 Grove St SW
Hutchinson Church of God
800 Grove St SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lots 1&2
Anderson's Subdivision
117.00
0.00
117.00
$6,084.00
$0.00
$0.00
$6,084.00
101 06-116-29-13-0352
23-155-0017
805 Lynn Rd SW
Ruth Obritsch Trust
805 Lynn Rd SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 20, Block 1
Anderson's Subdivision
117.00
117.00
0.00
$6,084.00
$6,084.00
$0.00
$0.00
102 06-116-29-13-0510
23-155-0170
805 Grove St SW
Jamb M Albrecht
805 Grove St SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 1, Block2
Anderson's Subdivision
129.50
129.50
0.00
$6,734.00
$6,734.00
$0.00
$0.00
103 06-116-29-14-0550
23-151-0050
855 Hwy 15S
City of Hutchinson
111 Hassan St SE
Hutchinson MN 55350
Part of Lots 12-3-0-6-7-10, Block 19
Bonniwell's 3rd Addition
96.20
0.00
96.20
$5,002.40
$0.00
$0.00
$5,002.40
104 01-116-30-09-0020
23-112-1630
564 Lynn Rd SW
Julie M Otto SchuettpeL
5100 Vega Ave
New Germany MN 55336
66' x 100' of Lot 78
Lynn Addition
100.00
100.00
0.00
$5,200.00
$5,200.00
$0.00
$0.00
105 01-116-30-09-0030
23-112-1620
535 Madison Ave SW
Stix &Brix, Inc
307 IN Hol -bo Ave
Litchfield MN 55355
0 0
78 0 0
o Lynn Addition
70.00
0.00
70.00
$3,640.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,640.00
106 01-116-30-09-0040
23-112-1650
539 Madison Ave SW
Ty.. Jessey
1660 Ada ms St SE
Hutchinson MN 55350
E61' of W127' of Lot78
Lynn Addition
61.00
0.00
61.00
$3,172.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,172.00
107 01-116-30-09-0050
23-112-1640
545 Madsen Ave SW
Dominic FVerhey
145 BrmdwayAve S#105
Cokato MN 55321
W66'of Lot 78
Lynn Addition
66.00
0.00
66.00
$3,432.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,432.00
108 01-116-30-09-0060
23-167-0010
555 Madsen Ave SW
Paul Billet
555 Madsen Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 1, B1ock1
Daschers Addition
58.40
0.00
58.40
$3,036.80
$0.00
$0.00
$3,036.80
109 01-116-30-09-0070
23-167-0020
1565 Madsen Ave SW
Linette A Mtker
565 Madison Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 2, B1ock1
Daschers Addition
60.00
0.00
60.00
$3,120.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,120.00
110 01-116-30-09-0080
23-167-0030
575 Madsen Ave SW
Fidel Ernesto de la Barra Guerra
575 Madison Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 3, Block 1
Daschers Addition
60.00
0.00
60.00
1 $3,120.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,120.00
111 01-116-30-09-0090
23-167-0040
585 Madison Ave SW
Kaleb E Fraley
585 Madison Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 4, Block 1
Daschers Addition
60.00
0.00
60.00
$3,120.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,120.00
112 01-116-30-09-0100
23-167-0050
595 Madison Ave SW
Harold F& Lois Hanson Fan, Trust
595 Madison Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 5, B1ock1
Daschers Addition
60.00
0.00
60.00
$3,120.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,120.00
113 01-116-30-09-0110
23-167-0060
609 Madison Ave SW
Terrance F Hauth
609 Madison Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 1, Block2
Daschers Addition
64.10
0.00
64.10
$3,333.20
$0.00
$0.00
$3,333.20
114 01-116-30-09-0120
23-167-0070
619 Madison Ave SW
IT verna E H -rick
619 Madson Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 2, Block2
Dashers Addition
64.10
0.00
64.10
$3,333.20
$0.00
$0.00
$3,333.20
115 01-116-30-09-0130
23-167-0080
11631Madson Ave SW
James A Schwid-ki
631 Madson Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 3, Block2
Daschers Addition
64.10
0.00
64.10
$3,333.20
$0.00
$0.00
$3,333.20
116 101-116-30-09-0140
23-167-0090
643 Madison Ave SW
Barba.. Doering
643 Madson Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 4, Block2
Daschers Addition
64.10
0.00
64.10
$3,333.20
$0.00
$0.00
$3,333.20
117 01-116-30-09-0150
23-167-0100
655 Madison Ave SW
la-sA Kerr
655 Madison Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 5, Block2
Daschers Addition
64.10
0.00
64.10
$3,333.20
$0.00
$0.00
$3,333.20
118 01-116-30-09-0160
23-167-0110
667 Madison Ave SW
Colleen KCarrigan
667 Madison Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 6, Block2
Daschers Addition
64.10
0.00
64.10
$3,333.20
$0.00
$0.00
$3,333.20
119 01-116-30-09-0170
23-167-0120
675 Madison Ave SW
Janice J Schmeling LivTrust
675 Madison Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 7, Block2
Daschers Addition
64.10
0.00
64.10
$3,333.20
$0.00
$0.00 1
$3,333.20
120 01-116-30-09-0180
23-167-0130
695 Madison Ave SW
Robert& Bernadette Scharpe
695 Madson Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 8, Block2
Daschers Addition
64.00
0.00
64.00
$3,328.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,328.00
121 01-116-30-09-0190
23-167-0430
1570 Lynn Rd SW
David & Nellie Gehrke Trust
570 Lynn Rd SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 12, Block 6
Dasher's Addition
132.00
132.00 1
0.00
$6,864.00
$6,864.00
$0.00
$0.00
122 01-116-30-09-0200
23-167-0410
534 Madison Ave SW
Timothy& Kelly Mickolichek
534 Madison Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
E96.56' of Lot 11, Block 6
Daschers Addition
96.56
0.00
96.56
$5,021.12
$0.00
$0.00
$5,021.12
123 01-116-30-09-0210
23-167-0420
544 Madison Ave SW
Justin G Rodeberg
544 Madison Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
W70' of Lot 11, Block 6
Daschers Addition
70.00
0.00
70.00
$3,640.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,640.00
114 01-116-30-09-0220
23-167-0330
554 Madison Ave SW
Timothy L Vallacher
554 Madson Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lotl,Block6
Daschers Addition
58.40
0.00
58.40
$3,036.80
$0.00
$0.00
$3,036.80
COMPILED BY:
COMPUTED BY:
CHECKED BY:
NUMBER OF YEARS
INTEREST RATE:
ADOPTED:
PVANDERVEEN
PVANDERVEEN
KENT EXNER
10
ASSESSMENT ROLL NO. 5113
LETTING NO. 1/PROJECT NO. 16-01
2016 Pavement Management Program - Phase 1: Linden Avenue (Harrington to TH 15), Madson Avenue (Dale to Lynn), Milwaukee Avenue (Dale to dead end),
Church Street (Linden to Miller), West Shore Drive (South Grade Court to approx. 1500 LF to southeast) and Grove Street (2nd Ave SW to Washington);
roadway reconstruction/rehabilitation by construction of grading, curb and gutter, draintile installation, bituminous/concrete surfacing, stormwater/drainage,
water distribution, sanitary sewer, street lighting, sidewalk, landscaping, restoration and appurtenances.
COST PER FRONT FOOT:
$52.00 STREET COST/FF
1ST HEARING 02/09/2016
2ND HEARING 04/12/2016
2015 BOND FUND 12/01/1900
FIN ACCT# 336-4700-36101
u d CITY PID NO.
a z
COUNTY
PID NO.
PROPERTY ADDRESS
OWNER NAME
OWNER ADDRESS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ADDITION OR SUBDIVISION
FF
CREDIT
FF
TOTAL
FF
SA5113
TOTALACTIVE
ASSESSMENT
SA5113
TOTAL
CREDIT
SA5113 TOTAL
TOTAL
ASSESSMENT
DEFERRED
125 01-116-30-09-0230
23-167-0340
564 Madsen
Ave SW
Philip Bonniwell& Rachel Stegmeier
564 Madson Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 2, Block
D.schersAdditicn
60.00
0.00
60.00
$3,120.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,120.00
126 01-116-30-09-0240
23-167-0350
574 Madsen
Ave SW
John GT-is
574 Madson Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 3& E 112 of Lot 4, Block 6
D.schersAdditicn
90.00
0.00
90.00
$4,680.00
$0.00
$0.00
$4,680.00
127 01-116-30-09-0250
23-167-0360
570 Merrill St SW
Michael E&Mary F Evans
7464th Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 5& W 112 of Lot 4, Block 6
D.schersAdditicn
90.00
0.00
90.00
$4,680.00
$0.00
$0.00
$4,680.00
128 01-116-30-09-0350
23-167-0170
576 Mill StSW
Judith 01kon
576 Merrill St SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 1, Block
D.schers Addition
64.10
0.00
64.10
$3,333.20
$0.00
$0.00
$3,333.20
129 01-116-30-09-0360
23-167-0180
620 Madson
Ave SW
Kevin Mark Kolden
620 Madson Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 2, Block
D.schers Addition
64.10
0.00
64.10
$3,333.20
$0.00
$0.00
$3,333.20
130 01-116-30-09-0370
23-167-0190
632 Madson
Ave SW
Lyle E Bonderson
16324150th St
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 3, Block
D.schers Addition
64.10
0.00
64.10
$3,333.20
$0.00
$0.00
$3,333.20
131 01-116-30-09-0380
23-167-0200
642 Madson
Ave SW
Jill MAlbrecht
642 Madson Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 4, Block
D.schers Addition
64.10
0.00
64.10
$3,333.20
$0.00
$0.00
$3,333.20
132 01-116-30-09-0390
23-167-0210
656 Madson
Ave SW
Shawn DLund
656 Madson Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 5, Block
D.schers Addition
64.10
0.00
64.10
$3,333.20
$0.00
$0.00
$3,333.20
133 01-116-30-09-0400
23-167-0220
664M.&on
Ave SW
Seth T Beebe&T.y. FHeinnch
664 Madson Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 6, Block
D.schers Addition
64.10
0.00
64.10
$3,333.20
$0.00
$0.00
$3,333.20
134 01-116-30-09-0410
23-167-0230
676 Madson
Ave SW
Ro ert i 6uley
Bob& April Schumacher
740 Roberts St SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 7, Block
D.schers Addition
64.10
0.00
64.10
$3,333.20
$0.00
$0.00
$3,333.20
135 01-116-30-09-0420
23-167-0240
688 Madson
Ave SW
Bum n K.len berg
688 Madson Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 8, Block
D.schers Addition
64.00
0.00
64.00
$3,328.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,328.00
136 01-116-30-10-0010
23-128-0010
785 Madson
Ave SW
Marlys Miller
785 Madson Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 1, Block
Madson Addition
102.39
0.00
102.39
$5,324.28
$0.00
$0.00
$5,324.28
137 01-116-30-10-0020
23-128-0020
775 Madson
Ave SW
Daniel)&Jody K Hohz
775 Madson Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 2, Block
Madson Addition
84.00
0.00
84.00
$4,368.00
$0.00
$0.00
$4,368.00
138 01-116-30-10-0030
23-128-0030
765 Madson
Ave SW
Mark&Nancy MueM
765 Madson Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 3, Block
Madson Addition
72.00
0.00
72.00
$3,744.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,744.00
139 01-116-30-10-0040
23-128-0040
755 Madson
Ave SW
Mark&Deb,.Cormier
755 Madson Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 4, Block
Madson Addition
84.00
0.00
84.00
$4,368.00
$0.00
$0.00
$4,368.00
140 01-116-30-10-0050
23-128-0050
745 Madson
Ave SW
Elsie MAkleben
745 Madson Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 5, Block
Madson Addition
72.00
0.00
72.00
$3,744.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,744.00
141 01-116-30-10-0060
23-112-1550
735 Madson
Ave SW
Ardell G Anderson -T-t-
1015 Century Ave SW Apt 2C Hutchinson MN 55350
132'. 90' in NE Corner of Lot 75
Lynn Add Rion
90.00
0.00
90.00
$4,680.00
$0.00
$0.00
$4,680.00
142 01-116-30-10-0070
23-112-1590
725 Madson
Ave SW
Randall W Adams
725 Madson Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
626'. 132'of Lot 76
Lynn Addition
62.60
0.00
62.60
$3,255.20
$0.00
$0.00
$3,255.20
143 01-116-30-10-0080
23-167-0140
709 Madson
Ave SW
Angel. RAb,.h.mson
709 Madson Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 1, Block 1, D.sc e,'s Addition Lot 1,
Block 3, D.schers Addition &
62.7 x 132 o Lot 76 Lynn
Addition
116.02
0.00
116.02
$6,033.04
$0.00
$0.00
$6,033.04
144 01-116-30-10-0090
23-128-0060
796 Madson
Ave SW
William A Asp
796 Madson Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 1, Block
Madson Addition
66.78
0.00
66.78
$3,472.56 1
$0.00
$0.00
$3,472.56
145 01-116-30-10-0100
23-128-0070
786 Madson
Ave SW
Gregory& Patricia Pearce
786 Madson Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 2, Block
Madson Addition
72.00
0.00
72.00
$3,744.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,744.00
146 01-116-30-10-0110
23-128-0080
776 Madson
Ave SW
Eric& Kristin Bateman
776 Madson Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 3, Block
Madson Addition
84.00
0.00
84.00
$4,368.00
$0.00
$0.00
$4,368.00
147 01-116-30-10-0120
23-128-0090
766 Madson
Ave SW
Nichol.s D.& Lesley S. Brellenthin
766 Madson Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 4, Block
Madson Addition
72.00
0.00
72.00
$3,744.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,744.00
148 01-116-30-10-0130
23-128-0100
756 Madson
Ave SW
Ronald&Stacy Tw.rdy
756 Madson Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 5, Block
Madson Addition
84.00
0.00
84.00
$4,368.00
$0.00
$0.00
$4,368.00
149 01-116-30-10-0140
23-128-0110
746 Madson
Ave SW
Nicole L Boettcher
746 Madson Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 6, Block
Madson Addition
72.00
0.00
72.00
$3,744.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,744.00
150 01-116-30-10-0150
23-112-1480
736 Madson
Ave SW
Michael J Shank,&Marilyn M Quist
736 Madson Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
80' x 132' of Lot 75
Lynn Addition
80.00
0.00
80.00
$4,160.00 1
$0.00
$0.00
$4,160.00
151 01-116-30-10-0160
23-112-1570
724 Madson
Ave SW
lAnn,nd, E Lokensg.rd
724 Madson Ave SW
11flutchin,on MN 55350
60' x 132' of Lot 76
1 Lynn Addition
60.00
0.00
60.00
$3,120.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,120.00
152 01-116-30-10-0175
23-112-1605
714 Madson
Ave SW
Karen R Klimp
714 Madson Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
120'x 132' of Lot 76 EX W60' Lynn Addition
&That Part of Lot 76, Lynn Addition
Lying W' ly of Lot 1, Block
4, D.scher's Addition
65.69
0.00
65.69
$3,415.88
$0.00
$0.00
$3,415.88
153 01-116-30-10-0190
23-167-0150
540 Harrington St SW
Christopher S Kuhl
540 Harrington St SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 1, Block
D.schers Addition
53.14
0.00
53.14
$2,763.28
$0.00
$0.00
$2,763.28
BASE BID: Linden Ave SW&ALTERNATE 3: Madson
Ave SW- SUB-TOTAL:
8,350.48
3,165.90
5,184.58
$434,328.96
$164,626.80
$170,434.00
$269,598.16
COMPILED BY:
PVANDERVEEN
ASSESSMENT ROLL NO. 5113
LETTING NO. 1/PROJECT NO. 16-01
2016 Pavement Management Program - Phase 1: Linden Avenue (Harrington to TH 15), Madson Avenue (Dale to Lynn), Milwaukee Avenue (Dale to dead end),
Church Street (Linden to Miller), West Shore Drive (South Grade Court to approx. 1500 LF to southeast) and Grove Street (2nd Ave SW to Washington);
roadway reconstruction/rehabilitation by construction of grading, curb and gutter, draintile installation, bituminous/concrete surfacing, stormwater/drainage,
water distribution, sanitary sewer, street lighting, sidewalk, landscaping, restoration and appurtenances.
COST PER
FRONT FOOT:
COMPUTED BY: PVANDERVEEN
$42.00 STREET COST/FF
CHECKED BY: KENT EXNER
1ST HEARING 02/09/2016
NUMBER OF YEARS 10
2ND HEARING 04/12/2016
INTEREST RATE:
2015 BOND FUND 12/01/1900
ADOPTED:
FIN ACCT# 336-4700-36101
u d CITY PID NO.
a z
COUNTY
PID NO.
PROPERTY ADDRESS
OWNER NAME
OWNER ADDRESS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ADDITION OR SUBDIVISION
FF
CREDIT
FF
TOTAL
FF
SA5113
TOTALACTIVE
ASSESSMENT
SA5113
TOTAL
CREDIT
SA5113
TOTAL
DEFERRED
TOTAL
ASSESSMENT
ALTERNATE 1: West Shore Dr SW
154 10-116-30-01-0080
23-418-0080
1105 South Grade Ct SW
Harry T&Gail S Koba
1105 South Grade Ct SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 8, Blockl
Island View Heights First
Addition
122.99
0
122.99
$5,165.58
$0.00
$0.00
$5,165.58
155 10-116-30-01-0090
23-418-0090
1020 West
Shore Dr SW
David& BettyJean Croghan
1020 West Shore DrSW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 9, Blockl
Isan View Heig is First
Addition
169.82
0
169.82
$7,132.44
$0.00
$0.00
$7,132.44
156 10-116-30-01-0100
23-418-0100
1040 West
Shore Dr SW
Deron M&Sa Ily A Joh nson
1040 West Shore Dr SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 10, Blockl
Isan 7 View Heigis First
Addition
169.82
0
169.82
$7,132.44
$0.00
$0.00
$7,132.44
157 10-116-30-01-0110
23-418-0110
1060 West
Shore Dr SW
Allan D&Coletta LR Wo
1060 West Shore Dr SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 11, Blockl
17 77 View Heigis First
Addition
143.88
0
143.88
$6,042.96
$0.00
$0.00
$6,042.96
158 10-116-30-01-0120
23-418-0120
1070 West
Shore Dr SW
Bonny E Hartung
14941 MN Hwy4
Cosmos MN 56228
Lot 12, Blockl
Isan View Heigis First
Addition
120
0
120.00
$5,040.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,040.00
159 10-116-30-01-0130
23-418-0130
1080 West
Shore Dr SW
Robert E. Geary
1080 Wert Shore DrSW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 13, Block 1
Island View Heights First
Addition
120
0
120.00
$5,040.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,040.00
160 10-116-30-01-0140
23-418-0140
1090 West
Shore Dr SW
Nam&Melissa Vo
1090 Wert Shore DrSW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 14, Blockl
island View Heights First
Addition
120
0
120.00
$5,040.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,040.00
161 10-116-30-01-0150
23-418-0150
1100 West
Shore Dr SW
Ting Yong Zheng
875 Cleveland Ave SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 15, Blockl
Isan View Heigis First
Addition
120
0
120.00
$5,040.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,040.00
162 10-116-30-01-0160
23-418-0160
1120 West
Shore Dr SW
David P& Zyvon no D la ngan
1120 West Shore Dr SW
Hutch inson MN 55350
Lot 16, Blockl
Isan View Heigis First
Addition
120
0
120.00
$5,040.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,040.00
163 10-116-30-01-0170
23-418-0170
1140 West
Shore Dr SW
Robert E King Jr
1140 West Shore Dr SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 17, Blockl
Island View Heights First
Addition
120
0
120.00
$5,040.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,040.00
164 10-116-30-01-0200
23-418-0200
1005 West
Shore Dr SW
William E&Mary G Ca risen
1005 West Shore Dr SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 1, 31ock3
Island View Heights First
Addition
129.51
0
129.51
$5,439.42
$0.00
$0.00
$5,439.42
165 10-116-30-01-0210
23-418-0210
1015 West
Shore Dr SW
Trevor & Shelly Reiten
1015 Wert Shore DrSW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 2, 31oc1,3
Island View Heights First
Addition
90.3
0
90.30
$3,792.60
$0.00
$0.00
$3,792.60
166 10-116-30-01-0220
23-418-0220
1025 West
Shore Dr SW
Jeffrey P&Rubin Starner
1025 Wert Shore DrSW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 3, 31oc1,3
Isan View Heigis First
Addition
90.3
0
90.30
$3,792.60
$0.00
$0.00
$3,792.60
167 10-116-30-01-0230
23-418-0230
1035 West
Shore Dr SW
Richa rd T&Wendy ) Ha ntge
1035 Wert Shore DrSW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 4, 31ock3
Isan View Heigis First
Addition
90.3
0
90.30
$3,792.60
$0.00
$0.00
$3,792.60
168 10-116-30-01-0240
23-418-0240
1045 West
Shore Dr SW
David L&Lisa Jo Byron
1045 West Shore Dr SW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 5, 31oc1,3
Island View Heights First
Addition
90.3
0
90.30
$3,792.60
$0.00
$0.00
$3,792.60
169 10-116-30-01-0250
23-418-0250
1055 West Shore DrSW
Christine M Kuball Trust
10 Hassan StNEew
PO Box 49
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 6& N 112 of Lot 7, Block 3
Heights First
Addition
168.37
0
168.37
$7,071.54
$0.00
$0.00
$7,071.54
170 10-116-30-01-0270
23-418-0270
1075 West
Shore Dr SW
Linda Ronucal
1075 Wert Shore DrSW
Hutchinson MN 55350
Lot 8& S 112 of Lot 7, Block 3
Island View Heights First
Addition
180
0
180.00
$7,560.00
$0.00
$0.00
$7,560.00
171 10-116-30-01-0280
23-418-0280
1085 West
Shore Dr SW
Lloyd Allen Trustee
1085 West Shore Dr SW
Hutch inson MN 55350
Lot 9, Block3
Island View Heights First
Addition
119.95
0
119.95
$5,037.90
$0.00
$0.00
$5,037.90
172 10-116-30-01-0290
23-418-0290
1095 West
Shore Dr SW
Russell &Wann Trettin
1095 West Shore Dr SW
Hutch inson MN 55350
Lot 10, Block3
Island View Heig is First
Addition
120
0
120.00
$5,040.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,040.00
173 10-116-30-01-0300
23-418-0300
1105 West
Shore Dr SW
Michael E& Wa nda Kaye Collins
1105 West Shore Dr SW
Hutch inson MN 55350
Lot 11, Blo, k3
Isan View Heig is First
Addition
120
0
120.00
$5,040.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,040.00
174 10-116-30-01-0310
23-418-0310
1125 West
Shore Dr SW
tavonno N&Allen H Ha nsen
1125 West Shore Dr SW
Hutch inson MN 55350
Lot 12, Block3
Isan View Heig is First
Addition
120
0
120.00
$5,040.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,040.00
175 10-116-30-01-0320
23-418-0320
1145 West
Shore Dr SW
GuyM&Beth A Caspers
1145 Wert Shore Dr SWHutchinson
MN 55350
Lot 13, Block3
Isla nd View Heights First
Addition
120
0
120.00
$5,040.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,040.00
ALTERNATE 1: West Shore Or SW - SUB-TOTAL
2,765.54
2,765.54
$116,152.68
$0.00
$0.00
$116,152.68
ALTERNATE 2: Grove
St SW -Alternate 2 -Deleted due to the Grove St Project being
cancelled.
TOTAL ASSESSMENT ROLL NO. SA5113 - UP16-01
15,225.97
3,165.90
12,060.07
$790,972.22
$164,626.80
$255,651.00
$626,182.94
Pagel of 6
CITY OF HUTCHINSON, 111 HASSAN ST SE, HUTCHINSON MN 55350 320-234-4209
BID TABULATION - CITY OF HUTCHINSON LETTING NO. 1/PROJECT NO. 16-01
2016 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM - PHASE 1
BID OPENING: 03/16/2016 AT 11:00 AM ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE $3,066,695.00 COMPLETION DATE: 06/14/2017
z
~
a
ti
z
a
r
w
}
a
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
Wm Mueller & Sons Inc
831 Park Ave
P O Box 247
Hamburg MN 55339
coryh@�mueller.com
952467-2720
fax 952-467-3894
R & R Excavating Inc
Brent Reiner
1149 Hwy 22 South
Hutchinson MN 55350
michelle@rrexcavating.net
320-587-5918
fax 320-587-1044
Duininck Inc
408 6th St
P O Box 208
Prinsburg MN 56281
estimator@duininck.com
320-978-6011
fax 320-9784978
BID PRICE BID TOTAL BID PRICE BID TOTAL BID PRICE I BID TOTAL BID PRICE I BID TOTAL
BASE BID
ALTERNATE 1
ALTERNATE
ALTERNATE 3
$1,847,087.45
$156,544.75
$317,464.80
$745,597.55
$1,598,993.79
$161,422.85
$280,197.71
$653,581.39
$1,785,720.90
$138,230.40
$317,044.83
$764,309.76
$1,858,622.60
$149,988.65
$298,232.70
$725,901.75
BASE BID
UNIT
QUANTITY
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
BID PRICE
BID TOTAL
BID PRICE
BID TOTAL
BID PRICE
BID TOTAL
1
2021.501
MOBILIZATION
LUMPSUM
1.00
$40,000.00
$40,000.00
$45000.00
$45,000.00
$8501.65
$8,501.65
$66500.00
$66,500.00
2
2101.502
CLEARING
TREE
37.00
$250.00
$9,250.00
$210.00
$7,770.00
$224.52
$8,307.24
$210.00
$7,770.00
3
2101.507
GRUBBING
TREE
37.00
$200.00
$7,400.00
$100.00
$3,700.00
$106.91
$3,955.67
$100.00
$3,700.00
4
2104.501
REMOVE WATER MAIN
LIN FT
249.00
$3.50
$871.50
$4.80
$1,195.20
$6.70
$1,668.30
$2.00
$498.00
5
2104.501
REMOVE SEWER PIPE STORM
LIN FT
931.00
$7.00
$6,517.00
$5.80
$5,399.80
$10.10
$9,403.10
$7.50
$6,982.50
6
2104.501
REMOVE SEWER PIPE SANITARY
LIN FT
196.00
$12.00
$2,352.00
$5.80
$1,136.80
$8.51
$1,667.96
$1.00
$196.00
7
2104.501
REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER
LIN FT
10070.00
$3.00
$30,210.00
$2.35
$23,664.50
$4.02
$40,481.40
$2.50
$25,175.00
8
2104.503
REMOVE CONCRETE WALK
SQ FT
1000.00
$1.00
$1,000.00
$0.50
$500.00
$1.44
$1,440.00
$0.65
$650.00
9
2104.505
REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT
SQ YD
1625.00
$6.85
$11,131.25
$3.65
$5,931.25
$7.98
$12,967.50
$5.50
$8,937.50
10
2104.505
REMOVE CONCRETE PAVEMENT
SQ YD
151.00
$9.00
$1,359.00
$5.00
$755.00
$25.76
$3,889.76
$10.00
$1,510.00
11
2104.509
REMOVE HYDRANT
EACH
8.00
$385.00
$3,080.00
$300.00
$2,400.00
$833.86
$6,670.88
$480.00
$3,840.00
12
2104.509
REMOVE GATE VALVE
EACH
11.00
$300.00
$3,300.00
$150.00
$1,650.00
$151.61
$1,667.71
$110.00
$1,210.00
13
2104.509
REMOVE GATE VALVE MANHOLE
EACH
3.00
$500.00
$1,500.00
$300.00
$900.00
$1,667.72
$5,003.16
$300.00
$900.00
14
2104.509
REMOVE CATCH BASIN
EACH
31.00
$350.00
$10,850.00
$100.00
$3,100.00
$238.84
$7,404.04
$150.00
$4,650.00
15
2104.509
REMOVE MANHOLE STORM
EACH
5.00
$280.00
$1,400.00
$300.00
$1,500.00
$404.11
$2,020.55
$300.00
$1,500.00
16
2104.509
REMOVE MANHOLE SANITARY
EACH
3.00
$350.00
$1,050.00
$400.00
$1,200.00
$951.45
$2,854.35
$390.00
$1,170.00
17
2104.511
SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT FULL DEPTH
LIN FT
1263.00
$7.50
$9,472.50
$5.00
$6,315.00
$6.94
$8,765.22
$4.00
$5,052.00
18
2104.513
SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT FULL DEPTH
LIN FT
993.00
$3.50
$3,475.50
$2.50
$2,482.50
$2.65
$2,631.45
$2.00
$1,986.00
19
2104.523
SALVAGE CASTING
EACH
40.00
$75.00
$3,000.00
$50.00
$2,000.00
$28.66
$1,146.40
$45.00
$1,800.00
20
2104.523
SALVAGE SIGN
EACH
16.00
$75.00
$1,200.00
$50.00
$800.00
$37.42
$598.72
$55.00
$880.00
21
2105.501
COMMON EXCAVATION EV P
CUYD
5565.00
$12.25
$68,171.25
$11.00
$61,215.00
$12.62
$70,230.30
$13.50
$75,127.50
22
2105.533
SALVAGED AGGREGATE EV
CUYD
4804.00
$9.00
$43,236.00
$4.60
$22,098.40
$6.83
$32,811.32
$11.50
$55,246.00
23
2105.541
SUBGRADE CORRECTION- AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 EV
CUYD
1435.00
$24.00
$34,440.00
$31.25
$44,843.75
$25.01
$35,889.35
$12.00
$17,220.00
24
2105.604
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE 5
SQ YD
22682.00
$1.65
$37,425.30
$1.65
$37,425.30
$1.35
$30,620.70
$1.35
$30,620.70
25
2105.604
SOIL STABILIZATION GEOGRID
SQ YD
22682.00
$5.15
$116,812.30
$3.45
$78,252.90
$3.57
$80,974.74
$3.25
$73,716.50
26
2112.604
SUBGRADE/BASE PREPARATION
SQ YD
22682.00
$2.25
$51,034.50
$1.20
$27,218.40
$2.41
$54,663.62
$1.55
$35,157.10
27
2211.503
AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C P
CUYD
2515.00
$29.00
$72,935.00
$29.55
$74,318.25
$28.28
$71,124.20
$36.00
$90,540.00
28
2211.607
AGGREGATE BASE CV FROM STOCKPILE
CU YD
5050.00
$10.00
$50,500.00
$10.30
$52,015.00
$8.08
$40,804.00
$14.00
$70,700.00
29
1 2215.501
FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION
SQ YD
21573.00
$1.85
$39,910.05
$0.70
$15,101.10
$0.62
$13,375.26
$1.50
$32,359.50
30
2331.603
JOINT ADHESIVE
LIN FT
10365.00
$0.85
$8,810.25
$0.67
$6,944.55
$0.63
$6,529.95
$0.70
$7,255.50
31
2357.502
BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT
GALLON
1235.00
$3.25
$4,013.75
$3.50
$4,322.50
$2.52
$3,112.20
$3.00
$3,705.00
32
2360.503
TYPE SPWEA240C WEARING COURSE MIXTURE -STREET 1%"
SQ YD
19175.00
$7.25
$139,018.75
$5.95
$114,091.25
$6.30
$120,802.50
$7.00
$134,225.00
33
2360.503
TYPE SPNWB230C NON -WEARING COURSE MIXTURE -STREET 2%"
SQ YD
19175.00
$11.35
$217,636.25
$10.05
$192,708.75
$9.56
$183,313.00
$10.50
$201,337.50
34
2502.521
6" PVC PIPE DRAIN
LIN FT
22.00
$22.00
$484.00
$25.40
$558.80
$42.10
$926.20
$28.00
$616.00
35
2502.541
4" PERF PVC PIPE DRAIN
LIN FT
9485.00
$5.40
$51,219.00
$3.90
$36,991.50
$4.06
$38,509.10
$4.35
$41,259.75
36
2502.602
4" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT
EACH
23.00
$145.00
$3,335.00
$100.00
$2,300.00
$131.17
$3,016.91
$235.00
$5,405.00
37
1 2502.602
4" PVC PIPE DRAIN SERVICE
EACH
96.00
$250.00
$24,000.00
$225.00
$21,600.00
$19.33
$1,855.68
$300.00
$28,800.00
38
2502.602
CONNECT PIPE DRAIN INTO EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURE
EACH
1 2.00
$150.00
$300.00
$210.00
$420.00
$1,667.72
$3,335.44
$150.00
$300.00
39
2503.511
6" PVC PIPE SEWER
LIN FT
25.00
$22.00
$550.00
$33.20
$830.00
$38.64
$966.00
$35.00
$8770-0-
40
2503.511
8" DUCTILE IRON PIPE SEWER
LIN FT
95.00
$49.00
$4,655.00
$56.50
$5,367.50
$100.22
$9,520.90
$110.00
$10,450.00
41
2503.511
8" PVC SANITARY SEWER MAIN PIPE
LIN FT
80.00
$36.00
$2,880.00
$49.70
$3,976.00
$90.40
$7,232.00
$90.00
$7,200.00
42
2503.541
12" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V
LIN FT
1018.00
$32.00
$32,576.00
$34.20
$34,815.60
$47.38
$48,232.84
$42.00
$42,756.00
43
2503.541
18" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V
LIN FT
391.00
$48.00
$18,768.00
$41.40
$16,187.40
$41.29
$16,144.39
$48.00
$18,768.00
44
2503.602
CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER SERVICE
EACH
1.00
$450.001
$450.00
$263.00
$263.00
$1,262.88
$1,262.88
$325.00
$325.00
45
2503.602
CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
EACH
9.00
$450.00
$4,050.00
$369.00
$3,321.00
$71.20
$640.80
$900.00
$8,100.00
46
2503.602
CONNECT INTO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER STRUCTURE
EACH
2.00
$350.00
$700.00
$450.00
$900.00
$1,772.50
$3,545.00
$3,150.00
$6,300.00
47
2503.602
CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER
EACH
21.00
$b3b.UUI
$11,23b.UUI
$390.001
$8, 1 9U.UU1
$835.85
$17,552.85
$1,030.00
$21,630.00
Pagel of 6
Page2 of 6
CITY OF HUTCHINSON, 111 HASSAN ST SE, HUTCHINSON MN 55350 320-234-4209
BID TABULATION - CITY OF HUTCHINSON LETTING NO. 1/PROJECT NO. 16-01
2016 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM - PHASE 1
BID OPENING: 03/16/2016 AT 11:00 AM ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE $3,066,695.00 COMPLETION DATE: 06/14/2017
z
~
a
ti
z
a
r
w
}
a
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
BID PRICE BID TOTAL
Wm Mueller & Sons Inc
831 Park Ave
P O Box 247
Hamburg MN 55339
coryh@�mueller.com
952467-2720
fax 952-467-3894
BID PRICE BID TOTAL
R & R Excavating Inc
Brent Reiner
1149 Hwy 22 South
Hutchinson MN 55350
michelle@rrexcavating.net
320-587-5918
fax 320-587-1044
BID PRICE BID TOTAL
Duininck Inc
408 6th St
P O Box 208
Prinsburg MN 56281
estimator@duininck.com
320-978-6011
fax 320-978-4978
BID PRICE BID TOTAL
48
2503.602
CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER SPECIAL
EACH
2.00
$450.00
$900.00
$305.00
$610.00
$1774.39
$3,548.78
$975.00
$1,950.00
49
2503.602
CONNECT INTO EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURE
EACH
6.00
$585.00
$3,510.00
$400.00
$2,400.00
$2501.58
$15,009.48
$1565.00
$9,390.00
50
2503.603
CLEAN AND VIDEO TAPE PIPE SEWER
LIN FT
6253.00
$1.50
$9,379.50
$1.10
$6,878.30
$1.12
$7,003.36
$1.10
$6,878.30
51
2504.601
TEMPORARY WATER SERVICE
LUMPSUM
1.00
$3,500.00
$3,500.00
$1000.00
$1,000.00
$7504.75
$7,504.75
$500.00
$500.00
52
2504.602
CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN
EACH
25.00
$1,000.00
$25,000.00
$770.00
$19,250.00
$2,585.70
$64,642.50
$1,250.00
$31,250.00
53
2504.602
HYDRANT
EACH
8.00
$4,200.00
$33,600.00
$3555.00
$28,440.00
$6621.81
$52,974.48
$5775.00
$46,200.00
54
2504.602
ADJUST GATE VALVE
EACH
3.00
$325.00
$975.001
$345.00
$1,035.00
$578.20
$1,734.601
$300.00
$900.00
55 1
2504.602
ADJUST CURB STOP
EACH
1.00
$200.00
$200.00
$150.00
$150.00
$457.26
$457.26
$300.00
7300.00
56
2504.602
4" GATE VALVE
EACH
3.00
$2,100.00
$6,300.00
$1,169.00
$3,507.00
$2,555.64
$7,666.92
$2,700.00
$8,100.00
57
2504.602
6" GATE VALVE
EACH
16.00
$2,300.00
$36,800.00
$1,471.00
$23,536.00
$2,737.51
$43,800.16
$2,765.00
$44,240.00
58
2504.602
8" GATE VALVE
EACH
1.00
$2,200.00
$2,200.00
$2,440.00
$2,440.00
$2,378.24
$2,378.24
$4,130.00
$4,130.00
59
2504.602
12" GATE VALVE
EACH
2.00
$3,200.00
$6,400.00
$3255.00
$6,510.00
$6141.62
$12,283.24
$5460.00
$10,920.00
60
2504.602
CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER SERVICE
EACH
3.00
$250.00
$750.00
$473.00
$1,419.00
$1426.58
$4,279.74
$945.00
$2,835.00
61
2504.603
1" TYPE KCOPPER PIPE
LIN FT
165.00
$18.50
$3,052.50
$33.80
$5,577.00
$20.19
$3,331.35
$20.00
$3,300.00
62
2504.603
4" WATERMAIN DUCTILE IRON CL 52
LIN FT
8.00
$60.00
$480.00
$72.30
$578.40
$136.71
$1,093.68
$100.00
$800.00
63 1
2504.603
6" WATERMAIN DUCTILE IRON CL 52
LIN FT
122.00
$40.00
$4,880.00
$65.90
$8,039.80
$46.36
$5,655.92
$96.00
$11,712.00
64
2504.603
8" WATERMAIN DUCTILE IRON CL 52
LIN FT
24.00
$70.00
$1,680.00
$72.30
$1,735.20
$95.17
$2,284.08
$103.00
$2,472.00
65
2504.603
12" WATERMAIN DUCTILE IRON CL 52
LIN FT
23.00
$75.00
$1,725.00
$85.00
$1,955.00
$112.67
$2,591.41
$120.00
$2,760.00
66
2504.608
DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS
POUND
749.00
$8.95
$6,703.55
$14.50
$10,860.50
$8.08
$6,051.92
$7.00
$5,243.00
67
2506.502
CONSTRUCT MANHOLE DESIGN 4007
EACH
3.00
$4,600.00
$13,800.00
$3062.00
$9,186.00
$2817.76
$8,453.28
$4650.00
$13,950.00
68
2506.502
CATCH BASIN TYPE
EACH
32.00
$2,100.00
$67,200.00
$1,244.00
$39,808.00
$1,304.55
$41,745.60
$1,875.00
$60,000.00
69
2506.502
CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 48-4020
EACH
5.00
$2,800.00
$14,000.00
$2824.00
$14,120.00
$2023.40
$10,117.00
$2900.00
$14,500.00
70
2506.502
CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 72-4020
EACH
1.00
$4,000.00
$4,000.00
$7,155.00
$7,155.00
$7,900.06
$7,900.06
$5,500.00
$5,500.00
71
2506.502
CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 84-4020
EACH
1.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$7968.00
$7,968.00
$9404.92
$9,404.92
$6500.00
$6,500.00
72
2506.502
CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 96-4020
EACH
1.00
$6,000.00
$6,000.00
$10,182.00
$10,182.00
$12,279.20
$12,279.20
$8,765.00
$8,765.00
73
2506.516
CASTING ASSEMBLY
EACH
16.00
$650.00
$10,400.00
$417.00
$6,672.00
$2028.34
$32,453.44
$1035.00
$16,560.00
74
2506.522
ADJUST FRAME AND RING CASTING
EACH
26.00
$675.00
$17,550.00
$735.00
$19,110.00
$501.74
$13,045.24
$760.00
$19,760.00
75
2506.602
RECONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE
EACH
1.00
$700.00
$700.00
$800.00
$800.00
$3335.43
$3,335.43
$2500.00
$2,500.00
76
2521.501
4" CONCRETE WALK
SQ FT
11843.00
$3.75
$44,411.25
$3.65
$43,226.95
$3.58
$42,397.94
$3.75
$44,411.25
77
2521.501
6" CONCRETE WALK
SQ FT
1000.00
$8.90
$8,900.00
$11.77
$11,770.00
$12.26
$12,260.00
$11.80
$11,800.00
78
2531.501
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER DESIGN B618
LIN FT
10300.00
$11.50
$118,450.00
$11.64
$119,892.00
$13.57
$139,771.00
$11.70
$120,510.00
79
2531.507
6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT
SQ YD
1941.00
$51.00
$98,991.00
$48.16
$93,478.56
$46.51
$90,275.91
$47.00
$91,227.00
80
2531.507
6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT EXSPOSED AGGREGATE
SQ YD
15.00
$70.00
$1,050.00
$63.76
$956.40
$63.39
$950.85
$63.00
$945.00
81
2531.618
TRUNCATED DOMES
SQ FT
136.00
$38.00
$5,168.00
$31.05
$4,222.80
$33.20
$4,515.20
$32.00
$4,352.00
82
2545.501
INSTALL ELECTRIC LIGHT SYSTEM
LUMPSUM
1.00
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
$30,840.00
$30,840.00
$16,813.39
$16,813.39
$16,000.00
$16,000.00
83
2563.601
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LUMPSUM
1.00
$12,000.00
$12,000.00
$12,960.00
$12,960.00
$7,590.84
$7,590.84
$7,500.00
$7,500.00
84
2564.531
SIGN PANELS TYPE
SQ FT
41.75
$50.00
$2,087.50
$32.50
$1,356.88
$49.18
$2,053.27
$50.00
$2,087.50
85
2564.537
INSTALL SIGN
EACH
16.00
$200.00
$3,200.00
$100.00
$1,600.00
$106.91
$1,710.56
$100.00
$1,600.00
86
2571.502
DECIDUOUS TREE 1.5' CAL CONT
TREE
2.00
$375.00
$750.00
$442.00
$884.00
$472.56
$945.12
$445.00
$890.00
87 1
2571.502
DECIDUOUS TREE 2"CAL CONT
TREE
8.00
$400.00
$3,200.00
$616.00
$4,928.00
$658.59
$5,268.72
$620.00
$4,960.00
88
2571.502
DECIDUOUS TREE 2"CAL B&B
TREE
5.00
$400.00
$2,000.00
$615.00
$3,075.00
$657.52
$3,287.60
$620.00
$3,100.00
89
2573.530
STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION
EACH
49.00
$100.00
$4,900.00
$100.00
$4,900.00
$106.91
$5,238.59
$95.00
$4,655.00
90
2574.525
COMMON TOPSOIL BORROW L
CUYD
1015.00
$25.00
$25,375.00
$28.50
$28,927.50
$28.98
$29,414.70
$26.00
$26,390.00
91
2575.505
SEEDING HYDROSEED
ACRE
1.84
$9,500.00
$17,480.00
$3500.00
$6,440.00
$3741.97
$6,885.22
$3500.00
$6,440.00
92
2575.570
RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD
ACRE
1.84
$5,000.00
$9,200.00
$2,500.00
$4,600.00
$2,672.83
$4,918.01
$2,500.00
$4,600.00
93
2582.503
CROSSWALK MARKING-EPDXY
SQ FT
75.00
$9.00
$675.00
$4.50
$337.50
$4.81
$360.75
$4.50
$337.50
TOTAL BASE BID
$1,847,087.45
$1,598,993.79
$1,785,720.90
$1,858,622.60
Page2 of 6
Page3 of 6
CITY OF HUTCHINSON, 111 HASSAN ST SE, HUTCHINSON MN 55350 320-234-4209
BID TABULATION - CITY OF HUTCHINSON LETTING NO. 1/PROJECT NO. 16-01
2016 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM - PHASE 1
BID OPENING: 03/16/2016 AT 11:00 AM ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE $3,066,695.00 COMPLETION DATE: 06/14/2017
z
~
a
ti
z
a
r
w
}
a
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
BID PRICE BID TOTAL
Wm Mueller & Sons Inc
831 Park Ave
P O Box 247
Hamburg MN 55339
coryh@�mueller.com
952467-2720
fax 952-467-3894
BID PRICE BID TOTAL
R & R Excavating Inc
Brent Reiner
1149 Hwy 22 South
Hutchinson MN 55350
michelle@rrexcavating.net
320-587-5918
fax 320-587-1044
BID PRICE BID TOTAL
Duininck Inc
408 6th St
P O Box 208
Prinsburg MN 56281
estimator@duininck.com
320-978-6011
fax 320-978-4978
BID PRICE BID TOTAL
ALTERNATE 1
UNIT
QUANTITY
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
BID PRICE
BID TOTAL
BID PRICE
BID TOTAL
BID PRICE
BID TOTAL
1
2021.501
MOBILIZATION
LUMPSUM
1.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$2000.00
$2,000.00
$3711.18
$3,711.18
$7500.00
$7,500.00
2
2104.501
REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER
LIN FT
280.00
$3.00
$840.00
$5.50
$1,540.00
$3.78
$1,058.40
$2.85
$798.00
3
2104.513
SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT FULL DEPTH
LIN FT
56.00
$3.50
$196.00
$2.50
$140.00
$4.16
$232.96
$2.50
$140.00
4
2105.533
SALVAGED AGGREGATE EV
CUYD
475.00
$9.00
$4,275.00
$6.00
$2,850.00
$10.40
$4,940.00
$13.25
$6,293.75
5
2105.541
SUBGRADE CORRECTION- AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5)EV
CUYD
285.00
$24.00
$6,840.001
$33.00
$9,405.00
$34.86
$9,935.101
$12.00
$3,420.00
6
2112.604
SUBGRADE/BASE PREPARATION
SQ YD
4315.00
$2.25
$9,708.75
$2.25
$9,708.75
$2.74
$11,823.10
$1.55
$6,688.25
7
2215.501
FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION
SQ YD
4315.00
$1.85
$7,982.75
$0.70
$3,020.50
$0.78
$3,365.70
$2.85
$12,297.75
8
2331.603
JOINT ADHESIVE
LIN FT
2775.00
$0.85
$2,358.75
$0.67
$1,859.25
$0.63
$1,748.25
$0.70
$1,942.50
9
2357.502
BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT
GALLON
260.00
$3.25
$845.00
$3.50
$910.00
$2.82
$733.20
$3.00
$780.00
10
2360.503
TYPE SPWEA240C WEARING COURSE MIXTURE -STREET 1%"
SQ YD
4315.00
$7.25
$31,283.75
$6.35
$27,400.25
$6.35
$27,400.25
$6.00
$25,890.00
11
2360.503
TYPE SPNWB230C NON -WEARING COURSE MIXTURE -STREET 2%"
SQ YD
4315.00
$11.35
$48,975.25
$10.70
$46,170.50
$9.62
$41,510.30
$9.50
$40,992.50
12
2502.541
4" PERF PVC PIPE DRAIN
LIN FT
2765.00
$5.40
$14,931.00
$10.70
$29,585.50
$4.29
$11,861.85
$7.00
$19,355.00
13
2502.602
4" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT
EACH
2.00
$145.00
$290.00
$350.00
$700.00
$281.08
$562.161
$300.00
$600.00
14 1
2502.602
4" PVC PIPE DRAIN SERVICE
EACH
22.00
$250.00
$5,500.00
$450.00
$9,900.00
$89.24
$1,963.281
$350.00
$7,700.00
15
2502.602
CONNECT PIPE DRAIN INTO EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURE
EACH
6.00
$150.00
$900.00
$250.00
$1,500.00
$246.71
$1,480.26
$150.00
$900.00
16
2503.603
CLEAN AND VIDEO TAPE PIPE SEWER
LIN FT
1769.00
$1.50
$2,653.50
$1.10
$1,945.90
$1.13
$1,998.97
$1.10
$1,945.90
17
2506.522
ADJUST FRAMEAND RING CASTING
EACH
5.00
$675.00
$3,375.00
$735.00
$3,675.00
$486.11
$2,430.55
$760.00
$3,800.00
18
2531.501
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER DESIGNS
LIN FT
280.00
$18.00
$5,040.00
$16.49
$4,617.20
$21.22
$5,941.60
$16.50
$4,620.00
19
2563.601
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LUMPSUM
1.00
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
$966.00
$966.00
$900.00
$900.00
20
2573.530
STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION
EACH
4.00
$100.00
$400.001
$100.001
$400.00
$107.33
$429.32
$95.00
$380.00
21
2574.525
COMMON TOPSOIL BORROW L
CU YD
20.00
$25.00
$500.00
$28.50
$570.00
$71.34
$1,426.80
$26.00
$520.00
22
2575.505
SODDING TYPE LAWN
SQ YD
300.00
$8.00
$2,400.00
$8.00
$2,400.00
$8.59
$2,577.00
$8.00
$2,400.00
23
2575.570
RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD
ACRE
0.05
$5,000.00
$250.00
$2,500.001
$125.00
$2,683.40
$134.17
$2,500.00
$125.00
TOTAL ALTERNATE 1
$156,544.75
$161,422.85
$138,230.40
$149,988.65
ALTERNATE 2
UNIT
QUANTITY
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
BID PRICE
BID TOTAL
BID PRICE
BID TOTAL
BID PRICE
BID TOTAL
1
2021.501
MOBILIZATION
LUMPSUM
1.00
$6,000.00
$6,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5555.90
$5,555.90
$6500.00
$6,500.00
2
2101.502
CLEARING
TREE
7.00
$250.00
$1,750.00
$240.00
$1,680.00
$257.64
$1,803.48
$240.00
$1,680.00
3
2101.507
GRUBBING
TREE
7.00
$200.00
$1,400.00
$100.00
$700.00
$107.35
$751.45
$100.00
$700.00
4
2104.501
REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER
LIN FT
1570.00
$3.00
$4,710.00
$2.35
$3,689.50
$4.29
$6,735.30
$2.80
$4,396.00
5
2104.503
REMOVE CONCRETE WALK
SQ FT
6510.00
$1.00
$6,510.00
$0.50
$3,255.00
$1.01
$6,575.10
$0.65
$4,231.50
6
2104.505
REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT
SQ YD
15.00
$6.85
$102.75
$20.00
$300.00
$38.62
$579.30
$7.00
$105.00
7
2104.505
REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT
SQ YD
14.00
$2.85
$39.90
$20.00
$280.00
$41.38
$579.32
$2.80
$39.20
8
2104.509
REMOVE SIGN
EACH
4.00
$75.00
$300.00
$50.00
$200.00
$59.04
$236.16
$55.00
$220.00
9
2104.509
REMOVE BOLLARDS
EACH
1.00
$50.00
$50.00
$100.00
$100.00
$230.61
$230.61
$300.00
$300.00
10
2104.511
SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT FULL DEPTH
LIN FT
11.00
$7.50
$82.50
$20.00
$220.00
$20.79
$228.69
$4.00
$44.00
11
2104.513
SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT FULL DEPTH
LIN FT
95.00
$3.50
$332.50
$2.50
$237.50
$7.22
$685.90
$2.00
$190.00
12
2104.523
SALVAGE CASTING
EACH
1.00
$75.00
$75.00
$100.00
$100.00
$199.26
$199.26
$45.00
$45.00
13
2104.523
SALVAGE SIGN
EACH
4.00
$75.00
$300.00
$50.00
$200.00
$59.04
$236.16
$55.00
$220.00
14 1
2104.601
RELOCATE CIVIL DEFENSE SIREN
EACH
1.00
$1,200.00
$1,200.00
$1,120.00
$1,120.00
$2,340.57
$2,340.57
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
15
2104.618
SALVAGE BRICK PAVERS
SQ FT
12.00
$8.00
$96.00
$10.00
$120.00
$38.44
$461.28
$40.00
$480.00
16
2105.501
COMMON EXCAVATION EV P
CUYD
1455.00
$12.25
$17,823.75
$12.00
$17,460.00
$12.60
$18,333.00
$13.25
$19,278.75
17
2105.533
SALVAGED AGGREGATE EV
CUYD
859.00
$9.00
$7,731.00
$5.50
$4,724.50
$10.87
$9,337.33
$11.50
$9,878.50
18
2105.541
SUBGRADE CORRECTION- AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 EV
CUYD
280.00
$24.00
$6,720.00
$33.00
$9,240.00
$31.28
$8,758.40
$12.00
$3,360.00
19
2105.604
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE 5
SQ YD
4730.00
$1.65
$7,804.50
$1.65
$7,804.50
$1.58
$7,473.40
$1.35
$6,385.50
20
2105.604
SOIL STABILIZATION GEOGRID
SQ YD
4730.00
$5.15
$24,359.50
$3.45
$16,318.50
$3.69
$17,453.70
$3.25
$15,372.50
21
2112.604
SUBGRADE/BASE PREPARATION
SQ YD
4730.00
$2.25
$10,642.50
$1.20
$5,676.00
$3.07
$14,521.10
$1.55
$7,331.50
22
2211.503
AGGREGATEBASE CLASS 5 C P
CUYD
660.00
$29.00
$19,140.00
$30.25
$19,965.00
$25.28
$16,684.80
$30.50
$20,130.00
23
2211.607
AGGREGATE BASE CV FROM STOCKPILE
CU YD
918.00
$10.00
$9,180.00
$10.75
$9,868.50
$10.42
$9,565.56
$13.50
$12,393.00
24
2215.501
FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION
SQ YD
3847.00
$1.85
$7,116.95
$0.70
$2,692.90
$0.75
$2,885.25
$1.00
$3,847.00
25
2331.603
JOINT ADHESIVE
LIN FT
1670.00
$0.85
$1,419.50
$0.67
$1,118.90
$0.63
$1,052.10
$0.70
$1,169.00
26
2357.502
BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT
GALLON
260.00
$3.25
$845.00
$3.50
$910.00
$2.82
$733.20
$3.00
$780.00
27
2360.503
TYPE SPWEA240C WEARING COURSE MIXTURE -STREET 1%"
SQ YD
4187.00
$7.25
$30,355.75
$5.95
$24,912.65
$6.33
$26,503.71
$6.00
$25,122.00
Page3 of 6
Page4 of 6
CITY OF HUTCHINSON, 111 HASSAN ST SE, HUTCHINSON MN 55350 320-234-4209
BID TABULATION - CITY OF HUTCHINSON LETTING NO. 1/PROJECT NO. 16-01
2016 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM - PHASE 1
BID OPENING: 03/16/2016 AT 11:00 AM ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE $3,066,695.00 COMPLETION DATE: 06/14/2017
z
~
a
ti
z
a
r
w
}
a
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
BID PRICE BID TOTAL
Wm Mueller & Sons Inc
831 Park Ave
P O Box 247
Hamburg MN 55339
coryh@�mueller.com
952467-2720
fax 952-467-3894
BID PRICE BID TOTAL
R & R Excavating Inc
Brent Reiner
1149 Hwy 22 South
Hutchinson MN 55350
michelle@rrexcavating.net
320-587-5918
fax 320-587-1044
BID PRICE BID TOTAL
Duininck Inc
408 6th St
P O Box 208
Prinsburg MN 56281
estimator@duininck.com
320-978-6011
fax 320-978-4978
BID PRICE BID TOTAL
28
2360.503
TYPE SPNWB230C NON -WEARING COURSE MIXTURE -STREET 2%"
SQ YD
4187.00
$11.35
$47,522.45
$10.05
$42,079.35
$9.64
$40,362.68
$9.50
$39,776.50
29
2502.541
4" PERF PVC PIPE DRAIN
LIN FT
1520.00
$5.40
$8,208.00
$3.90
$5,928.00
$4.60
$6,992.00
$4.65
$7,068.00
30
2502.602
4" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT
EACH
1.00
$145.00
$145.00
$100.00
$100.00
$130.56
$130.56
$225.00
$225.00
31
2502.602
4" PVC PIPE DRAIN SERVICE
EACH
11.00
$250.00
$2,750.00
$225.00
$2,475.00
$109.56
$1,205.16
$315.00
$3,465.00
32
2502.602
CONNECT PIPE DRAIN INTO EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURE
EACH
6.00
$150.00
$900.00
$250.00
$1,500.00
$282.40
$1,694.40
$150.00
$900.00
33
2503.541
12" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V
LIN FT
15.00
$32.00
$480.00
$83.00
$1,245.00
$70.40
$1,056.00
$50.00
$750.00
34
2503.602
CONNECT INTO EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURE
EACH
1.00
$585.00
$585.001
$410.00
$410.00
$2,609.23
$2,609.23
$1,450.00
$1,450.00
35 1
2506.502
CATCH BASIN TYPE
EACH
1.00
$2,100.00
$2,100.00
$1524.00
$1,524.00
$1352.50
$1,352.50
$2850.00
$2,850.00
36
2506.516
CASTING ASSEMBLY
EACH
1.00
$650.00
$650.00
$417.00
$417.00
$705.64
$705.64
$850.00
$850.00
37
2506.522
ADJUST FRAME AND RING CASTING
EACH
2.00
$675.00
$1,350.00
$735.00
$1,470.00
$778.49
$1,556.98
$535.00
$1,070.00
38
2521.501
4" CONCRETE WALK
SQ FT
7725.00
$3.75
$28,968.75
$3.65
$28,196.25
$4.20
$32,445.00
$3.75
$28,968.75
39
2521.501
6" CONCRETE WALK
SQ FT
450.00
$8.90
$4,005.00
$11.77
$5,296.50
$15.55
$6,997.50
$11.80
$5,310.00
40
2531.501
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER DESIGN B618
LIN FT
1570.00
$11.50
$18,055.00
$11.64
$18,274.80
$14.04
$22,042.80
$11.70
$18,369.00
41
2531.507
6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT
SQ YD
18.00
$51.00
$918.00
$52.16
$938.88
$73.58
$1,324.44
$50.00
$900.00
42
2531.618
TRUNCATED DOMES
SQ FT
32.00
$38.00
$1,216.00
$31.05
$993.60
$33.33
$1,066.56
$32.00
$1,024.00
43
2540.618
INSTALL BRICK PAVERS
SQ FT
10.00
$25.00
$250.00
$50.00
$500.00
$48.41
$484.10
$75.00
$750.00
44
2545.501
INSTALL ELECTRIC LIGHT SYSTEM
LUMPSUM
1.00
$3,500.00
$3,500.00
$5,860.00
$5,860.00
$2,340.57
$2,340.57
$4,400.00
$4,400.00
45
2563.601
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LUMPSUM
1.00
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$1000.00
$1,000.00
$1180.87
$1,180.87
$1500.00
$1,500.00
46
2564.531
SIGN PANELS TYPE C
SQ FT
27.75
$50.00
$1,387.50
$32.50
$901.88
$48.31
$1,340.60
$50.00
$1,387.50
47
2564.537
INSTALL SIGN
EACH
4.00
$200.00
$800.00
$100.00
$400.00
$101.99
$407.96
$100.00
$400.00
48
2571.502
DECIDUOUS TREE 1" CAL CONT
TREE
1 1.00
$250.00
$250.00
$243.00
$243.00
$260.86
$260.86
$245.00
$245.00
49
2571.502
DECIDUOUS TREE 1.5" CAL CONT
TREE
2.00
$375.00
$750.00
$475.00
$950.00
$509.92
$1,019.84
$475.00
$950.00
50
2571.502
DECIDUOUS TREE 2"CAL CONT
TREE
4.00
$400.00
$1,600.00
$740.00
$2,960.00
$794.40
$3,177.60
$740.00
$2,960.00
51
2571.502
DECIDUOUS TREE 1.5" CAL B&B
TREE
2.00
$375.00
$750.00
$294.00
$588.00
$315.62
$631.24
$300.00
$600.00
52
2571.502
DECIDUOUS TREE 2"CAL B&B
TREE
5.00
$400.00
$2,000.00
$660.00
$3,300.00
$708.52
$3,542.60
$660.00
$3,300.00
53
2573.530
STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION
EACH
5.00
$100.00
$500.00
$100.00
$500.00
$107.35
$536.75
$95.00
$475.00
54
2574.525
COMMON TOPSOIL BORROW L
CUYD
65.00
$25.00
$1,625.00
$28.50
$1,852.50
$21.59
$1,403.35
$26.00
$1,690.00
55
2575.505
SODDING TYPE LAWN
SQ YD
625.00
$8.00
$5,000.00
$6.50
$4,062.50
$6.98
$4,362.50
$6.50
$4,062.50
56
2575.570
RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD
ACRE
0.15
$5,000.00
$750.00
$2,500.00
$375.00
$2,683.80
$402.57
$2,500.00
$375.00
57
2582.502
PAVTMSSG SPECIAL -EPDXY
EACH
20.00
$85.00
$1,700.00
$165.00
$3,300.00
$177.13
$3,542.60
$165.00
$3,300.00
58
2582.502
4" SOLID LINE YELLOW -EPDXY
LIN FT
1360.00
$2.25
$3,060.00
$2.20
$2,992.00
$2.36
$3,209.60
$2.20
$2,992.00
59
2582.502
12" SOLID LINE YELLOW-EPDXY
LIN FT
700.00
$6.00
$4,200.00
$7.10
$4,970.00
$7.62
$5,334.00
$7.10
$4,970.00
60
2582.503
CROSSWALK MARKING-EPDXY
SQ FT
378.00
$9.00
$3,402.00
$4.50
$1,701.00
$4.83
$1,825.74
$4.50
$1,701.00
TOTAL ALTERNATE 2
$317,464.80
$280,197.71
$317,044.83
$298,232.70
ALTERNATE 3
UNIT
QUANTITY
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
BID PRICE
BID TOTAL
BID PRICE
BID TOTAL
BID PRICE
BID TOTAL.
1
2021.501
MOBILIZATION
LUMPSUM
1.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$5000.00
$5,000.00
$5661.18
$5,661.18
$1500.00
$1,500.00
2
2104.501
REMOVE WATER MAIN
LIN FT
30.00
$3.50
$105.00
$4.00
$120.00
$27.67
$830.10
$2.00
$60.00
3
2104.501
ABATE ASBESTOS -CONTAINING PIPE
LIN FT
1515.00
$20.00
$30,300.00
$17.85
$27,042.75
$4.25
$6,438.75
$16.00
$24,240.00
4
2104.501
REMOVE SEWER PIPE STORM
LIN FT
900.00
$7.00
$6,300.00
$6.00
$5,400.00
$9.22
$8,298.00
$7.00
$6,300.00
5
2104.501
REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER
LIN FT
3900.00
$3.00
$11,700.00
$2.35
$9,165.00
$3.62
$14,118.00
$2.80
$10,920.00
6
2104.503
REMOVE CONCRETE WALK
SQ FT
360.00
$1.00
$360.00
$0.50
$180.00
$1.55
$558.00
$1.00
$360.00
7
2104.505
REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT
SQ YD
665.00
$6.85
$4,555.25
$3.65
$2,427.25
$4.24
$2,819.60
$7.00
$4,655.00
8
2104.505
REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT
SQ YD
13.00
$2.85
$37.05
$3.65
$47.45
$42.93
$558.09
$6.00
$78.00
9
2104.509
REMOVE HYDRANT
EACH
2.00
$385.00
$770.00
$300.00
$600.00
$415.02
$830.04
$465.00
$930.00
10
2104.509
REMOVE GATE VALVE
EACH
1.00
$300.00
$300.00
$150.00
$150.00
$208.49
$208.49
$110.00
$110.00
11
2104.509
REMOVE CATCH BASIN
EACH
14.00
$350.00
$4,900.00
$200.00
$2,800.00
$207.51
$2,905.14
$185.00
$2,590.00
12
2104.509
REMOVE MANHOLE STORM
EACH
3.00
$280.00
$840.00
$300.00
$900.00
$276.68
$830.04
$300.00
$900.00
13
2104.509
REMOVE MANHOLE SANITARY
EACH
1.00
$350.00
$350.00
$300.00
$300.00
$415.03
$415.03
$380.00
$380.00
14
2104.513
SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT FULL DEPTH
LIN FT
639.00
$7.50
$4,792.50
$5.00
$3,195.00
$5.46
$3,488.94
$4.00
$2,556.00
15
2104.513
ISAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT FULL DEPTH
LIN FT
286.00
$3.50
$1,001.00
$2.50
$715.00
$3.82
$1,092.52
$2.001
$572.00
16
2104.523
SALVAGE CASTING
EACH
15.00
$75.00
$1,125.00
$50.00
$750.00
$38.03
$570.45
$45.00
$675.00
17
2104.523
SALVAGE SIGN
EACH
3.00
$75.00
$225.00
$50.00
$150.00
$58.96
$1 76.881
$55.001
$165.00
18
2105.501
ICOMMON EXCAVATION EV P
CUYD
1776.00
$12.25
$21,756.00
$11.00
$19,536.00
$12.791
$22,715.041
$13.251
$23,532.00
Page4 of 6
Page5 of 6
CITY OF HUTCHINSON, 111 HASSAN ST SE, HUTCHINSON MN 55350 320-234-4209
BID TABULATION - CITY OF HUTCHINSON LETTING NO. 1/PROJECT NO. 16-01
2016 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM - PHASE 1
BID OPENING: 03/16/2016 AT 11:00 AM ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE $3,066,695.00 COMPLETION DATE: 06/14/2017
z
~
a
ti
z
a
r
w
}
a
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
BID PRICE BID TOTAL
Wm Mueller & Sons Inc
831 Park Ave
P O Box 247
Hamburg MN 55339
coryh@�mueller.com
952467-2720
fax 952-467-3894
BID PRICE BID TOTAL
R & R Excavating Inc
Brent Reiner
1149 Hwy 22 South
Hutchinson MN 55350
michelle@rrexcavating.net
320-587-5918
fax 320-587-1044
BID PRICE BID TOTAL
Duininck Inc
408 6th St
P O Box 208
Prinsburg MN 56281
estimator@duininck.com
320-978-6011
fax 320-978-4978
BID PRICE BID TOTAL
19
2105.533
SALVAGED AGGREGATE EV
CU YD
1815.00
$9.00
$16,335.00
$4.60
$8,349.00
$9.80
$17,787.00
$11.50
$20,872.50
20
2105.541
SUBGRADE CORRECTION- AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 EV
CU YD
450.00
$24.00
$10,800.00
$33.00
$14,850.00
$29.81
$13,414.50
$12.00
$5,400.00
21
2105.604
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE 5
SQ YD
8129.00
$1.65
$13,412.85
$1.65
$13,412.85
$1.66
$13,494.14
$1.35
$10,974.15
22
2105.604
SOIL STABILIZATION GEOGRID
SQ YD
8129.00
$5.15
$41,864.35
$3.45
$28,045.05
$3.78
$30,727.62
$3.25
$26,419.25
23
2112.604
SUBGRADE/BASE PREPARATION
SQ YD
8129.00
$2.25
$18,290.25
$1.20
$9,754.80
$2.73
$22,192.17
$1.55
$12,599.95
24
2211.503
AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C P
CU YD
895.00
$29.00
$25,955.00
$29.55
$26,447.25
$23.32
$20,871.40
$30.50
$27,297.50
25
2211.607
AGGREGATE BASE CV FROM STOCKPILE
CU YD
1816.00
$10.00
$18,160.001
$10.30
$18,704.80
$8.25
$14,982.001
$13.00
$23,608.00
26
2215.501
FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION
SQ YD
8128.00
$1.85
$15,036.80
$0.70
$5,689.60
$0.63
$5,120.64
$0.85
$6,908.80
27
2331.603
JOINT ADHESIVE
LIN FT
3935.00
$0.85
$3,344.75
$0.67
$2,636.45
$0.63
$2,479.05
$0.70
$2,754.50
28
2357.502
BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT
GALLON
420.00
$3.25
$1,365.00
$3.50
$1,470.00
$3.00
$1,260.00
$3.00
$1,260.00
29
2360.503
TYPE SPWEA240C WEARING COURSE MIXTURE -STREET 1%"
SQ YD
6741.00
$7.25
$48,872.25
$5.95
$40,108.95
$6.22
$41,929.02
$6.00
$40,446.00
30
2360.503
TYPE SPNWB230C NON -WEARING COURSE MIXTURE -STREET 2%"
SQ YD
6741.00
$11.35
$76,510.35
$10.05
$67,747.05
$9.63
$64,915.83
$9.50
$64,039.50
31
2502.521
8" PVC PIPE DRAIN
LIN FT
24.00
$28.00
$672.00
$26.90
$645.60
$76.33
$1,831.92
$42.00
$1,008.00
32
2502.541
4" PERF PVC PIPE DRAIN
LIN FT
3605.00
$5.40
$19,467.00
$3.90
$14,059.50
$3.64
$13,122.20
$4.35
$15,681.75
33
2502.602
4" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT
EACH
3.00
$145.00
$435.00
$100.00
$300.00
$108.32
$324.96
$300.00
7575-5-
34
2502.602
4" PVC PIPE DRAIN SERVICE
EACH
50.00
$250.00
$12,500.00
$225.00
$11,250.00
$112.40
$5,620.00
$315.00
$15,750.00
35
2502.602
CONNECT PIPE DRAIN INTO EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURE
EACH
1.00
$150.00
$150.00
$180.00
$180.00
$1,245.08
$1,245.08
$150.00
$150.00
36
2503.541
12" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V
LIN FT
554.00
$32.00
$17,728.00
$33.75
$18,697.50
$48.40
$26,813.60
$42.00
$23,268.00
37
2503.541
15" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V
LIN FT
121.00
$40.00
$4,840.00
$36.25
$4,386.25
$54.65
$6,612.65
$44.00
$5,324.00
38
2503.541
21" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V
LIN FT
91.00
$56.00
$5,096.00
$48.30
$4,395.30
$51.70
$4,704.70
$60.00
$5,460.00
39
2503.602
CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
EACH
1.00
$450.00
$450.00
$370.00
$370.00
$3,320.12
$3,320.12
$1,050.00
$1,050.00
40
2503.602
CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER
EACH
12.00
$535.00
$6,420.00
$400.00
$4,800.00
$1264.27
$15,171.24
$1000.00
$12,000.00
41
2503.602
CONNECT INTO EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURE
EACH
1.00
$585.00
$585.00
$400.00
$400.00
$1,660.07
$1,660.07
$1,525.00
$1,525.00
42
2503.603
CLEAN AND VIDEO TAPE PIPE SEWER
LIN FT
2641.00
$1.50
$3,961.50
$1.10
$2,905.10
$1.13
$2,984.33
$1.10
$2,905.10
43
2504.601
TEMPORARY WATER SERVICE
LUMPSUM
1.00
$7,000.00
$7,000.00
$3,000.00
$3,000.00
$8,300.32
$8,300.32
$4,900.00
$4,900.00
44
2504.602
WATERMAIN OFFSET 6"
EACH
1.00
$2,800.00
$2,800.00
$3760.00
$3,760.00
$6250.66
$6,250.66
$4400.00
$4,400.00
45
2504.602
WATERMAIN OFFSET 8"
EACH
1.00
$3,200.00
$3,200.00
$3,960.00
$3,960.00
$6,473.00
$6,473.00
$4,635.00
$4,635.00
46
2504.602
CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN
EACH
3.00
$1,000.00
$3,000.00
$645.00
$1,935.00
$1903.77
$5,711.31
$995.00
$2,985.00
47
2504.602
HYDRANT
EACH
2.00
$4,200.00
$8,400.00
$3,620.00
$7,240.00
$4,219.51
$8,439.02
$5,800.00
$11,600.00
48
2504.602
ADJUST GATE VALVE
EACH
1.00
$325.00
$325.00
$345.00
$345.00
$575.55
$575.55
$300.00
$300.00
49
2504.602
6" GATE VALVE
EACH
2.00
$2,300.00
$4,600.00
$1,691.00
$3,382.00
$1,531.99
$3,063.98
$1,900.00
$3,800.00
50 1
2504.602
8" GATE VALVE
EACH
3.00
$2,200.00
$6,600.00
$2,336.00
$7,008.00
$2,009.84
$6,029.52
$2,900.00
$8,700.00
51
2504.602
1.5" CORPORATION STOP
EACH
2.00
$800.00
$1,600.00
$699.50
$1,399.00
$1,271.60
$2,543.20
$800.00
$1,600.00
52
2504.602
CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER SERVICE
EACH
37.00
$250.00
$9,250.00
$405.00
$14,985.00
$1000.49
$37,018.13
$945.00
$34,965.00
53
2504.603
1" TYPE KCOPPER PIPE
LIN FT
275.00
$18.50
$5,087.50
$33.50
$9,212.50
$60.73
$16,700.75
$20.00
$5,500.00
54
2504.603
6" PVC WATERMAIN
LIN FT
30.00
$25.00
$750.00
$38.00
$1,140.00
$63.44
$1,903.20
$83.00
$2,490.00
55
2504.603
8" PVC WATERMAIN
LIN FT
1504.00
$27.00
$40,608.00
$31.30
$47,075.20
$36.00
$54,144.00
$32.00
$48,128.00
56
2504.608
DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS
POUND
472.00
$8.95
$4,224.40
$12.90
$6,088.80
$6.54
$3,086.88
$7.00
$3,304.00
57
2506.502
CONSTRUCT MANHOLE DESIGN 4007
EACH
1.00
$4,600.00
$4,600.00
$3,214.00
$3,214.00
$4,712.93
$4,712.93
$4,565.00
$4,565.00
58
2506.502
CATCH BASIN TYPE
EACH
14.00
$2,100.00
$29,400.00
$1075.00
$15,050.00
$1314.03
$18,396.42
$1875.00
$26,250.00
59
2506.502
CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 48-4020
EACH
5.00
$2,800.00
$14,000.00
$1,531.00
$7,655.00
$2,184.61
$10,923.05
$2,570.00
$12,850.00
60
2506.502
CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 54-4020
EACH
2.00
$3,500.00
$7,000.00
$2121.00
$4,242.00
$4123.52
$8,247.04
$3600.00
$7,200.00
61
2506.502
CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 72-4020
EACH
1.00
$4,000.00
$4,000.00
$3,059.00
$3,059.00
$3,651.69
$3,651.69
$5,250.00
$5,250.00
62
2506.516
CASTING ASSEMBLY
EACH
2.00
$650.00
$1,300.00
$622.00
$1,244.00
$7372.78
$14,745.56
$1035.00
$2,070.00
63
2506.522
ADJUST FRAME AND RING CASTING
EACH
5.00
$675.00
$3,375.00
$735.00
$3,675.00
$455.17
$2,275.85
$760.00
$3,800.00
64
2521.501
4" CONCRETE WALK
SQ FT
475.00
$3.75
$1,781.25
$3.70
$1,757.50
$6.51
$3,092.25
$3.75
$1,781.25
65
2521.501
6" CONCRETE WALK
SQ FT
80.00
$8.90
$712.00
$11.82
$945.60
$18.14
$1,451.20
$11.80
$944.00
66
2531.501
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER DESIGN B618
LIN FT
3940.00
$11.50
$45,310.00
$11.64
$45,861.60
$13.88
$54,687.20
$11.70
$46,098.00
67
2531.507
6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT
SQ YD
1036.00
$51.00
$52,836.00
$48.16
$49,893.76
$51.97
$53,840.92
$47.00
$48,692.00
68
2531.618
TRUNCATED DOMES
SQ FT
16.00
$38.00
$608.00
$31.05
$496.80
$33.28
$532.48
$32.00
$512.00
69
2545.501
INSTALL ELECTRIC LIGHT SYSTEM
LUMPSUM
1.00
$5,200.00
$5,200.00
$11,620.00
$11,620.00
$5,564.14
$5,564.14
$5,200.00
$5,200.00
70
2563.601
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LUMPSUM
1.00
$3,500.00
$3,500.00
$2400.00
$2,400.00
$1929.47
$1,929.47
$2000.00
$2,000.00
71
2564.531
SIGN PANELS TYPE C
SQ FT
11.25
$50.00
$562.50
$32.50
$365.63
$48.24
$542.70
$50.00
$562.50
72
2564.537
INSTALL SIGN
EACH
3.00
$200.00
$600.00
$100.00
$300.00
$101.83
$305.49
$100.00
$300.00
73
2573.530
STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION
EACH
16.00
$100.00
$1,600.00
$100.00
$1,600.00
$107.19
$1,715.04
$95.00
$1,520.00
74
2574.525
COMMON TOPSOIL BORROW L
CU YD
285.00
$25.00
$7,125.00
$28.50
$8,122.50
$30.33
$8,644.05
$26.00
$7,410.00
Page5 of 6
$3,066,694.55 $2,694,195.74 $3,005,305.89 $3,032,745.70
Page6 of 6
CITY OF HUTCHINSON, 111 HASSAN ST SE, HUTCHINSON MN 55350 320-234-4209
BID TABULATION - CITY
OF HUTCHINSON LETTING NO. 1/PROJECT
NO. 16-01
2016 PAVEMENT
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM -
PHASE 1
BID OPENING: 03/16/2016 AT 11:00 AM
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE $3,066,695.00 COMPLETION
DATE: 06/14/2017
Wm Mueller & Sons Inc
R & R Excavating Inc
Duininck Inc
z
831 Park Ave
Brent Reiner
408 6th St
a
}
P O Box 247
1149 Hwy 22 South
P O Box 208
z
r
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
Hamburg MN 55339
Hutchinson MN 55350
Prinsburg MN 56281
a
ti
w
a
coryh@�mueller.com
michelle@rrexcavating.net
estimator@duininck.com
~
952467-2720
320-587-5918
320-978-6011
fax 952-467-3894
fax 320-587-1044
fax 320-9784978
BID PRICE I BID TOTAL
BID PRICE I BID TOTAL
BID PRICE I BID TOTAL
BID PRICE I BID TOTAL
75
2575.505
SEEDINGHYDROSEED
ACRE
0.55
$9,500.00 $5,225.00
$3500.00 $1,925.00
$3751.75 $2,063.46
$3500.00 $1,925.00
76
2575.570
RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 2
ACRE
0.55
$5,000.00 $2,750.00
$2,800.001 $1,540.00
$3,001.401 $1,650.77
$2,800.001 $1,540.00
TOTAL ALTERNATE 3
$745,597.55
$653,581.39
$764,309.76
$725,901.75
Ll P16-01 -TOTAL BASE BID
$1,847,087.45
$1,598,993.79
$1,785,720.90
$1,858,622.60
L1 P16-01 -TOTAL ALTERNATE 1
$156,544.75
$161,422.85
$138,230.40
$149,988.65
L1 P16-01 - TOTAL ALTERNATE 2
$317,464.80
$280,197.71
$317,044.83
$298,232.70
L1 P16-01 - TOTAL ALTERNATE 3
$745,597.55
$653,581.39
$764,309.76
$725,901.75
$3,066,694.55 $2,694,195.74 $3,005,305.89 $3,032,745.70
Page6 of 6
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL ci=V�f�
Request for Board Action 79 M-W
Agenda Item: Public Hearing for City Stormwater Ordinance Revisions
Department: PW/Eng
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 4/12/2016
Application Complete N/A
Contact: John Paulson
Agenda Item Type:
Presenter: John Paulson
Reviewed by Staff ❑
Public Hearing
Time Requested (Minutes): 5
License Contingency N/A
Attachments: Yes
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OF AGENDA ITEM:
The City of Hutchinson is permitted to discharge in accordance with requirements of the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency's Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. The requirements of this permit include specific
ordinance language that must meet or exceed the MS4 requirements. Revisions are needed to City Code, Chapter
54; Stormwater Management, to continue to meet the requirements of the MS4 permit. The changes will be related to
post-construction storm water treatment requirements that prohibit infiltration of storm water in areas where it is either
not feasible or prohibited by state requirements.
The proposed changes to the ordinance are attached for your reference. Staff will provide a brief summary of the
changes and will be available to answer any questions. Staff will review and consider all comments received and
revise the ordinance as necessary.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Fiscal Impact: $ 0.00 Funding Source:
FTE Impact: Budget Change: No
Included in current budget: No
PROJECT SECTION:
Total Project Cost: $ 0.00
Total City Cost: $ 0.00 Funding Source:
Remaining Cost: $ 0.00 Funding Source:
ORDINANCE NO. 16-0757
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 54 (STORM WATER MANAGEMENT) OF THE CITY OF
HUTCHINSON CODE OF ORDINANCES ADDING LANGUAGE IN SECTION 54.23;
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
Notice of hearing was duly given and publication of said hearing was duly made and was made to
appear to the satisfaction of the City Council that it would be in the best interests of the City to amend
the Storm Water Management Ordinance to add language in Section 54.23 of the City Code as
follows:
CHAPTER 54
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
§ 54.23 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT CRITERIA FOR PERMANENT FACILITIES
Storm water control facilities included as part of the final design for a Permanent Development;
shall be addressed in the Storm Water Management Plan and shall meet the requirements of the State
NPDES general permit to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity and the
following criteria:
A. Pre Versus Post Hydrological Response of Site. An applicant shall install or construct, on or for
the proposed land disturbing activity or development activity, all storm water management
facilities necessary to manage runoff such that increases in flow under the design conditions
will not occur that could exceed the capacity of the Outlet, or the Storm Water Management
System, into which the site discharges or that would cause the Storm Water Management
System to be overloaded or accelerate channel erosion as a result of the proposed land
disturbing activity or development activity. Under no circumstances shall the 2, 10, or 100 -year
developed peak flow exceed the 2, 10, or 100 -year existing peak flow without prior written
approval by the City Engineer. For Regional Detention or Storm Water Management System,
the City Engineer shall recommend a proposed System Charge or Assessment to be approved
by the City Council based upon an approved Watershed Master Plan and an analysis of
required drainage systems, projected costs and flood protection benefits provided to those
properties directly or indirectly impacted by the Regional Detention or Storm Water
Management System.
B. Natural Features of the Site. The applicant shall give consideration to reducing the need for
Storm Water Management System facilities by incorporating the use of natural topography and
land cover such as wetlands, ponds, natural swales and depressions as they exist before
development to the degree that they can accommodate the additional water flow without
compromising the integrity or quality of these natural features.
C. Storm Water Management Strategies. The following Storm Water Management practices shall
be investigated when developing a Storm Water Management Plan in accordance with this
chapter and with chapter 53.129 of the City of Hutchinson City Code of Ordinances:
1. Natural infiltration of precipitation and runoff on-site, if suitable soil profiles can be
created during site grading. The purpose of this strategy is to encourage the
development of a Storm Water Management Plan that encourages natural infiltration.
This includes, providing as much natural or vegetated area on the site as possible,
minimizing impervious surfaces, and directing runoff to vegetated areas rather than onto
adjoining streets, storm sewers and ditches;
2. Flow attenuation by use of open vegetated swales and natural depressions;
Page 1
3. Storm Water Detention facilities; and
4. Storm Water Retention facilities (on a case by case basis).
5. Other facilities requested by the City Engineer.
A combination of successive practices may be used to achieve the applicable minimum control
requirements specified. Justification shall be provided by the applicant for the method selected.
D. Adequacy of Outlets. The adequacy of any Outlet used as a discharge point for proposed
Storm Water Management System must be assessed and documented to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer. To the extent practicable, hydraulic capacities of downstream natural channels,
storm sewer systems, or streets shall be evaluated to determine if they have sufficient
conveyance capacity to receive and accommodate post -development runoff discharges and
volumes without causing increased property damages or any increase in the established base
flood elevation. If a flood plain or floodway has not been established by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, the applicant shall provide a documented analysis and estimate of the
base flood elevation as certified by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of
Minnesota. In addition, projected velocities in downstream natural or manmade channels shall
not exceed that which is reasonably anticipated to cause erosion unless protective measures
acceptable to the City Engineer are approved and installed as part of the Storm Water
Management Plan. The assessment of Outlet adequacy shall be included in the Storm Water
Management Plan.
E. Storm Water Detention/Retention Facilities. Storm Water Detention or Retention facilities
proposed to be constructed in the Storm Water Management Plan shall be designed according
to the most current practices as reflected in the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program study.
F. Infiltration. Infiltration facilities are prohibited, unless approved by the City Engineer, when
receiving discharges from, or are to be constructed in areas:
1. Where industrial facilities are not authorized to infiltrate industrial stormwater under
an NPDES/SDS Industrial Stormwater Permit issued by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency;
2. Where vehicle fueling and maintenance occur;
3. With less than three (3) feet of separation distance from the bottom of the infiltration
system to the elevation of the seasonally saturated soils or the top of bedrock;
4. Where high levels of contaminants in soil or groundwater will be mobilized by the
infiltrating stormwater;
5. With predominately Hydrologic Soil Group D (clay) soils;
6. Within a Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) as defined in
Minnesota Rules 4720.5100, subpart 13.
G. Mitigation Provisions. There may be circumstances where the owner of a construction activity
cannot cost effectively meet the conditions of the State NPDES general permit to Discharge
Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity on the site of the original construction activity.
For this purpose the owner of a construction activity may identify, locations where mitigation
projects can be completed. Mitigation must be accomplished using the following:
Page 2
1. Mitigation project areas are selected in the following order of preference:
a. Locations that yield benefits to the same receiving water that receives runoff
from the original construction activity
b. Locations within the same Department of Natural Resource (DNR)
catchment area as the original construction activity
c. Locations in the next adjacent DNR catchment area up -stream
d. Locations anywhere within City jurisdiction
2. Mitigation projects must involve the creation of new structural storm water BMPs or
the retrofit of existing structural storm water BMP's, or the use of a properly
designed regional structural storm water BMP.
3. Routine maintenance of existing structural storm water BMP's cannot be used to
meet mitigation requirements.
4. Mitigation projects shall be completed within 24 months after the start of the original
construction activity.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption and publication
in accordance with the Hutchinson City Charter.
Adopted by the City Council this 10th day of May, 2016.
ATTEST:
Matt Jaunich, City Administrator Gary Forcier, Mayor
First Consideration:
Second Consideration:
Date of Publication:
Page 3
TITLE AND SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 16-0757
The following Ordinance is hereby published by title and summary:
Title of Ordinance: Stormwater Management Ordinance
An Ordinance to Create and Enact Title 5, Chapter 54, Section 54.23 of the City of Hutchinson
Code of Ordinances, Storm Water Management Criteria For Permanent Facilities.
2. Summary of Ordinance:
This ordinance creates and enacts Title 5, Chapter 54, Section 54.23 of the Hutchinson City
Code, which sections sets forth storm water management criteria for permanent facilities in the
chapter.
This Chapter applies in the City of Hutchinson, Minnesota and to persons outside the City who
are, by contract or agreement with the City, users of the City storm water management system.
Except as otherwise provided herein, the City Engineer shall administer, implement, and
enforce the provisions of this Chapter.
This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication in accordance with the Hutchinson City
Charter.
3. Availability of Ordinance:
A complete, printed copy of this Ordinance is available for inspection by any person during
regular business hours in the office of the City Clerk,
This Ordinance was passed by the City Council of the City of Hutchinson on the 10th day of May, 2016.
ATTEST:
Matt Jaunich, City Administrator Gary Forcier, Mayor
Date of Publication: May 11, 2016
Page 4
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL ci=V�f�
Request for Board Action 79 M-W
Agenda Item: 2nd Reading - Consideration of Rezoning of 4th Ave. NE Parcels
Department: Planning
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 4/12/2016
Application Complete N/A
Contact: Dan Jochum
Agenda Item Type:
Presenter: Dan Jochum
Reviewed by Staff ❑
Unfinished Business
Time Requested (Minutes): 5
License Contingency N/A
Attachments: Yes
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OF AGENDA ITEM:
This is the Second Reading of this item.
The City of Hutchinson is requesting a rezoning of .59 acres of property located on the following parcels 13 4th Ave
NE, 15 4th Ave NE, and 17 4th Ave NE from R-2 (Medium Density Residential) to C-2 (Automotive Service
Commercial). The rezoning is being requested because of a possible land sale and hotel development project. Prior
to the Highway 7 Reconstruction project (2005-2006) there were two homes located on these lots. The homes were
purchased by MnDOT and demolished as part of the Highway 7 project. In 2010, MnDOT sold several lots to the City
of Hutchinson at the Highway 7/15 intersection. The lots to the west, south, and southeast of this are zoned C-2 and
the lots to the north and east are zoned R-2. The proposed rezoning would make zoning consistent with the Highway
7 Corridor Study and Small Area Plan.
There were five residents who spoke against rezoning the property, generally indicating they did not want a
commercial development on the property located adjacent to their property. Several noted they would like the
property to remain green space.
Staff recommended approval of the rezoning because it is consistent with the Highway 7 Corridor Master Plan that
established a plan for this area in about 2008.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning on a 5 to 1 vote. An ordinance is attached for the
recommended rezoning. The City Council unanimously approved the first reading of the rezoning on March 22,
20616.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Approval of Ordinance for rezoning.
Fiscal Impact: Funding Source:
FTE Impact: Budget Change: No
Included in current budget: No
PROJECT SECTION:
Total Project Cost:
Total City Cost: Funding Source:
Remaining Cost: $ 0.00 Funding Source:
PUBLICATION NO. 8163
ORDINANCE NO. 16-756
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA, TO REZONE PROPERTY AT
13 4t" AVE NE, 15 4t" AVE NE, AND 17 4t" AVE NE FROM R-2 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO
C-2 (AUTOMATIVE SERVICE COMMERCIAL) AS REQUESTED BY CITY OF HUTCHINSON
PROPERTY OWNER
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
Section 1. Notice of hearing was duly given and publication of said hearing was duly made and was made to appear
to the satisfaction of the City Council that it would be in the best interest of the City to rezone the property from R-
2 (Medium Density Residential) to C-2 (Automotive Service Commercial):
Section 2. That the property to be rezoned to C-2 (Automotive Service Commercial) is described as follows:
North Half Hutchinson Block 13, N 197' of W '/z Lot 8, North Half Hutchinson Block 13,
N 165' of E'/z Lot 8, North Half, Hutchinson Block 13, N 197' of E'/z of lot 8, except N 165', according
to the recorded plat thereof, McLeod County, Minnesota.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect from and after passage and publication.
Adopted by the City Council this 12th day of April, 2016.
ATTEST:
Matthew Jaunich, City Administrator Gary T. Forcier, Mayor
Publication Date:
DIRECTORS REPORT - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
To: Hutchinson Planning Commission
From: Dan Jochum, AICP and Planning Staff
Date: March 9, 2016, for March 15, 2016, Planning Commission Meeting
Application: CONSIDERATION OF RE -ZONING OF NORTH HALF HUTCHINSON BLOCK
13, N 197' of W'/z Lot 8, North Half Hutchinson Block 13, N 165' OF E'/z LOT 8,
NORTH HALF, HUTCHINSON BLOCK 13, N 197' OF E'/2 OF LOT 8, EX N 165
FROM R-2 ZONING DISTRICT TO C-2 ZONING DISTRICT.
Applicant: City of Hutchinson
REZONING
The City of Hutchinson is requesting a rezoning of .59 acres of property located on the following parcels
13 4t'' Ave NE, 15 4t'' Ave NE, and 17 4t'' Ave NE from R-2 (Medium Density Residential) to C-2
(Automotive Service Commercial). The rezoning is being requested because of a possible land sale and
hotel development project. Prior to the Highway 7 Reconstruction project (2005-2006) there were two
homes located on these lots. The homes were purchased by MnDOT and demolished as part of the
Highway 7 project. In 2010, MnDOT sold several lots to the City of Hutchinson at the Highway 7/15
intersection. The lots to the west, south, and southeast of this are zoned C-2 and the lots to the north and
east are zoned R-2. The proposed rezoning would make zoning consistent with the Highway 7 Corridor
Study and Small Area Plan.
Rezone from R-2 to C-2
13,15,174 1h Avenue NE
Planning Commission 3/15/16
Page 2
GENERAL INFORMATION
Existing Zoning: R-2 (Medium Density Residential)
Property Location: 13 4th Ave NE, 15 4th Ave NE, and 17 4th Ave NE
Lot Size: .59 acres total
Existing Land Use: Vacant
Adjacent Land Use: Vacant to west, south, and southeast. Single-family residential to north
and east.
Adjacent Zoning: C-2 commercial to west, south, and southeast. R-2 residential to north
and east.
Land Use Plan: Commercial/Mixed Use
Zoning History: These lots have been zoned R-2 for over 50 years.
Applicable Regulations: Section 154.173, City Code
Analysis:
In considering a rezoning request, the Planning Commission should review the proposed rezoning for
consistency with City Plans and the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. The Highway 7 Corridor Study
and Small Area Plan identifies the property as guided for Commercial/Mixed Use, which would be
consistent with the proposed rezoning to C-2 (refer to attached maps, Contemporary Development
Alternative and Mixed -Use Development Alternative). The purpose of the C-2 zoning district is:
"The C-2 District is intended to provide locations for businesses which generate a high
degree ofautomobile traffic and which would properly be developed along major thoroughfares
of the community. "
Highway 7 Corridor Study and Small Area Plan
There were two future redevelopment scenarios found in the Highway 7 Corridor Plan for the northeast
corner of the Highway 7/15 intersection. The first scenario was a "contemporary development
alternative" (see attached graphic) that featured a 20,000 square feet two-story office building and two
smaller one story buildings, which are 4,000 and 2,500 square feet respectively. The scenario also
included 115 parking spaces.
The "mixed-use development alternative" (see attached graphic) featured a four-story mixed use building
with 48 units of housing, 6,000 square feet of office space and 5,000 square feet for a retail/cafe use. The
scenario included 75 parking spaces, as well as underground parking for the residential portion of the
project.
City Ownership
It is also worth noting that the City of Hutchinson purchased the property in question, as well as several
other parcels from MnDOT in the summer of 2010 with the intention of selling the properties for
redevelopment at some point the future. At that time the economy was not doing well and development
Rezone from R-2 to C-2
13,15,174 1h Avenue NE
Planning Commission 3/15/16
Page 3
activity was slow and the timeframe for redevelopment was unknown. City Officials and Staff were also
aware that access to this area would have to come off of Prospect Street, rather than Highway 7 or 15.
Conclusion
City staff feels the highest and best use for the lots subject to the rezoning request is commercial. If these
parcels were to remain R-2 residential they would be surround by commercially zoned parcels on two
sides and would not be directly accessible from a residential street but rather a frontage road for a
commercial property. Staff believes this would create an island of a small residential zoned area that
would be difficult if not possible to redevelop.
If the rezoning is approved by the City, the plan is for the developer to move forward with a site plan and
building plans for the property for a hotel. The preliminary plan is for a 3 story, 55 unit hotel but until an
official site plan review application is submitted those plans are just preliminary. Site plan review and
approval will be required for construction of the new building and site improvements. Obviously, with
the residential homes in this area having appropriate screening and buffering from the neighborhood is
going to be very important.
Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends rezoning the property from R-2 to C-2 for the reasons noted above. Staff recommends
approval of the request with the following findings and recommendations:
1. The rezoning would be consistent with the Highway 7 Corridor Study and Small Area Plan and the
intent of the C-2 zoning district in the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The property is proposed to be developed as a commercial use. Rezoning would allow the proposed
use to be developed as a commercial use.
3. Staff believes commercial zoning is the highest and best use for the subject parcels.
4. A site plan review for any proposed development by the Planning Commission and City Council is
required.
5. Landscaping and screening will be required between any commercial development and the adjacent
residential uses per the requirements of the Hutchinson Zoning Ordinance and/or Site Plan review
process.
I Iighm ay 7 CorriL-loi- Stuciv and :`inna[I Area 11it.1n
7. Future Development - Redevelopment Strategies
River District Gateway
The majority of visitors to Hutchinson, traveling by way of the Highway 7 corridor, arrive
from the east. Soon after entering Hutchinson, the highway reaches the edge of
downtown Hutchinson. At the top of the old river bluff, the view opens up to the river
and the road begins to drop down onto the river flats. Here the visitor has their first
sense of the character of Hutchinson and its history as a river town. From Bluff Street
to Highway 15, the northern edge of downtown is defined by Highway 7. Residents
and visitors alike identify the intersection of Highway 7 and Highway 15 as the primary
entry into the City. This gateway should communicate that you have arrived at Main
Street Hutchinson and new development on these corners should compliment the
historic downtown character, both with a high quality design and with an appropriate
mix of uses.
Highway 7 and Highway151Main Street Intersection
Improvements to Highway 7 included significant investment in the Highway 15
intersection. Both highways were widened to accommodate the high volume of traffic
crossing and turning at this corner, although this is still a challenging intersection for
pedestrians to cross. Once dominated by gas and service stations, the north side of
Highway 7, on both sides of the intersection, is now cleared and offers new
development opportunities and challenges. MnDOT's acquisition for the expanded
highway right of way (R.O.W.) included acquiring access control which creates
significant limitations on access to these sites from Highway 7.
Due to the intersection reconfiguration, the steep slope on Highway 15 north of the
intersection which reduces visibility, and the limited space between this corner and the
Fifth Street intersection, there is no access on Highway 15 into properties on either
side. On the northeast corner, the only access allowed into the site will be on the
eastern edge of the site from Prospect Street.
Hutchinson Power Plant, Main Street Bridge and Dam
The south side of the Highway 15 intersection with Highway 7 is dominated by the
Hutchinson Power Plant located on the Crow River at the dam. The original brick
arches of the Hutchinson Municipal Electric Plant, built in the 1920's and expanded in
the 1940's, is one of the images most strongly associated with Hutchinson. The
Hutchinson Utilities Commission plans improvements to the buildings and the site with
new signage, fencing and planters, landscaping and trail connections. Working with the
Parks Department, new amenities will be provided along the riverfront, including trail
head parking and signage, picnic shelters and a possibly a small open-air amphitheater
area for summer theater performances and community events. Reconstruction of the
dam is now underway and will be completed in 2008. The reconstructed Highway 15
bridge over the Crow River allows trail users to continue along the river without
crossing Main Street. Connections to the river front parks and trails from the downtown
sidewalks and the sites in this corridor are a high priority for the community.
Section 7 — Future Redevelopment Strategies 7-1
HiLltway 7 Corridor Study and Small Area Plan
Highway 7 and the Adams -Bluff Street Intersection
Prior to the highway improvements, the Main Street intersection was often congested
and turning into downtown could be a challenge. As a result, Bluff Street became a
back -door into downtown bypassing Main Street traffic. For residents to the north, this
route also offers good pedestrian and bicycle -friendly access into downtown. Just
across the river, Bluff Street meets Adams Street as it crosses the old train tracks
where the Hutchinson Depot still stands. A new round -about is planned in this location
and the historic Depot will be restored for use as a Visitor's Center. Signage on
Highway 7 should direct visitors to turn at Bluff Street for the Visitor's Center, access to
the Luce Line Trail, Veteran's Memorial Park, Heritage Park and other attractions. This
key intersection should be considered for future redevelopment which supports its
growing role as a welcoming entrance into downtown.
River District Redevelopment Scenarios
The Small Area Plan presents two alternative scenarios for future redevelopment of the
Downtown Gateway portion of the Highway 7 corridor, from Bluff Street to the Highway
15 corner. The plans are intended to be illustrative of how recommended design
standards could be applied to meet the Visioning goals identified in this Study, and
meant to inspire creative approaches to future development not limit potential private
developers proposals. (Development plans are included in the Appendix Section A)
Future Redevelopment Opportunity Sites
In this area several redevelopment opportunity sites were identified. These are sites
which are vacant, or where reduced access is having a negative impact on the existing
uses, or where the existing land uses don't reach the full market potential of this
location. While many sites in the corridor might meet these criteria, the scope of the
study was to focus on the Highway 7 and Highway 15 intersection. The sites included
in the future redevelopment scenarios include:
Northwest corner of
Highway 7 and Highway 15:
cleared for expanded
R. O. W. and now vacant and
with significantly reduced
options for access from
Highway 7. Portions of this
site are owned by MnDOT
and the rest has been
acquired by a developer;
adjacent Residential lots
which have highway access
are also being acquired by
the developer.
Section 7 — Future Redevelopment Strategies 7-2
Hichwav 7 Corridor Studv and Small Area Plan
Northeast corner of Highway 7 and Highway 15: cleared for expanded R.O.W.
and now vacant, the site is narrow and the only access is off Prospect Street.
Southwest corner of Highway 7 and Bluff (Napa site): current uses include
Napa Auto Parts, used car sales lot
and a couple of smaller businesses
including a local print shop.
Expanded highway R. O. W. reduced
access and parking for these
Commercial uses. Market analysis
suggested this riverfront location
would be better used for future
Residential or mixed-use. The former
railroad right of way on the southside
of the property was incorporated into
the redevelopment site for access and utilities,
management.
Southeast corner of
Highway 7 and Adams
(Sorenson's site); current
use is a business which
stores materials and
equipment onsite,-
immediately
nsite;immediately adjacent is a
small park, single-family and
multi -family residential.
including stormwafer
Future Redevelopment Scenarios
Two different approaches to future redevelopment were illustrated. The first scenario is
a more typical, suburban -type, contemporary approach to development which doesn't
mix Residential and Commercial uses. The second scenario is a more urban, mixed-
use approach to development. The two scenarios illustrate a range of potential land
uses, site layout, building massing and public space at these corners as well as
different approaches to the limited site access, parking, open space and stormwater
management.
We have been told that the developer -owner of the northwest comer may want to put a
gas station on the corner. While we don't think that this is the "highest and best" use
for this corner, and the limited site access may make this option less feasible or
desirable to potential station operators, we felt it was prudent to study it. We have
developed an alternative illustrating how a more auto -oriented use (i.e. a gas station)
could be integrated into new development on this corner.
Section 7 — Future Redevelopment Strategies 7-3
Hiahwav 7 Corridor Study and Small Area Plan
Contemporary Development Alternative
21_1 i4_16 x7
OR
64.
441 a
' N _
Hwy 7 $ 15 (Gas Option)
Nodhsweaf caner -v
office I st 10�w.�!
Rwd yr 11000,f
ca✓c!ca. W.W.
�- Pubk Pui-t
Nf„ ilm*s( corner
Read1 of 22.000
PL". ivkint r20 spar
No Comer
1.00`l
016r"I
24.000 sl
Racal I"
1.000 v
Rmd I sr
2.300 0
P.Wic Park,q
IIS * tts
i
Hwy 7 & Adams
[Lei Re,c,crxns I sr
6.000 I
Er wq Resrf (rmwasaei I u
6000 sf
Flou+�re6 akroc.'� 3 s[
35 amts
imwc"rZI pxkrnj td0w2
P6u1-c h"
20 spaces
120 spares
T n•wrres 2-3u i6 ves
Ir Je-it prkn.j heknri
fin.
The Contemporary Development Alternative plan shows the northwest corner
redeveloped along with two Residential lots immediately adjacent on to the west which
we understand the developer has purchased or intends to purchase. This development
would be traditional in-line Commercial space with wide public walks offering good
pedestrian access from downtown. Store entrances would be located on the building
corners where possible, visible from both the street and the rear parking which is
located towards the back of the site. Site access is from Highway 7, where there is an
existing driveway, and we have assumed it would be limited to right in/right out only.
The parking lot is buffered from the adjacent park and the Residential property to the
west with landscaping, rain gardens and a stormwater pond. This plan assumes that
the Residential lots on Highway 15, which have no access available and which MnDOT
currently owns, would be converted to parkland creating a presence for Kiwanis's Park
on Main Street.
The "Gas Option" illustrated for this corner places a gas station with a convenience
store and attached carwash close to Highway 7 on the west end of the site where
driveway access is available. The corner is retail, just as the primary option. In this plan
a different option for the Highway 15 lots is shown, with a small office building which
shares the rear parking with the retail development.
Section 7 — Future Redevelopment Strategies 7-4
Highway 7 Corridor Study and Small Area Plan
The Northeast corner would have a 1-2 story office or service retail building on the
corner and one or two smaller Commercial buildings along the highway. The only
access is from Highway 7 off Prospect Street and all parking would need to be next to
or behind the retail buildings.
At the Bluff Street intersection, this plan assumes that the existing brick print shop
building continues to provide space for small business or retail uses. The new cul-de-
sac leads to limited front -door parking for this building, and larger parking area in the
back. The auto lot is redeveloped into a "river view" restaurant, which is a use many
community members asked for at the Visioning Open House.
The Napa building site would be
redeveloped for housing, with a parking
court on the highway side of the building
and additional resident parking provided
below the building. Across the street,
the Sorenson's site could eventually be
redeveloped as townhomes facing Boy
Scout Park. The row -house type units
would have traditional raised stoops or
front porches on the street and tuck -
under parking on the river side.
�a to -AW^41WAW��i��
The Contemporary Development Alternative Plan shows a total of:
Retail
Office
Housing
Parking
40,000 square feet
20,000 square feet
50 units
335 public parking spaces
Section 7 — Future Redevelopment Strategies 7-5
Highway 7 Corridor StUdy and Small Area Plan
Mixed -Use Development Alternative
d,
11
7 t 't, V 7
Hwy 7&15
Norlhwes! G,,cor
!'4aed-Vx 1w
OiRcaRetal
7�,M0 ;�
Ir+vdcnt W+kni L��owl
P.W P-8
!20 c-ics
Nariheast Comer
.U> ,,f
Oke
&.UCO 0
"...1
49.""
(-&M PW k.1 W-0
Ft r L'"i
5.fR7'ei
f+ N, Park,nj
15 spins i
Hwy 7 & Adams
Sarfhtwsf .S,(r±
I
Regi I u
8 OD4
Re�ourliK In
8A09 if
Houurg 3 u
44-.
[resMent prk:ni W-1
P.bkc Parkaei
00 spacer
Southeast S90
Ta- k.— 13A
IL v„ts
Irasidt pakmi Lein -4
The Mixed -Use Development Alternative plan shows the northwest corner and two
Residential lots immediately to the west which we were told the developer has
purchased or intends to purchase. This development would be a two story mixed
Commercial building (office above retail) on the corner, with a public plaza on the
corner, open through to the parking area behind. At the western end of the site,
adjacent to the park, is a 3-4 story Residential building with a front court drop-off area
and resident parking below the building. Rain gardens connect drainage from the park
to a stormwater pond, which buffers the housing from the highway. Given the changes
in elevation in this area, all of the housing units should offer good views of either the
river or the park. Site access is from Highway 7, where there is an existing driveway,
and we have assumed it would be limited to right in/right out only. This plan assumes
that the Residential lots on Highway 15, which have no access available and which
MnDOT currently owns, would be converted to parkland creating a presence for
Kiwanis's Park on Main Street. Parking for park users, shared with the office building, is
shown on one of the Highway 15 lots.
The Northeast corner would have a 2-3 story mixed-use building on the corner, with a
small retail or office space on the street level and resident parking below the rest of the
building. An additional small Commercial building is located at the Prospect Street entry
and all parking is located next to or behind the proposed buildings.
Section 7 — Future Redevelopment Strategies 7-6
Highway 7 Corridor Study and Small Area flan
At the Bluff Street intersection, this plan assumes assembly and redevelopment of the
entire site with a new four story mixed-use building. The new cul-de-sac provides only
limited front -door parking, with most of the parking in back and to the west (including
the former railroad right of way). The building would include a "river view" restaurant
(with no housing above it), retail space facing Highway 7, and parking below the
building along the back side. The housing would start at the second floor, with a large
terrace along the river side of the building (over the parking).
Across the street, the Sorenson's site
could eventually be redeveloped as
townhomes facing Boy Scout Park.
The row -house type units would have
traditional raised stoops or front
porches on the street and tuck -under
parking on the river side.
'iON,
Pia.,. _ - �•J
The Mixed -Use Development Alternative plan shows a total of:
Retail
Office
Housing
Parking
31,000 square feet
16,000 square feet
112 units
325 public parking spaces
Section 7 — Future Redevelopment Strategies 7-7
Highway 7 Corridor Studv and Small Area Plan
View of Highwav 7 -15/Main Street Intersection existina.
View of intersection after redevelopment in Mixed -Use Scenario.
Market Analysis of Redevelopment Alternatives
The land uses illustrated in the two development scenarios are based on the market
demand identified in the Market Analysis. Analysts were asked to review the plans for
general market feasibility. Their evaluation supported the uses shown, although based
on the limited access they recommended reducing the amount of commercial space
shown on the northeast corner of Highway 7 and Highway 15. Implementation
planning is important to the success of redevelopment projects. The analyst noted that
either of these plans will need to be developed in phases, over several years, to avoid
competing with each other, at least initially.
Section 7 —s=uture Redevelopment Strategies 7_8
Memo
To: Mayor Forcier and City Council Members
From: Matt Jaunich, City Administrator
Date: 4/8/16
Re: Memo on Bid Results for Aquatic Center Project
Office of the City Administrator
111 Hassan Street SE
Hutchinson, MN 55350-2522
320-234-4241/Fax 320-234-4240
Back in May of 2015, the City hired USAquatics to execute a Design Development Agreement
for a new outdoor pool and aquatic center. Following a series of meetings and an open house for
the public to view and comment on the proposed project in August of 2015, the Council
approved the final study phase and conceptual design with a five-year Pro Forma in October of
2015. That same month, the Council entered into an agreement with USAquatics to proceed with
Construction Documents for the proposed project of which those documents were approved for
bidding in February of this year.
Bid Results
On Tuesday, April 5, City staff and representatives from USAquatics opened 7 bids for the
proposed Aquatic Center project. The bidding process was broken down into three different
packages that included site work, aquatic construction, and building construction. The results of
those bids are as follows:
Site Work
Hj erpe Contracting — $194,000
R&R Excavating — $386,000
Reiner Contracting — $395,895
Pool/Aquatic Work
Global Specialty Contractors — $3,294,000
Acapulco Pools — $3,700,000
Neuman Pools — $3,743,000
Building Renovation
Hasslen Construction — $1,407,700
Tom Schafer of USAquatics has provided a summary of these bid results which has been
included with this memo. Based off of our consultant's recommendation, the low bidder in all
three portions of the bid package appear to be the most responsible bidders for this project and
are being recommended for approval.
The total package of the 3 lowest bidders is at $4,895,700; about $259,790 (5%) lower than our
$5,155,490 estimate from February. These are "all -in" prices and do not include project
deductions for items like night lights, the climbing wall, inner tube slide, value engineering, and
a PA & Security system. When looking at the bids, you will notice that site work ($290,000) and
pool costs ($20,650) came in under budget with building renovation costs ($50,860) coming in
higher than budgeted if we don't take the value engineered deducts.
Estimated Total Proiect Costs Per Construction Bids
The Council needs to remember that construction costs are just one aspect of the costs for this
project. On top of the constructions costs there are costs for our consultant (USAquatics), of
which we have paid a portion of already ($402,688), and there are owner direct costs which
includes contingencies and other items like dumpster costs, building permits, furniture and
equipment. These are known as "soft costs" and can be somewhat flexible by the end of the
proj ect.
Soft costs for this project are currently estimated to be at $1,071,626; about $174,764 (14%)
lower than our $1,246,390 estimate from February. A total breakdown of all these numbers are
included in the Signature Aquatics sheet label "Package Estimates vs Tabulated". When you
include your soft costs with our construction costs you get your total estimated project costs.
Please note that this is an estimate because we are not completely sure where our soft costs are
going to come in at the end. They could be $800,000 or the full estimate of $1,071,626. With that
being said, here is the current total estimated project cost:
After bidding the project, the total estimated project cost came in $434,554 (6.8%) lower than
our February estimate.
Funding Sources for this Proiect
Prior to bidding on this project, staff had identified $5.3 million of available resources to help
pay for this project. Here is a breakdown of those resources:
Unspent hospital money from the Community Improvement Fund: $1,350,000
Non -designated money from the Community Improvement Fund: $1,150,000
2016 Facilities Money from the Capital Projects Fund: $700,000
Non -designated money from the Capital Projects Fund: $800,000
2018 & 2019 Facilities Money from Capital Projects Fund (roof repairs): $300,000
2
February 2016
After Bidding
Construction Costs:
$5,155,490
$4,895,700
Direct Owner Costs:
$568,045
$456,162
USAquatic Fees:
$678,345
$615,464
Total Costs:
$6,401,880
$5,967,326
After bidding the project, the total estimated project cost came in $434,554 (6.8%) lower than
our February estimate.
Funding Sources for this Proiect
Prior to bidding on this project, staff had identified $5.3 million of available resources to help
pay for this project. Here is a breakdown of those resources:
Unspent hospital money from the Community Improvement Fund: $1,350,000
Non -designated money from the Community Improvement Fund: $1,150,000
2016 Facilities Money from the Capital Projects Fund: $700,000
Non -designated money from the Capital Projects Fund: $800,000
2018 & 2019 Facilities Money from Capital Projects Fund (roof repairs): $300,000
2
Excess General Fund Balance Reserves:
Total Overall Funding Sources Identified:
$1,000,000
$5,300,000
Proiect Currently Over Budget
As you can tell from the results of the bidding process and the budget that was established that
we are currently $667,326 over our budgeted amount. Before everyone gets real concerned about
these costs, please take into account the following:
• Of the total construction costs, $733,400 is for repairs and upgrades to the rec center.
This is work added to the project that originally was not included in the May of 2015
budget estimate of $5 million. This additional work will take care of future capital needs
at the rec center including a leaking roof, an outdated fire panel, and a new air handler
and boiler system.
• The total estimated project cost is a conservative number being presented to you by the
Consultant and staff. Included in this number is $247,914 in contingency (5%) dollars for
any unexpected expenses. $150,000 of that $247,914 is for additional soil corrections.
We may use all or none of this by the time the project is completed.
• The total estimated project cost also includes $208,248 in "owner direct costs". These are
costs associated with items like dumpster costs, silt fencing, building permits, furniture
and equipment. Staff believes these are items that we can somewhat control hoping to
drive some of the costs down.
• The $5,967,326 total estimated project cost doesn't include any bid/project deductions.
When bidding the project, we asked for bid deductions that currently total $233,196.
These are portions of the project that could be removed to reduce costs. Those bid
deducts are as follows:
o Inner Tube Water Slide — ($130,000)
o Climbing Wall — ($30,000)
o Night Lighting — ($20,130)
o PA & Security System — ($2,466)
o Value Engineering — ($50,600)
The current budget for this project does not include any sponsorships or private funding
to offset any of these costs including some of the potential bid deducts.
Is There Additional Funding Available?
Outside of seeking sponsorships or private funding; additional funding may be available if there
is a desire to meet the needs and wants of the current project costs. One of the funding
mechanisms we used to come up with our current budget of $5.3 million included allocating all
of our annual 2016 contribution of the facilities money within the capital budget to the aquatic
center project which was $700,000. We could essentially do this again in 2017. We could take
our 2017 facilities dollar amount of $700,000 and allocate that to the aquatic center project
essentially increasing our budget to $6 million.
Doing this would basically shift our facility priorities around, but we did this with the 2016
budget. Currently planned for the 2017 facilities budget are improvements to park and recreation
facilities, mainly the ice arena. If we were to approve the $700,000 to go to the aquatic center
project, those projects would simply be pushed back another year. Through conversations with
Dolf and Marv, they are willing to push these projects back, shifting our priorities, to make this
project work.
Action Requested/Recommendation
In February, before we went out for bids, we presented you with an estimated project costs for an
"all -in" project that showed costs around $6.3 - $6.4 million. It was noted at that time that the
costs were an estimate and we would not know final project costs until we bid the project out.
We now know that those project costs will be closer to $5,967,326. While the final project costs
came in lower than our February estimates, they are still $667,326 over our preliminary budget
of $5.3 million.
Staff never likes to present a project that is projected to come in over budget, but we are doing so
in full disclosure showing you what this project will cost to take care of all our needs at both the
aquatic center and the rec center. We do so knowing that this very well may be a $5,967,326
project, or it may be a project that comes in closer to $5.7 million if contingencies are not used
and other efficiencies are identified during the construction of this project. We do so knowing
that over $700,000 was added to the project since our initial discussions to make improvements
to recreation center. We do so knowing, that if you would like, we could pay for this entire
project by shifting our other facilities priorities around moving $700,000 into the project budget.
And we do so knowing that there are still opportunities available to find sponsorships or private
funding to help offset some of the costs for this project.
On Tuesday, staff will be asking you to do one of three things. 1) Accept the low bids and
proceed with the project as is; 2) Accept the low bids with project deductions; or 3) Table the
action until the April 26 meeting for further analysis. The Park Board is meeting on Monday to
review this project and should have a recommendation for you on Tuesday.
Remaining Proiected Proiect Timeline
Council Approve Bids and Award Contract
April 12
Start of Construction
May
Substantial Completion of Bathhouse/Locker Room
November 29
Final Completion of Bathhouse/Locker Room
December 1
Substantial Completion of Aquatic Center/Pool
May 10, 2017
Final Completion of Aquatic Center/Pool
May 24, 2017
Grand Opening
May 29, 2017
If you have any questions and or concerns, or if you need any additional information, please
don't hesitate to ask.
Thanks!
Matt
.19
E
0
U
U
U
0
E
0
U
U
U
7
3
3
3
co
N
r-
rn
M
(0
X
rn
00
N
M
co
0
0
0
N
M
LO
LO
Z
0
0
co
X
0
m
0
a
LU
0
a
�L
m
N
r
USAQUAT*ICS
tttt"
Hutchinson Family Aquatic Center
Bid Results from
April 5, 2016, Bid Letting
April 7, 2016
USAquatics, Inc. has reviewed all bids that were received on April 5, 2016 at 2:OOPM local time for
the Hutchinson Family Aquatic Center. The following comments below are provided for
consideration by the City Council with the possibility of awarding contracts related to the received
bids and moving forward with construction on the project.
The City of Hutchinson received bids for all three Bid Packages and our comments are separated by
Bid Packages;
- Site Package (ST)
Hjerpe Contracting, Inc.
It is our opinion that this bid is complete and compliant with plans, specifications and
addenda. Their bid is acceptable for consideration of award by City Council in the amounts
stipulated in their bid and as shown on the Bid Tabulation sheet attached.
R & R Excavating, Inc.
It is our opinion that this bid is not compliant with plans, specifications and addenda and is
not acceptable for consideration of award by City Council.
Reiner Contracting, Inc.
It is our opinion that this bid is not compliant with plans, specifications and addenda and is
not acceptable for consideration of award by City Council.
- Aquatics Package (SP)
Neuman Pools, Inc.
It is our opinion that this bid is complete and compliant with plans, specifications and
addenda. This bid is not the low complete and compliant bid for this bid package. We do not
recommend award.
Global Specialty Contractors, Inc.
It is our opinion that this bid is complete and compliant with plans, specifications and
addenda and acceptable for consideration of award by City Council in the amounts stipulated
in their bid and as shown on the Bid Tabulation sheet attached.
Gall Construction of America, Limited
It is our opinion that this bid is not compliant with plans, specifications and addenda and is
not acceptable for consideration of award by City Council.
AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN
USAQUATIcs INC.
AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN
- BuildingPackage (A)
Hasslen Construction Company, Inc.
It is our opinion that this bid is complete and compliant with plans, specifications and
addenda and acceptable for consideration of award by City Council in the amounts stipulated
in their bid and as shown of the Bid Tabulation sheet attached.
USAquatics has also attached a spreadsheet that shows the October, 2015 probable cost estimate,
prepared by Signature Aquatics, Inc., with the addition of the amounts of the apparent low bidders.
Also shown on the spreadsheet are the soft costs associated with the project, to provide the City
Council with total project costs.
Respectfully Submitted,
Thomas R Schaffer, President
USAquatics, Inc.
Page 2 of 2
,,,5i,qnxtvi
AtioJ
■FF Conforming
RWr� N M
� d d
a E
ridder ggg °; C' c°� Pa
Hasslen Construction X X X X X X A
Building Package (A) Bid Tabulation
Date 4/5/2016
Project Hutchinson
Recorded by Jesse Aulwes
1811PENIq'M
ckage Price Alternate MM
$1,407,700
A-1 a -$20,130
A-1 b -$12,390
A -2a -$2,466
A -2b -$1,560
*Voluntary alternates will be taken under
consideration by the Architect
I
a
0,6:5 iq n xti4 re,
J
0
Neuman Pools, Inc.
Global Specialty Contractors, Inc.
Gall Contractors, Acapulco Pools
a
Conforming
N M
a a �
V
_a a H s
X X X X
Aquatics Package (SP) Bid Tabulation
Date 4/5/2016
Project Hutchinson
Recorded by Jesse Aulwes
w
d
d
CL
E
Package Price
X SP $3,743,000
X X X X X X SP $3,294,000
X X X X X X SP *$3,700,000
Slide
-$182,000
Climbing Wall
-$34,000
Voluntary Alts.
-$173,150
Slide
-$130,000
Climbing Wall
-$30,000
Voluntary Alts.
-$5,500
Slide -$129,000
Climbing Wall -$25,848
*Bid not compliant with plans/specs, cast -in-place concrete,
only 6" of sub base underneath pool
ani
t
sou i
cs
J
Conforming
u N M
iddergg
3 Hierpe Contracting, Inc. X X X X X
3
3
v
00
ao
I?
N
0
U
M
N
Site Package (ST)
X
° R&R Excavating, Inc. X X X X X X ST
N
h
h
10
r\
10 N
M
N
H
W
CA Reiner Contracting, Inc. X X X X X X ST
10
z
O
a
D
Q
m
m
v
N
U
N
10
X
O
m
O
d
Bid Tabulation
Date 4/5/2016
Project Hutchinson
Recorded by Jesse Aulwes
I"
Price Note
$194,000
Bid was compliant with $27
plans & specifications CY/LV
$386,000 $20
Bid was NOT compliant with CY
plans & specifications
$395,895 $24
Bid was NOT compliant CY
witih plans & specifications
Si�16�1
v�-ature
atics
ST Site Package _
Demo)
Site Work including soils corrections
ST -1 1 Landscaping Allowance
ST -2 Utility extentions and hook-ups
ST -3 ISidewalk replacement, on South Side
Additional Soils Corrections and Engineered Fill
Per Soils Report
Sod/Seeding 8000 sgft @ $3
Site Package:
Package Estimates VS Tabulated
12
$ 180,000
$ 24,000
Date: 4/7/2016
Project: Hutchinson Aquatics
Bid Date: 4/5/2016
Constrcuction Documents w/ ADDI-3
Package Esimat�Low Bid Difference
HJERPE CONTRACTING
194000+Unit Price
$ (290,000)
SP Aquatics
GLOBAL SPECIALTY
Lap pool 5,220 sgft @ $170 sgft
$
887,400
$ -
ADA ramp area 220 sgft @ $270 sgft
$
59,400
$ -
Splash Pool 3,300 sgft @ $165 sgft
$
544,500
$ -
Plunge Pool 1,100 sgft @$165 sgft
$
181,500
$ -
Lazy River 2L800 sgft @$225 sgft
$
630,000
$ -
Features
A-2 Building Canopy 900 sgft @ $75
Pop Jets
$
2,200
$ -
Geysers
$
5,500
$ -
1 M & 3M Diving
$
40,000
$ -
Climbing Wall
$
38,000
$ -
Splash Area Feature Allowance
$
95,000
$ -
Tot Slide
$
15,000
$ -
Lazy River Feature Allowance
$
37,000
$ -
Zip Line
$
28,000
$ -
Play Feature Mech.
$
40,000
$ -
EnclosedBodyslidew/Tower
$
225,000
$ -
Open Flumeslide
$
95,000
$ -
InnerTube Waterslide
$
205,000
$ -
Slide Mechanical
$
45,000
$
Site Flat work 117,000 sgft @ $6
$
102,000
$ -
Fencing 870 If @ $45
$
39,150
$ -
Total Aquatic:
$ 3,314,650 $ 3,294,000
$ (20,650)
$ (434,554)
A Building
HASSLEN
Building Remodel 3660 sgft @ $115 sgft
$
420,900
$
Building Demo
$
10,000
A-1 Mechanical Bldg 1,060 sgft $180
$
190,800
$ -
A-2 Building Canopy 900 sgft @ $75
$
67,500
$ -
A -3q Built-up Roof Replacement
$
1250,00
$ -
Electrical
$
173,320
$ -
E-1 Night Lighting
$
48,500
$ -
E-3 Security and PA system
$
27,500
$ -
Mech & Plumb.
$
173,320
$
New air handler and boiler
$
85,000
$ -
Fire Alarm system replacement
$
35,000
$ -
Total Building(s):
$ 1,356,840
$
1,407,700
Value Engineered Deducts
$
50,600
$ 260
Total construction:
$ 5,155,490
$
4,895,700
$ (259,790)
Owner Direct Costs
Budget Costs
Owner direct general conditions (2%)
$
103,110
$
$
85,675
Owner contengency for soils corrections
$
150,000
State Health plan review (.5%)
$
25,777
$
$
18,,573
Permits and inspections
$
31 500
$
$
27000
Fixtures, Furniture & Equipment
$
60,000
$
$
30,000
Shade Structure (8)
$
32 000
$
$
32,000
Cantilever structures (3)
$
13,000
$
$
15,000
Contingency (4.5%)
$231,997 $
-
$
97,914
Total Owner Direct Costs
$ 497,384
$
456,162
Construction Cost Including Owner Direct Costs
$ 5,652,874
$
5,351,862
USAquatics fee ihru construction documents (5.75%)
$
325,040
307,732
$
USAquatics fee ihru bidding and construction (2%)
$
113,057
$
93,658
Signature Aquatics Management fee (4.25%)
$
240,247
$
214,074 L
City Fee (1.25%)
$
70,661
$
Total Professional Fees
$
749,006
$
615,464
Total Estimate Project Costs
$ 6,401,880
Total Costs per Bid Tab
$ 5,967,326
$ (434,554)
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL ci=V�f�
Request for Board Action 79 M-W
Agenda Item: Consideration of Consulting Services - Job Evaluation & Compensation Study
Department: Administration
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 4/12/2016
Application Complete N/A
Contact: Matt Jaunich/Brenda Ewird
Agenda Item Type:
Presenter: Matt Jaunich
Reviewed by Staff ❑
New Business
Time Requested (Minutes): 5
License Contingency N/A
Attachments: Yes
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OF AGENDA ITEM:
With the 2016 budget process, management recommended that a comprehensive Job Evaluation and Compensation
Study be completed, and the funds for such a project were approved with the 2016 budget. A comprehensive study
has not been completed since 2005, and a partial study was completed in 2010.
In March, staff issued a request for proposals and received five (5) proposals from the following consulting firms:
1. Flaherty & Hood - $16,250 for basic services only. Add on services range from $750 to $9,000 per item.
2. Fox Lawson & Associates (Division of A.J. Galagher & Co.) - $30,500 to $42,500 [with custom salary survey]
3. Keystone Compensation Group LLC - $28,475 - $35,675
4. Laumeyer Human Resource Solutions - $22,500
5. Springsted Incorporated - $31,225
Matt Jaunich, City Administrator, and Brenda Ewing, Human Resources Director, reviewed the proposals considering
thoroughness of the proposal, expressed understanding of the City's project request, job evaluation system method,
level of experience, and previous work with similar municipalities. Based on the review, Fox Lawson and Keystone
Compensation were identified as the preferred proposals. References were completed on both firms and were
positive.
We are recommending that the City enter into an agreement for the Job Evaluation and Compensation Study with
Keystone Compensation Group. Factors that led to this recommendation include: Continued use of the existing
Stanton Group job evaluation system, principal consultant worked on the City study completed in 2000, the
budget/cost for the project can be reduced with HR staff facilitating the market survey and assisting with the job
evaluation process.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Consideration of acceptance of the proposal from Keystone Compensation Group to provide job evaluation and
compensation study consulting services for the City of Hutchinson.
Fiscal Impact: Funding Source:
FTE Impact: Budget Change: No
Included in current budget: Yes
PROJECT SECTION:
Total Project Cost: $ 28,475.00
Total City Cost: Funding Source:
Remaining Cost: $ 28,475.00 Funding Source: 2016 City Budget
Proposal
Compensation Program Review
For the City of Hutchinson, Minnesota
3/11/2016
Prepared by:
Keystone Compensation Group LLC
3316 Ensign Ave N
Minneapolis MN 55427
Telephone: 612-810-3522
E -Mail: Sabboud@keystonecomp.net
Web: www.keystonecomp.net
KEYSTONE
1 COMPENSATION
GROUP.:
linking business and reward strategies
Compensation Program Review
Table of Contents
ivak
Background and Objectives -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Summary and Deliverables ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Framework for Conducting Compensation Program Review --------------------------------------
Steps for Completing This Study -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Team and Related Experience ------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Financial Budget Timeline -------------------------------------------------------------------
Approval-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biographies of Project Team------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page #
3
3
4
5
8
9
10
11
Compensation Program Review
Background and Objectives
The City of Hutchinson (City) is requesting a proposal from Keystone Compensation Group LLC for
providing compensation consulting services. These services include reviewing the current job
descriptions and conducting employee interviews, evaluating jobs using a point factor system,
conducting a competitive market analysis, and preparing recommendations for adjusting the City's
compensation program for 2017.
The City has about 135 full time and part-time employees in approximately 80 job classifications.
Only licensed Police Officers belong to a labor union and the remaining staff is on a merit pay
program with open ranges. Since the last review of the job evaluation system, there have been
changes in position classifications, new jobs added, and salary schedule adjustments. The City
would like the consultant to provide a high level review and suggestions about the exempt and non
exempt status for the jobs. The City would like to conduct a custom compensation survey that
includes various organizations for different job groups.
This proposal outlines our understanding of the scope of this study, steps we would take to meet its
objectives, approximate timeline, and an estimate of the financial budget to complete the work.
Project Summary and Deliverables
1. Provide high level review of job descriptions and interview employees to ensure consistent
terminology and job requirements. Current descriptions have been reviewed by
Department Heads and are up-to-date. Employees' involvement is the objective of this step.
2. Evaluate jobs using the Stanton Group Point Factor Job Evaluation System.
3. Conduct a custom survey for select organizations and collect compensation data.
4. Conduct a competitive market analysis and comparisons for City jobs.
S. Calibrate the current salary ranges with the market
6. Perform statistical analyses and create graphical illustrations to describe the relationship
between City's pay level, market, and internal equity.
7. Prepare recommendations for revising the current wage structure based on internal job
evaluation results and market analysis.
8. Work with City staff to prepare a cost estimate for the impact of the recommended wage
structure on total payroll budget and individual pay (if necessary).
9. Prepare a final summary report documenting all processes and analysis and their
implication on City's compensation program.
10. Throughout the project create opportunities for employees, management, and City Council
to be involved as deemed necessary by the project team. The goal is to inform and build
credibility for the program review process.
Framework for the Compensation Program Review at the City of Hutchinson
Confirm Job Revise Job Descriptions
Responsibilities & Job Based on EE Input
Descriptions
Collect Market Build Master Database
Data for City and Market
Prepare Various Pay Calibrate Wage
Comparisons and Structure
Confirm Internal Equity
I
Evaluate Jobs
Statistical Analysis of
Market & City Data
Estimate Payroll Budget
Impact
Develop Study Prepare Final City Council & EE
Recommendations Report Presentations
Compensation Program Review
Steps for Completing This Study
The lead consultant typically starts the project with an initial planning meeting with the HR
Director and other stakeholders as appropriate (could include City Council, Department Heads, or
others like team design). The purpose of this meeting would be for the City's team and the
consultant to exchange the necessary information related to this project, discuss the overall
process, and approve the project timeline. Keystone proposes the following steps for completing
this study:
1. Initial planning meeting
a. Review current pay practices and confirm deliverables. This includes gathering current
compensation program information and outline important areas to be address.
b. Discuss process for collecting market data, job descriptions review, employee
interviews, and the work that City HR staff could do to cut project budget.
c. Confirm the City's compensation strategy. This includes discussing the market for talent,
where the City would like to stack its pay program against the market, and the
performance-based element of the pay program (answer the question of what the City is
rewarding and how).
d. Confirm pay structure design to align with the stated compensation strategy.
e. Discuss any dependencies between this stream of work and the organization structure
assessment work indicated in the other segment of the RFP.
2. Review job descriptions
a. In our call with the City HR Director we were informed that job descriptions are in good
shape and that Department Heads have reviewed them recently. Our review would be
for general consistency and to provide an outside point of view for maintaining these
descriptions by the City.
b. Keystone would provide a Position Description Questionnaire that maybe customized
to cover the additional information needed for evaluating the jobs.
c. The City HR Director pointed out that the FLSA status (exemption) is fairly
representative of the jobs and the review is not for doing the DOL Test We would
provide a summary of the anticipated DOL changes for the FLSA test and what the City
needs to be prepared for if these changes are adopted in the future.
d. City HR will schedule employee interviews at the rate of 20-30 minutes for each job.
Two Keystone Consultants would be available to conduct interviews at the same time.
This step assumes all job documentations are available in MS Word format
e. A budget saving item in this step would be for the City to have an HR resource available
to finalize documentations immediately after the interviews using consultant notes.
Compensation Program Review
3. Evaluate City jobs using the Stanton Job Evaluation System
a. Keystone Consultants have a long history with the Stanton Job Evaluation System. We
would recommend maintaining that system and may propose enhancements for how
the evaluation factors are defined. Dr. Abboud was involved in multiple revisions of this
system since 1990. Keystone currently uses an updated version of this system.
b. Evaluate all (80) jobs and review the results with the City project team. This step
typically requires multiple iterations and manager approval in order to minimize
(eliminate) the need for job review requests which happens when managers are not
closely involved in the calibration of their department jobs.
c. The final evaluations would be used in combination with market data to revise the wage
structure and assign jobs to grades.
d. Keystone would provide HR a review request form to be used for future job re-
evaluation requests.
4. Conduct initial statistical analysis on the current pay program
a. Review historical analysis and current individual employees' compensation and grades.
b. Conduct appropriate statistical analysis and prepare scatterplots to help understand
patterns and trends as well as any existing internal equity issues.
c. Summarize findings and develop a possible course of action to correct issues.
d. Share results of these analyses with the project team/management as needed.
5. Administer a market survey
a. The City has developed several groups of jobs and determined the market target for
those jobs. We would partner with City staff to update the survey instrument used in the
past.
b. Consultant and City staff would jointly recruit participants to submit their data for this
study. The HR Director indicated that the City has had very good cooperation from other
entities invited to submit data. This is a critical step for the success of the project!
c. Scrub survey data to make sure that all matches by participants are valid. Follow up
with participants to verify information. Summarize data and compute summaries.
d. Consultant could administer this survey directly in collaboration with HR staff or let the
City HR lead this step to reduce the budget assigned to this step.
6. Prepare comparisons with the market and calibrate salary ranges
a. Use market data and evaluation points to evaluate the current ranges and compare
them with the market.
Compensation Program Review
b. Prepare scatterplots and trend lines for the new ranges and actual salaries to illustrate
City's pay position relative to the market This step also helps identify any anomalies or
potential issues with internal equity going forward (State Pay Equity Act).
c. Use market pricing data and general trend surveys to recommend 2017 grade ranges.
d. Review outcomes with City team before moving to next step.
7. Work with City staff to conduct budget impact analysis for the proposed ranges
a. Evaluate wages for employees relative to the updated ranges.
b. Create an overall summary of the budget impact for of the recommended ranges.
c. Determine salary actions needed and provide recommendations
d. This step is typically completed in collaboration with City HR and helps with receiving
leadership approval for the recommended grades.
8. Review performance-based program elements
The consultant would review the current salary structure design and salary increase
guidelines and charts then provide suggestion for improvement. This is an area that would
be covered in employees and managers training/presentations.
9. Opportunity for stakeholders' involvement
The success of this project will depend on making sure that all stakeholders are informed
or involved as necessary. This enhances the trust in the final outcomes and helps with open
communications and transparency. Meetings with employees, department heads, and the
City Council would be held as necessary to provide education about the process, how the
program works, and to receive feedback (we budgeted six meetings for this step).
10. Prepare the final report
In addition to the contents prepared for the various meeting presentations, the consultant
would prepare a summary report that includes methodology, benchmark analysis results,
specific observations, and recommendations. All information would be provided to City
HR electronically and on paper as needed.
11. Ongoing City Support
We approach this study as being your business partner invested in the success of this
program. Our goal is to ensure knowledge transfer from consultant to City staff and to help
the City be capable of sustaining the program going forward. We would be available to
support the City after project completion and to answer questions. Simple and short
inquiries are answered at no additional cost, while more substantial work would be quoted
separately. As a guideline we use the hourly rate of $175 internally but invoice clients on a
project deliverable basis. This practice reinforces the principle where the consultant gets
paid for the results provided not clock time.
Compensation Program Review
Project Team and Related Experience
This project will be led by Dr. Saado Y. Abboud who will be the first contact for the City. Stefan
Peterson, a Sr. Consultant with Keystone, will assist with employee interviews and provide
benchmarking and analytical support to this project Among the specific experience that Saado has
related to public sector compensation and this study:
1. Currently managing a compensation survey with 14 major counties and large cities in
Minnesota covering over 160 jobs. Counties and cities like Hennepin County, Ramsey,
Dakota, Anoka, St Louis County, Olmsted, Carver, Scott, City of Rochester, City of
Bloomington, and other agencies participate in this annual market study.
Had managed the annual market survey for Minnesota metro cities and counties for over 12
years (Stanton Group Metro Survey). This survey is currently part of the League of MN
Cities Survey.
3. Extensive experience with developing and implementing compensation programs in various
industries including government, non-profit, and private sectors.
4. Has long experience working with several counties and cities such as Scott, Dakota, Anoka,
St Louis Park, Faribault, Chanhassen, Rochester, Carlton County, McLeod County, and Crow
Wing County among others. In addition, we just received an approval for a study at the City
of Silver Lake. Saado also co-authored a ground -braking article in the WorldatWork Journal
on the performance-based compensation program at Scott County. He received Author of
the Year Award in 2011 for writing this article.
S. Many years of experience as a corporate compensation manager, a professional consultant,
and Board leadership of several professional compensation associations.
Compensation Program Review
Project Budget Summary and Estimated Timeline
Notes
- Keystone would invoice the City in three installments based on project milestones reached:
after completion of job descriptions review, after job evaluation and compensation analysis,
and the balance at project completion.
- The estimate in this proposal is a not -to -exceed amount and is based on our understanding
of the scope of the project
- Timeline is a placeholder for steps. Upon accepting proposal, consultant would prepare a
project plan with more precise timeline and desired completion date (August or September
2016). August timeline many be a little tight! HR Director mentioned that you may have
some flexibility with this deadline and that is important to help with change management
Professional
Description
Timeline
Fees
Notes
Initial planning meeting,
documents collection, clarifying
roles and responsibilities,
Weeks 1-2
$750
On site meeting
strategy discussion, and timeline
approval
Job description review, job
Lower end is if City
interviews, high level documents
Weeks 3-8
$9,000 - $12,000
has resources to
update if needed; includes 80 jobs
support this step
Evaluate 80 jobs using Stanton
Multiple iterations
Job Evaluation System, calibrate
Weeks 9-12
$6,125
involved
outcomes with managers and HR
Administer market survey for a
Area where City HR
total of 28 different agencies and
Weeks 3-8
$0-$4,200
could help to reduce
varying number of jobs
budget for this step
Conduct compensation analysis
and prepare various analyses for
Weeks 13-16
$4,375
current pay program. Calibrate
salary structure
Program costing and budget
Costing is done in
analysis
Week 17
$700
partnership with
City HR
Up to six different sessions with
Happens different
various stakeholders, contents
Varies
$6,300
stages of the project
preparation and presentation
Prepare final report and
Weeks 18-20
$1,225
administrative support
Upper range for
Overall
Weeks 1-20
$28,475 - $35,675
more job JD and
survey work
Notes
- Keystone would invoice the City in three installments based on project milestones reached:
after completion of job descriptions review, after job evaluation and compensation analysis,
and the balance at project completion.
- The estimate in this proposal is a not -to -exceed amount and is based on our understanding
of the scope of the project
- Timeline is a placeholder for steps. Upon accepting proposal, consultant would prepare a
project plan with more precise timeline and desired completion date (August or September
2016). August timeline many be a little tight! HR Director mentioned that you may have
some flexibility with this deadline and that is important to help with change management
Compensation Program Review
Why Keystone!
1. Client Relationship Focus: Our consultants emphasize strong relationships with our
clients based on mutual respect, responsiveness, and genuine desire to help.
2. Expertise: With an average experience of 25 years in the field, our consultants have
acquired significant knowledge and expertise in various industries and organizations.
3. Our Values: Integrity, honesty, and excellence guide our working relationship with our
clients.
4. Business Acumen: We invest significant time upfront to help us understand the issues
facing our clients. We view compensation as a strategic investment that organizations make
in their employees. Our role is to help clients manage this investment in order to better
attract, motivate, and retain their talent and improve their business outcomes.
Approval
This proposal is prepared based on our understanding of the scope of the services requested
and phone conversations with the City HR Director. Additional work outside of the scope
may be priced separately upon request from the City.
We can start this study within two weeks of receiving approval for this proposal and upon
receiving the information needed to get started.
We are privileged to be considered for this project and look forward to the opportunity to
work with you on this important study! If you have any questions, please call Saado Abboud
at: 612.810.3522 or email him at: sabboud@keystone comp. net.
If you approve this proposal, please sign below and return a copy of this page this
agreement to Saado Abboud at: sabboud@keystonecomp.net
City Authorized Signature:
Approved by
Title Date
Compensation Program Review
Saado Y. Abboud, Ph.D.
Keystone Compensation Group, LLC
Principal Consultant
3316 Ensign Ave North
Minneapolis MN 55427
Tel: 612.810.3522
Sabboud@keystonecomp.net
Saado is a founding partner of Keystone Compensation Group LLC with over twenty five years of
experience in the field of compensation. His experience involves all phases of compensation
program development, strategy, design and management His clients include organizations in
private, public sector, and nonprofit. He consults with top executives and board of directors on
executive compensation design and management. His combined experience in managing
compensation programs within a Fortune 100 company and as a professional consultant gives him a
balanced view for solving compensation issues.
Most recently Saado served as Vice President, Compensation Practice for Stanton Group, a regional
consulting and survey research firm in Minneapolis. He worked closely with business and HR
leaders as well as Boards of Directors to develop rewards programs for executives, middle
management, and other employees. Saado's compensation experience includes developing base pay,
short-term and long-term incentive programs to attract and motivate employees. He also helps his
clients with communicating reward programs.
Prior to joining Stanton Group, Saado spent several years in a senior leadership position at Best Buy
Co. with responsibilities over corporate compensation programs as well as executive compensation.
Among his other accomplishments was taking a key role in restructuring the HR function and
leading several technology initiatives to support business growth. He contributed articles and
interviews to several trade publications, including Workspan, a monthly journal for total rewards
professionals, Minnesota Bankers News and the Twin Cities Business Journal.
Early in his career, Saado taught at the college and graduate school levels, domestically and abroad.
He has a doctorate and master's degrees from the University of Minnesota in Quantitative Analysis.
He also received his MBA degree in Corporate Finance from the University of St. Thomas. Saado is a
certified compensation professional (CCP), a member of WorldatWork, and Chairman of the Local
Network Advisory Board for WorldatWork. Saado also served for several years on the Twin Cities
Compensation Network Board of Directors.
Compensation Program Review
Stefan K. Peterson, CCP
Keystone Compensation Group, LLC
Principal Consultant
3316 Ensign Ave North
Minneapolis MN 55427
Tel: 952.270.1114
Speterson@keystonecomp.net
www.keystonecomp.net
Stefan is a Senior Compensation Consultant at Keystone Compensation Group LLC with over thirty
years of experience in the field of compensation. His experience involves managing compensation,
benefits, and human resources systems. His compensation and benefits career included
organizations in the healthcare, retail, technology, and manufacturing industries. His experience in
managing compensation and benefits programs within Fortune 100 companies and midsize
organizations uniquely qualifies him to solve diverse client challenges.
Most recently Stefan served as Sr. Director of Compensation and Benefits at Fairview Health
Services, a premier healthcare organization in Minneapolis. He had responsibility over a team
charged with the redesigning of compensation and benefits programs as well as the implementation
of new human resources and payroll systems. He also provided executive compensation consulting
services and developed HR Committee meeting materials. Stefan's compensation experience
includes developing base pay, short-term, and long-term incentive programs to attract and motivate
employees.
Prior to joining Fairview Health Services, Stefan held several senior leadership positions at Nash
Finch Company, Pearson Inc., National Computer Systems, BMC Industries, Alliant Techsystems and
Honeywell Inc. In all these organizations he had broad responsibilities over base pay programs, job
evaluation, and executive compensation.
Stefan has a Master's degree from Gonzaga University in Human Resources Management and a
Bachelor's degree in Political Science from University of North Dakota. He has been a faculty
member at the Metropolitan State University for over twenty years teaching compensation and
benefits classes. He is a Certified Compensation Professional (CCP) and a Senior Professional in
Human Resources (SPHR). Stefan is a member of WorldatWork and the Twin Cities Compensation
Network (TCCN). He also served on the Twin Cities Compensation Network Board of Directors.
Memo
To: Mayor Forcier and City Council Members
From: Matt Jaunich, City Administrator
Date: 4/7/16
Re: Organizational Study
Office of the City Administrator
111 Hassan Street SE
Hutchinson, MN 55350-2522
320-234-4241/Fax 320-234-4240
In conjunction with the agenda item to approve a Job Evaluation and Compensation Study for
the City, please note that staff also looked at consulting services for an Organizational Study. We
received three proposals for this option. Prices ranged from around $20,000 to $77,000. At this
time, Staff is not recommending we proceed with this type of study.
There are a couple of reasons for this recommendation. First off, we only budgeted $45,000 for
the Job Evaluation & Compensation Study and Organizational Study. Most of the $45,000
budget will go to cover costs for the Job Evaluation & Compensation Study leaving not enough
to conduct an organizational study. Secondly, part of an organizational study includes the
evaluation of job descriptions and employee compensation. With both of those items being
evaluated during the Job Evaluation and Compensation Study, we felt it would be too difficult to
provide appropriate information at this time on an organizational study.
Staff feels that we are better off waiting a year to pursue the organizational study. This allows for
us to properly budget for that event and will allow for more accurate data to be available upon
the completion of the Evaluation and Compensation Study. If you have any questions and/or
concerns on this, please don't hesitate to ask. Thanks!
Matt
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL ci=V�f�
Request for Board Action 79 M-W
Agenda Item: Consideration of Sustainable Purchasing Policy
Department: PW/Eng
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 4/12/2016
Application Complete N/A
Contact: John Paulson
Agenda Item Type:
Presenter: Jamie Johnson
Reviewed by Staff ❑
New Business
Time Requested (Minutes): 5
License Contingency N/A
Attachments: Yes
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OF AGENDA ITEM:
The City of Hutchinson is currently a Step 2 City in the Green Step Cities program. One of the required best practices
to obtain Step 3 designation is to adopt a Sustainable Purchasing Policy. Sustainable purchasing, also known as
environmentally preferable purchasing, shifts city purchasing to procurement of goods and services that have a
reduced effect on the natural environment and human health when compared to competing products and services that
serve the same purpose. While life-cycle assessments offer the best metric for determining what is the most
sustainable, product and service attributes are commonly used as a proxy, and include:
-Increased energy efficiency
-Reduced toxicity
-Beneficial to indoor air quality
-Water-conserving
-Recycled-content
-Minimized waste
-Plant-based
-Locally produced
The City of Hutchinson has historically purchased items in line with these attributes. The Sustainable Purchasing
Policy would be a guide for making more sustainable purchasing decisions moving forward. The Policy is attached for
your review and consideration.
City staff will be available to answer any questions that you may have.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Consideration of approving Sustainable Purchasing Policy.
Fiscal Impact: $ 0.00 Funding Source:
FTE Impact: Budget Change: No
Included in current budget: No
PROJECT SECTION:
Total Project Cost: $ 0.00
Total City Cost: $ 0.00 Funding Source:
Remaining Cost: $ 0.00 Funding Source:
City of Hutchinson Sustainable Purchasing Policy
April 6, 2016
Purpose
The Purpose of this policy is to encourage and increase purchasing that reflects the City's Global Ends
Statement, as well as its commitment to sustainability. This policy is adopted in order to promote the
following goals:
• Conserving natural resources
• Minimizing environmental impacts, such as pollution
• Supporting strong recycling markets, such as the ones that the City contributes to through its
recycling programs
• Increasing the use and availability of environmentally preferable products that protect the
environment
• Rewarding manufacturers and vendors that reduce environmental impacts in their production
and distribution systems
• Creating a model for successfully purchasing environmentally preferable products that
encourages other purchasers in our community to adopt similar goals
• Lowering overall costs by addressing full cost accounting (purchase, maintenance, resource
consumption, disposal, staff time, and labor)
• Leveraging buying power
Policy
The following guidelines are to be followed by the City of Hutchinson.
1. Recycled Paper Products and Recycled -content Products
Per Minnesota Statute 16C.073 and per the Federal Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
requirements, the City of Hutchinson will endeavor to purchase paper products containing the
highest available and practicable post -consumer content for paper office supplies. For copy
paper, this should be no less than 30% recycled -content paper. For all purchases, this guideline
is to be followed so long as it is economically feasible.
2. Waste minimization
The City should buy in bulk whenever practical to reduce packaging and waste. Packaging that is
reusable, recyclable, or compostable is preferred when suitable uses and programs exist.
3. Energy Saving Products
All appliances and products purchased by the City for which that US EPA Energy Star certification
is available, will meet Energy Star Certification, provided such products are available and
financially feasible. This includes lighting systems, IT equipment, and appliances. The lifecycle
energy cost reductions of purchasing such systems are encouraged to be factored in when
determining whether the purchase is economically feasible.
Procedure
When purchasing products and services for the City, staff will:
• Ensure that specifications support the use of reusable, recycled, or environmentally preferable
products by following these guidelines.
• Evaluate environmentally preferable products to determine the extent to which they may be
used by the departments and its contractors
• Communicate and coordinate bulk purchases between departments in order to better facilitate
cost savings and waste reduction
• Use a standard of accepting 10% increased cost for these items, although departments may
choose to accept another standard depending on budgetary constraints or flexibility
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL ci=V�f�
Request for Board Action 79 M-W
Agenda Item: Project Award for 2016 Street Seal Coating Project (L3/P16-03)
Department: PW/Eng
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 4/12/2016
Application Complete N/A
Contact: Kent Exner
Agenda Item Type:
Presenter: Kent Exner
Reviewed by Staff ❑
New Business
Time Requested (Minutes): 5
License Contingency N/A
Attachments: Yes
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OF AGENDA ITEM:
The City received three (3) bids (see attached Bid Tabulation) for the 2016 Street Seal Coating project letting on
Wednesday, March 30th. The apparent low bidder is Pearson Bros., Inc. of Hanover, Minnesota, with a bid of
$169,887.66 (approximately 30% lower than the final Engineer's Estimate). This project's total cost and associated
funding were reviewed by the Resource Allocation Committee and are accounted for within the City's proposed 2016
Infrastructure Improvement Program.
Due to this extremely competitive bid, City staff is currently working with this contractor to determine if additional work
could potentially be included within this construction contract at the same unit price. Thus, in the relatively near
future, a project change order may be proposed to the City Council to act on this potential opportunity.
City staff will provide a brief overview of the project scope, schedule and bids at the upcoming City Council meeting.
The necessary Resolutions to award this project are attached. We recommend approving the provided Resolutions.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Approval of Resolutions
Fiscal Impact: Funding Source:
FTE Impact: Budget Change: No
Included in current budget: Yes
PROJECT SECTION:
Total Project Cost: $ 191,848.00
Total City Cost: $ 191,848.00 Funding Source: Infrastructure Maintenance Funds
Remaining Cost: $ 0.00 Funding Source:
RESOLUTION NO. 14550
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT
LETTING NO. 3/PROJECT NO. 16-03
Whereas, pursuant to an advertisement for bids forthe furnishing of all labor and material forthe improvement of:
2016 Street Seal Coating: Multiple City street segments to be determined; street surface seal
coat application by construction of bituminous material, aggregate, fog seal material and
appurtenances,
bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with
the advertisement:
Bidder Bid Unit Price
Pearson Bros, Inc of Hanover MN $169,887.66 $1.38/SY
Asphalt Surface Technologies Corp. $193,277.99 $1.57/SY
Caldwell Asphalt Co. Inc $227,747.94 $1.85/SY
and whereas, it appears that Pearson Bros, Inc of Hanover MN is the lowest responsible bidder.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON,
MINNESOTA:
The mayor and city administrator are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with
Pearson Bros, Inc of Hanover MN in the amount of $169,887.66 ($1.38/SY) in the name of the City of
Hutchinson, for the improvement contained herein, according to the plans and specifications therefor
approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Engineer.
2. The City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made
with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be
retained until a contract has been signed, and the deposit of the successful bidder shall be retained until
satisfactory completion of the contract.
Adopted by the Hutchinson City Council this 12th day of April 2016.
Mayor, Gary Forcier
City Administrator, Matt Jaunich
CITY OF HUTCHINSON, 111 HASSAN ST SE, HUTCHINSON MN 55350 320-234-4209
BID TABULATION - CITY OF HUTCHINSON
LETTING NO. 3/PROJECT NO. 16-03 - 2016 SEAL COAT PROJECT
BID OPENING: 03/30/2016 AT 11:00 AM ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE $244,000.00 COMPLETION DATE: 08/12/2016
Pearson Bros, Inc
Asphalt Surface Technologies Corp.
Caldwell Asphalt Co Inc
Jack Pearson
Dale Strandberg
Keith Rende
}
11079 Lamont Ave NE
P O Box 1025
24060 175th St NE
0
H
Hanover MN 55341
St Cloud MN 56302
Hawick MN 56273
M
w
ITEM DESCRIPTION
Z
Z
763391-6622
320363-8500
320-243-4023
F(
missy@pearsonbrosinc.com
astechdale@hotmail.com
caldwellasphalt@hotmaill.com
_
M
BID PRICE BID TOTAL
BID PRICE I BID TOTAL
BID PRICE I BID TOTAL
$169,887.66
$193,277.99
$227,747.94
1
SEAL COATING
SY
123,107.0
$1.38 $169,887.66
$1.57 $193,277.99
$1.850 $227,747.94
TOTAL LETTING NO. 3/PROJECT NO. 16-03
$169,887.661
$193,277.99
$227,747.94
Pagel of 1
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL ci=V�f�
Request for Board Action 79 M-W
Agenda Item: Review of 2016 Pavement Management Program Report
Department: PW/Eng
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 4/12/2016
Application Complete N/A
Contact: Kent Exner/John Olson
Agenda Item Type:
Presenter: John Olson
Reviewed by Staff ❑
New Business
Time Requested (Minutes): 15
License Contingency N/A
Attachments: No
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OF AGENDA ITEM:
City staff has administered the preparation of the annual Pavement Management Program report. A summary of this
document was reviewed by the Resource Allocation Committee at a recent meeting. At this point, City staff would like
to give the City Council a brief review of this document's contents and current findings. Please note that report
summary/presentation information will be provided at the City Council meeting.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Fiscal Impact: Funding Source:
FTE Impact: Budget Change: No
Included in current budget: Yes
PROJECT SECTION:
Total Project Cost:
Total City Cost: Funding Source:
Remaining Cost: $ 0.00 Funding Source:
Pavement Management Report
Review of
2016 findings
This report reviews key findings of the 2016 pavement management report and
summarizes issues related to pavement management.
2016 PMP - Pavement
Inventory
El Inventory - Streets
■ Streets: 90.6 miles
❑ State 6.7 miles
❑ County 7.9 miles
❑ City 76.0 miles
1,498,279 sq yds
There are 76 miles of City streets. About 14.6 miles of street are under other
political jurisdictions, for a total of 90.6 miles of street in Hutchinson. These City
streets equate to nearly 1.5 million square yards of pavement (about 310 acres).
The pavement network has grown at a pace of just under 2% per year over the
last 20 years.
It's important to remember that this doesn't include other City -owned pavements
at public facilities, in alleys, trails or parking lots.
2
Pavement Management - Why?
Rehabilitation costs for existing pavement in the
City = well over $100 million.
It is less expensive to keep good pavements
good.
4 Extending the life of existing pavements saves
money - - lots of money!
Pavement management is a strategy to protect the City's significant
investments made in pavement.
The almost 1.5 million square yards of City -owned streets would cost well over
$100 million to rehabilitate.
With that kind of money on the line, pavement management makes sense. The
City can save a lot of money by identifying key issues that help decision -makers
craft appropriate responses in a timely manner to help maximize the life and
minimize the cost of the City's pavement network.
3
Addressing pavement maintenance at critical times in a street's life serves to
prolong the life of the street. Street conditions are categorized in a Pavement
Condition Index (PCI). A PCI of 100 indicates a brand new street, and as more
and more distresses show up in the pavement, the PCI drops until the end of the
street's life.
Lower-cost maintenance treatments, when applied at the right time, can improve
the PCI and prolong pavement life.
Once a pavement section's PCI drops too low, less expensive maintenance
alternatives are no longer available or adequate. Expensive maintenance
treatments are then required.
Pavements will ultimately decay to the point where costly rehabilitation becomes
necessary. The goal of pavement management is to 'do the right thing to the
right pavement at the right time' in order push the date of expensive
rehabilitation as far out into the future as possible.
4
Pavement Management Pavement Benefit
100
FC[ Afl.r M—t.r
X
Area ofMmnttnanceHtatHt
D80
DecayCt tBefmtMamttnanct
...................... ............. .............
C
C
O
60
.
'v
O
PCI btfott Mmmmn ,
U
D.cay Ct #AR.r Mw*w.aace
40
••-- ------------------ ---- - ---------..__..- ----------_......
N
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Age Since Construction
Addressing pavement maintenance at critical times in a street's life serves to
prolong the life of the street. Street conditions are categorized in a Pavement
Condition Index (PCI). A PCI of 100 indicates a brand new street, and as more
and more distresses show up in the pavement, the PCI drops until the end of the
street's life.
Lower-cost maintenance treatments, when applied at the right time, can improve
the PCI and prolong pavement life.
Once a pavement section's PCI drops too low, less expensive maintenance
alternatives are no longer available or adequate. Expensive maintenance
treatments are then required.
Pavements will ultimately decay to the point where costly rehabilitation becomes
necessary. The goal of pavement management is to 'do the right thing to the
right pavement at the right time' in order push the date of expensive
rehabilitation as far out into the future as possible.
4
2016 PMP - Pavement Condition
Ratings
❑ Last pavement survey - 2014.
❑ Next survey - 2017.
❑ Goodpointe Technology
■ Consistency
■ Limited time period
■ Cost
Periodic physical pavement condition surveys are conducted to keep us aware
of pavement conditions. These surveys provide a snapshot in time of City-wide
pavement conditions. The last physical pavement condition survey was done in
2014.
Information gathered during surveys is also used to establish standard decay
rates, to help calculate expected changes in average PCI ratings between
physical condition surveys. The next condition survey is proposed for 2017.
For the last several surveys we have contracted with Goodpointe Technology,
who also maintains our Pavement Management software. We have found
contracting with them helps us address three main issues related to managing
pavement condition data:
1) The consistency of the data.
2) The ability to complete condition surveys in a limited time period, which
provides more relevant, accurate data.
3) Completing surveys at a reasonable cost.
,7
Pavement Condition Index -- Pavement Surveys
79
76
74X
Y
v
M 72
C
O i
V
70 i.._
C
O
u+ 68 77
Y
66 72 71
TO
CL 69
6462
.. _
66
60
1996 2004 2007 2011 2014 2016
Year
In 1996, the overall PCI of City streets was 72. The spike in 2004 to 77 followed
several years of adding new streets within the City.
2007's PCI showed a drop of 6 points. Much of the investment in the late 1990's
and early 2000's was directed toward new pavement, which left fewer resources
available for maintenance of the existing network.
Following along with the recession, the 2011 PCI was near the bottom of
targeted average PCI of 65 to 75.
With the recession in the building industry, new developments virtually stopped.
During that time, most capital funding was able to be directed toward
maintaining existing pavements, as demonstrated by the significant rise in the
average PCI between 2011 and 2014. After accounting for the work in 2014 and
2015, the current network PCI is estimated to be 70.
An actual physical condition survey, proposed for 2017, will give a clearer picture
of the positive effects of 2014-2016's work.
A
Before we get started on the photos, it's important to remember these photos
were taken as small windows that provide a reasonable representation of
various PCI ratings. You will probably recognize some of the areas in the
following photos, even some that have been reconstructed since these photos
were taken. So this serves as a reminder to focus on the actual street condition,
and not the location.
Here's a street with a PCI of 90. There can be a few cracks starting, usually the
first cracks are perpendicular to the direction of travel and around manholes and
valves. Streets in this PCI range are inspected for any minor repairs that need
to be done, and great care taken in making those repairs. The goal when
maintaining streets in this condition is to prepare them for sealing projects within
a few years.
7
Here's a street segment with a PCI of 70. You will note that there may be some
past repairs, and you see cracking that runs in both directions. Streets in this
condition may be crack sealed and local repairs may be made to prepare them
for seal coating (chip seal + fog seal) or perhaps a thin overlay.
Here's a street with a PCI of 50. These streets may or may not be too far gone
to prepare for seal coating. Overlays are also considered for streets in this
condition. Maintenance efforts for these streets are focused on keeping areas
from completely failing and to retain a fairly good ride. It's not uncommon for
streets in this general category to be treated with skim patches, pothole repairs,
and spray injection patching.
0,
Streets with PCI's under 35 are in poor condition. The maintenance focus for
streets in this condition is to make sure they are safe for travel until a
rehabilitation project can be done. The usual tools to keep the streets safe
include pothole patching, some minor skim patching, and perhaps spray
injection patching.
`11C
Once a street has deteriorated to a PCI of 10, it's rehabilitation is imminent.
Maintenance efforts are focused on safety, and may be limited to the driving
lanes and pedestrian crosswalk areas of the street in order to minimize
maintenance investments made before the street is rehabilitated.
11
PMP 2016 - Maintaining
Targeted PCI Ratings
❑ GOAL:
■ Maintain average PCI of 65 - 75
❑ Anticipated cost of $2.2 million/yr.
To maintain an average network PCI of between 65 and 75 for the next few
years, the report indicates the need to invest around $2.2 million per year in the
pavement network.
Continually underfunding pavement condition projects eventually results in the
average PCI of the network dropping. Maintenance options for deteriorated
pavements become more limited and expensive as overall condition drops.
The backlog of necessary work can become overwhelming. Many cities in this
circumstance have had to take on significant debt and do large-scale, disruptive
projects to get a handle on the condition of their streets. When that happens, it
can easily end up being a very expensive pattern that gets repeated, since it is
difficult to come up with money to both pay off the debt and perform the needed,
low-cost maintenance options.
W
PMP 2016 - Network Condition
Network Average Condition Index
1996 72
2004 77
2007 69
2011 66
2014 71 Good
2016 ('14, 15 'work) 70 G o
The 2016 estimated PCI is right in the middle of our stated goal of 65-75.
After accounting for the work done in 2014 and 2015, the PCI remained almost
the same, dropping only one point from the last physical pavement condition
survey in 2014.
13
PMP 2016 - PCI Comparison
Condition by % of area 1996 2004 2007 2011 2014 Chance
Poor (0-35) = 10.1% 8.8% 6.1% 16.7% 14.5% -2.2%
(35-50) = 6.4% 6.6% 8.7% 11.8% 10.1% -1.7%
(50-70) = 16.7% 15.3% 24.5% 17.0% 22.9% +s.9%
Good (70-85) = 32.7% 22.5% 32.0% 22.9% 19.0% -3.9%
Excellent (85 -loo) = 34.1% 46.8% 28.7% 31.6% 33.6% +2.0%
The distribution of the area included in various condition ratings indicates a shift
toward lower condition ratings.
PCI = Excellent/Good -
1.9% drop
PCI =Adequate -
5.9% increase
PCI = Marginal/Poor -
3.9% drop
The increase in the "Excellent" ratings and decrease in "Marginal/Poor" ratings is
a result of recent projects that have addressed long stretches of poor quality
streets (Jefferson St, 2nd Ave, Golf Course Rd, Shady Ridge Rd, etc.).
The data clearly indicates a "bubble" of streets that are starting to slip down the
scale. These are primarily streets that were rated as "Good" in the 2011 survey,
but slipped down the "Adequate" category in 2014. The concern related to those
streets is that, as they deteriorate, the options for maintenance become more
limited and expensive.
iiEl
PMP 2016 - PCI Comparison
Area by condition: 1996, 2004, 2007, 2011 h 2014
Ideal Curve
50.0%
45.0%
Y 40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
O
C 25.0%
20.0% '11
'14
15.0%
'1114
10.0% '96.04. .. '07
07 '96'04 .%
5.0%
0.0%
Poor 0-35 Marginal 35-50
07 '14
96'04 '11
'04
Adequate 50-70 Good 70-85 Exceuent 85-100
The dark red curve on the charts show ideal distribution of pavement sections in
the various condition ratings.
We see from this chart that the amount of "Adequate" pavements rose, while the
amount of sections in "Excellent/Good" condition have dropped.
This indicates the general condition of the street network is sliding to the left. Of
particular note is the movement that took place from "Good" down to "Adequate"
condition.
15
PMP 2016 - PCI Comparison
Condition by year: 1996, 2004, 2007, 2011 & 2014
50.0%
45.0%
40.0
35.0%
d
30.0%
� u
25-0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
0.0%
1996 2004 2007
.P-0-35
MarglM 35-50
ndegWte 50-70
.Good 70-85
+Excellent 85-100
iF
_'.!_,..
2011 2014
This chart shows the distribution of the network for each year we have done
pavement condition surveys.
In 2014, the number of sections in "Marginal/Poor" condition dropped 3.8% and
pavements in "Good/Excellent" condition dropped 1.9%.
The growth was in the streets rated as "Adequate"
Again, the data raises the concern of a pending need for more costly
rehabilitation of a more significant percentage of City pavements.
As rehabilitation needs arise, it is important to continue to maintain pavement
sections that are currently in "Excellent/Good/Adequate" condition so these
pavements do not fall into disrepair and also begin to require more expensive
rehabilitation.
16
PMP
2016 —
Previous
5 -year
Projects
Sc Ft
5 Yr Avg
New =
43,750
9,470
0.8%
Reconstruct = 366,812
73,362
5.8%
•
Partial recon
= 380,083
76,017
6.0%
■
Reclaim =
423,113
84,623
6.7%
■
Overlays =
520,021
100,004
8.2%
■
Seal Coat =
2,751,633
550,327
43.5%
■
Ag oil seal =
1,875,675
375,735
29.7%
■
5 -year =
6,320,338
1,264,068
100.0%
■
All Streets =
13,592,680
9.2%
w
Equivalent Depreciation
=
11 years
In the past 5 years, just over 6 million square feet (700,000 sq yds) of pavement
has been affected by some kind of project. This represents just over 1.2 million
square feet per year.
There are about 13.6 million square feet of City streets (not counting Mn/DOT &
County streets).
Total square feet of pavement worked on during an average year in the last 5
years was a little over 9%, equating to depreciation over 11 years.
In other words, given the average mix of projects that were done over the last 5
years, it would take 11 years for all City pavements to be addressed by the
similar mix of projects.
The equivalent depreciation usually bounces a year or two each year, because
seal coat projects are delivered every other year. Last year, for instance, the
equivalent depreciation was just over 10 years.
17
PMP 2016
Cost
- Capital Projects
Project Type
Maint. 70 Ince 77 Decr. 63
Construction -
$ 720,988 $784,638 $725,334
Partial recon -
$ 65,496 $134,520 $ 83,018
Reclaim/Mill-OL=
$1,159,860 $1,306,286 $926,990
Capital Projects
$1,946,344 $2,225,444 $1,735,342
Estimated costs
Construction = $8.49/sf
Partial recon = $6.37/sf
Reclaim/Mill-OL = $3.78/sf
Using pavement management data, three possible scenarios were established
over a 20 -year period.
1) Maintaining a PCI of 70
2) Increasing to a PCI of 77 (+10%)
3) Decreasing to a PCI of 63 (-10%)
Specific projects were identified for the first 5 years of the 20 -year period, in
each scenario, for each of the maintenance project type.
Using standard costs for those maintenance project types, which are derived
from past, actual project costs, anticipated annual project costs were
determined.
iiH
PMP 2016 - Spending
Recommendations
Street -related
® Recommend funding targets
- Infrastructure:
❑ Reconstruction & Partial recon
$ 787,000
❑ Reclaim/Mill-OL
$1,160,000
❑ Capital program
$1,946,000
($1.9 million annual cost equates to about $3 million for existing
streets and 35% of costs for non -street
project components)
❑ Maintenance overlay
$ 44,000
❑ Seal coat
$ 110,000
❑ Patching/Crack repair
$ 112,000
❑ Maintenance program"
$ 266,000
Total Program
$2,212,000
To maintain a PCI of 70, pavement -related capital spending should be about $1.9
million. This would allow a PCI of 70 to be maintained for a 5 -year period (provided
there are no significant changes in project costs). Every three years, following a
condition survey, the data can be re -checked. Also, within a 5 -year period it is
necessary to review construction cost inflation and adjust budgets accordingly.
Maintenance projects of around $266,000 per year are needed to address necessary
preparatory work and local repairs (recently approved funds for seal coating and
miscellaneous infrastructure maintenance allows more of the General Fund
maintenance budget to be spent directly on pavement maintenance).
Over the last 5 years, the typical year has been made up of:
This budget is addresses existin_gg pavements, not new construction. It also does not include other
project costs, such as sidewalks/trails, lighting, boulevard trees, water, sewer and storm sewer, or
other non -pavement costs.
PCI of 65 to 75 should be maintained over 5 years using this strategy.
19
Street -related
Non -street
Total
State Aid
$ 600,000
$ 0
$ 600,000
Water, Sewer, Storm
$ 455,000
$ 489,000
$ 944,000
Other City
$ 27,000
$ 347,000
$ 374,000
Assessments
$ 648,000
$ 145,000
$ 793,000
GO Bonds
$1,325,000
$ 294,000
$1,619,000
Other funds
$ 0
$ 766,000
$ 766,000" Airport paving
Construction
$3,055,000
$2,041,000
$5,096,000
This budget is addresses existin_gg pavements, not new construction. It also does not include other
project costs, such as sidewalks/trails, lighting, boulevard trees, water, sewer and storm sewer, or
other non -pavement costs.
PCI of 65 to 75 should be maintained over 5 years using this strategy.
19
Summary
Pavement Management Goals
Protect investment in pavements
Maintain PCI of 65-75
Recommend adjusting GO Bond limit to
$1.9 million
Keep close tabs on pavement conditions
In order to protect the City's significant investment in pavements, we utilized the
pavement management program to help determine necessary spending to
maintain City streets in good condition.
We looked at what projects would be necessary over a 20 -year period to keep
conditions within 65-75 range, choosing the first 5 -years of projects to establish
anticipated spending levels.
The report has indicated a growing backlog of maintenance. An annual capital
project program of $1.9 million, focused on existing pavement, would allow the
overall condition of City streets to stay relatively stable and would meet the goal
of keeping an overall PCI of 65-75.
To ensure we stay on the right course, reviewing the actual condition of City
streets should be done every three years, and reviews of construction cost
inflation should reviewed at least every 5 years.
20
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL ci=V�f�
Request for Board Action 79 M-W
Agenda Item: Review of Hutchinson School District #423 Safe Routes to School Plan
Department: PW/Eng
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 4/12/2016
Application Complete N/A
Contact: Kent Exner
Agenda Item Type:
Presenter: Kent Exner
Reviewed by Staff ❑
New Business
Time Requested (Minutes): 10
License Contingency N/A
Attachments: Yes
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OF AGENDA ITEM:
City staff has participated in the preparation of the Hutchinson School District #423 Safe Routes to School Plan. This
document is attached and was reviewed by the Resource Allocation Committee at a recent meeting. At this point,
City staff would like to give the City Council a brief review of this document's contents and future goals/objectives.
Please note that this document is not a formal City planning effort, but does include several references to the City's
functions and potential participation in future activities/initiatives.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Fiscal Impact: Funding Source:
FTE Impact: Budget Change: No
Included in current budget: Yes
PROJECT SECTION:
Total Project Cost:
Total City Cost: Funding Source:
Remaining Cost: $ 0.00 Funding Source:
Safe Routes to School Plan
Hutchinson School District #423
Hutchinson, Minnesota
January 2016
Prepared by the Mid -Minnesota Development Commission and the
Hutchinson School District Safe Routes to School Task Force
USCF �,
The Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan was prepared by Mid -Minnesota Development
Commission in cooperation with the Hutchinson School District and the City of Hutchinson.
West Elementary School, Park Elementary School, and the Middle School are the focus of this Plan.
West Elementary School
Park Elementary School
Middle School
2117Th
Hutchinson School District
Safe Routes to School Plan
Table of Contents
Chapter One: Introduction to the Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan ............................1
A. Introduction and Background..............................................................................................1
B. The Purpose of Safe Routes to School Plans.......................................................................1
C. The Five E's of SRTS Planning...........................................................................................4
Education................................................................................................................. 4
Walk! Bike! Fun!(textbox)...........................................................................6
Encouragement........................................................................................................ 5
The History ofNational Walk to School Days(textbox) ..............................7
Engineering.............................................................................................................. 7
Enforcement...........................................................................................................10
Evaluation..............................................................................................................10
D. Hutchinson SRTS Planning Process..................................................................................12
Hutchinson School District SRTS Vision Statement..............................................13
Goals for Hutchinson's Safe Routes to School Programs.....................................13
E. Hutchinson SRTS Plan Stakeholders.................................................................................15
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan i
2117Th
Chapter Two: Existing Conditions............................................................................................18
Chapter Three: SRTS Goals, Objectives, and Action Plan....................................................53
I: Education Goal..............................................................................................................53
II. Encouragement Goal.....................................................................................................56
IILEngineerinGoa .........................................................................................................57
IV. Enforcement Goal........................................................................................................60
V. Evaluation Goal.............................................................................................................61
Chapter Four: SRTS Implementation Resources....................................................................63
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan ii
21VTGit
List of Tables
Table A: Unsafe Behaviors Addressed by SRTS Enforcement Strategies..............................11
Table B: Hutchinson SRTS Task Force Members...................................................................13
Table C: Hutchinson School District Student Ethnicity.........................................................18
List of Figures
Figure A: Crosswalk Treatments...............................................................................................9
Figure B: Fatalities Based on the Speed of a Vehicle..............................................................1 l
Figure C: West Elementary Morning & Afternoon Comparison.............................................35
Figure D: Park Elementary Morning & Afternoon Comparison.............................................36
Figure E: Middle School Morning & Afternoon Comparison.................................................37
Figure F: Parent Estimate of Distance from Child's Home to School.....................................37
Figure G: Concerns of Parents for Walking and Biking..........................................................38
Figure H: Living '/z Mile from School Parent Concerns..........................................................38
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan iii
21VTGit
List of Maps
Map A: Park Elementary School Current Walk Zone.............................................................26
Map B: Middle School Current Walk Zone.............................................................................26
Map C: Hutchinson School Property Complex.......................................................................31
MapD: West Elementary.........................................................................................................31
MapE: Middle School.............................................................................................................31
Map F: West Elementary School.............................................................................................34
Map G: Intersection South Grade Road and Dale Street.........................................................45
Map H: School Area Infrastructure Needs/Concerns..............................................................46
Map I: School Area Infrastructure Needs North......................................................................47
Appendices
Appendix A: Safe Routes To School Matrix
Appendix B: Additional Maps
1. Park Elementary Walk Zone and Sidewalks
2. Park Elementary Current Information
3. Middle School Facilities Map
Appendix C: Parent Survey Form
Appendix D: Detailed Parent Survey Results
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan iv
Chapter One: Introduction to the
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Chapter One provides a description of Safe Routes to School (SRTS) plans, including an
overview of what they include, a description of the national and state's SRTS programs, and a
description of the 5 E's of SRTS planning (Education, Encouragement, Engineering,
Enforcement and Evaluation).
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
A. Introduction and Background
In 2014, the Hutchinson School District successfully applied for funding to undertake Safe
Routes to School (SRTS) Plans for West Elementary, Park Elementary and the Middle School,
all three located in the City of Hutchinson (note: only school grades K-8 were eligible for
funding). The purpose of this Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Plan, hereinafter referred to as the
Plan, is to provide a long range plan for providing both improved safety for children who walk or
bike to school, and to encourage more parents and students that walking and bicycling can be a
beneficial alternative to being driven to school. The top priority of this Plan is working on
improving safety through needed infrastructure improvements, educating students and adults,
and through better enforcement measures. The Plan is designed under the National SRTS
Program that utilizes "The Five E's" of SRTS planning: engineering, education, encouragement,
enforcement, and evaluation. Recommendations from each of these five core areas are included.
The Plan is a working document that will be reviewed periodically and revised when needed.
Both the Hutchinson School District and the City of Hutchinson will work together with the help
of various community partners to make progress on implementing the Plan. A SRTS Task Force
was formed during the Planning process to assist with developing the Plan. This group will need
to stay active and take the lead role for the Plan's oversight to see that progress is being made on
the Action Plan components found in Chapter Three.
B. The Purpose of Safe Routes to School Plans
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) plans are developed to encourage
walking and biking to school by mitigating the numerous obstacles
that discourage students on a daily basis. They include items such as
educating students and parents on why walking and biking to school
is important, to ensuring that roads and sidewalks are designed to
www. safe routes info. org
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan I
facilitate walking and biking. They also include examining school policies to ensure they too
don't indirectly discourage walking and biking, to creating SRTS maps showing the safest routes
for students to get to and from school.
Brief History of SRTS Plans
The concept of `Safe Routes to Schools' planning has been growing in the United States since
the Federal Highway Administration released a study on the safety of children walking and
biking to school in 1975. The purpose of the report, "School Trip Safety and Urban Play
Areas," was to develop guidelines for the protection of young pedestrians (ages 5-14) walking to
and from school, entering and leaving buses, and at neighborhood play. Many interesting
findings from the study include:
1. Young students (ages 5-9) are overinvolved in pedestrian accidents and are unaware of,
or do not discriminate between various traffic control devices when compared to older
students (ages 10-14);
2. Drivers in school areas do not generally perceive school signs other than the flashing
school speed limit signs; and
3. School trip safety programs incorporating walking trip maps [which help] the school and
parents to focus on a tangible means of improving student safety.
There were numerous school and community efforts
over the next twenty years that could be accredited
to SRTS planning, however, the first modern SRTS
programs began in 1997 in Bronx, New York.
Shortly after, two pilot Safe Routes to School
programs were funded by Congress in 1998 in Marin
County, California and Arlington, Massachusetts. By
the early 2000s, a number of states started
developing their own SRTS programs.
Fiscal Year 2013 Report on Safe
Congress passed federal legislation that established a Routes to School (MnDOT)
National Safe Routes to School program in 2005, administered by the Federal Highway
Administration. The goal was to encourage children and families to travel between home and
school by improving the safety of walking and bicycling routes. In July 2012, Congress included
SRTS activities the passage of a transportation bill, "Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21g
Century (MAP --21)." This made SRTS activities eligible to complete for funding as part of the
Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP).
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 2
21VTGit
Minnesota's SRTS Program
Minnesota's initial federally funded SRTS program began with passage of the federal
transportation bill SAFETEA-LU in 2005. SAFETEA-LU provided funding to all 50 states to
increase safety and opportunities for children in grades K-8 to walk and bicycle to school. All
projects were funded entirely with federal funds, as SAFETEA-LU did not require a local match.
Minnesota's SRTS program is administered by the Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MnDOT).
In 2012, Minnesota established its own SRTS program with the passage of Minnesota State
Statute 174.40 "to provide assistance in capital investments for safe and appealing non -
motorized transportation to and from a school." The law establishes a SRTS account in the bond
proceeds fund, as well as an SRTS account in the general fund, although no state funds were
allocated for the program at that time. The Minnesota program follows many of the guidelines
established in the federal SRTS legislation. The law also provides specific program
administration requirements and evaluation criteria, which MnDOT staff has implemented.
According to the Fiscal Year 2013 Report on Safe Routes to School (November 2013), MnDOT
has awarded over $15 million to Minnesota Communities for SRTS planning and
implementation projects. These projects impacted more than 313 schools, with an annual school
population of over 190,000 students in grades K-8. Eighty percent of funds were allocated for
infrastructure projects and 20 percent for non -infrastructure projects for the years 2006-13.
MnDOT established an SRTS steering committee to provide guidance and oversight for the
program in 2011. The steering committee has 27 members, representing cities, counties, regional
planning organizations, non-profit organizations, educators, and health professionals. Steering
committee members are actively engaged in setting goals for the program, as well as serving on
selection committees and providing feedback on statewide initiatives. In 2013, the committee
began a strategic planning process to determine the future of Minnesota's SRTS program. The
priorities and goals established during those planning exercises are being used to determine
where the new non -infrastructure funds from the state will be spent over the biennium. Top
priorities for the state funds include:
1. Implementing the new Walk! Bike! Fun! pedestrian and bicycle safety curriculum
statewide (refer to the text box on page 6).
2. Providing access to bicycle fleets statewide to implement the curriculum.
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 3
3. A statewide resource center, technical assistance, and trainings.
4. Safety and encouragement campaigns targeted to children.
C. The Five E's of SRTS Planning
Safe Routes to School Plans have evolved over the past four
decades to include implementation activities that go beyond
simply addressing the typical pedestrian concerns, such as
encouraging communities to maintain sidewalks and proper SafeRouteS
Oregon Sale Rowes to School
crosswalks. Implementation programs now incorporate ®©
education, encouragement, engineering, enforcement, and
evaluation into SRTS plans. Collectively these are referred tos
as the 5 E's of SRTS programs. Each of these program areas
is briefly described (also refer to appendix A):
Education — The first of the 5 E's, Education, includes outreach to students, parents, school
staff, and the community on the importance of walking and biking to school. It is widely
believed to be the foundation of all SRTS plans since wanting to walk or bike to school is the
first step in achieving results. Many SRTS programs offer bicycle and pedestrian safety training
in the classroom for students and throughout the community for citizens. Younger children are
simply taught skills such as how to cross streets safely, while older residents are provided a
review of pedestrian and bicycle traffic laws. This is a great opportunity for police officers to be
proactively involved with community safety issues.
Driver safety campaigns can also shed light on the importance of paying special attention to
pedestrians and bicyclists. For example, targeting high school drivers to not text and drive can be
incorporated into the SRTS education by showing case studies of fatal accidents that have
occurred involving pedestrians. Additional education focused SRTS initiatives include the
following examples:
➢ Safe Routes to School Map — SRTS route maps
show the school's location, surrounding streets, the
location of sidewalks, and traffic control devices.
They can also show crosswalks, crossing guard
locations, posted speed limits, and designated
walking or bicycling routes. They should also show
the schools' designated student walk zone (i.e.,
where buses don't pick up students).
0 o U
4 8 4 a 4 4
4 4 G r
a a
a010
oO
Ora 0 so4
s ,
�LL-
q
SC
`
p,a
he
b
pUV"
rru
4NW
C
Lwr.R
www.saferoutespartnership.org
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 4
➢ Classroom Curriculum — Walk and bike safety lessons can be customized to all grade
levels, highlighting key pedestrian and bicycle safety issues in the community. Lessons
can be taught as part of many subjects or during special walk or bike events. As part of
Minnesota's SRTS program, the WALK! BIKE! FUN! curriculum was developed by the
Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota to assist with classroom lessons (refer to text box on page
6).
➢ Family Biking Class — School districts and community education programs have been
increasingly offering bike safety classes for entire families. This is a great way to help
ensure that parents are familiar with bicycle safety issues throughout their community.
➢ Idling Reduction Campaign — car exhaust not only pollutes, it also
disproportionately affects the health of exposed children. An anti -idling
campaign helps to educate on myths about idling cars and encourages
drivers to turn off their vehicles while waiting for students. These types
of campaigns can include signs, handouts and enforcement in school
zones.
Note: the above listed implementation ideas are just a few of education -based examples commonly used in
SRTS plans. Appendix A contains a more comprehensive list of SRTS implementation ideas.
Encouragement — The second of the 5 E's, Encouragement, is often closely tied to SRTS
educational activities since more SRTS education also encourages walking and biking to school.
In addition, encouragement SRTS implementation initiatives include using events and activities
to promote walking and bicycling. This helps to generate enthusiasm for the SRTS program with
students, parents, staff, and citizens actively participating in walking and biking functions.
Encouragement -based SRTS initiatives include the following examples (also refer to Appendix
A for more implementation ideas).
➢ Earn -a -Bike Program — School districts and stakeholders have
offered a variety of ways for students to earn a bike through a merit
system. Often these programs use refurbished, abandoned, or donated
bicycles to lower administrative costs. Earn -a -Bike programs can
also target providing bicycles to low-income families. Photo by Eric Hagen
at ABC Newspapers
➢ Bike Helmet Give -a -Way — Many stakeholders have donated bike helmets to students,
including civic organizations, police departments, and fire and rescue groups. This is a
great opportunity for children to interact with safety and law enforcement personnel and
be properly fitted by a professional. Often these helmets are given away during a special
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 5
21VTGit
WALK! BIKE! FUN! is a comprehensive
curriculum that teaches safe traffic behavior life
skills through classroom activities and on -the -
bike practice. The goals of the extensive lesson
plans teach skills to children to walk and bicycle
safely — building confidence and helping them
The curriculum was developed by the Bicycle
Alliance of Minnesota through a federal Safe
Routes to School grant provided by the
Minnesota Department of Transportation and in
collaboration with the Center for Prevention at
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota.
WALK! BIKE! FUN! Identifies the following six benefits to walking or biking to school:
1. To increase academic achievement — research shows that students who exercise
before school concentrate better in class.
2. To increase happiness — children that engage in physical activity are more likely to
be happy.
3. To lower your carbon footprint — a whole school committed to walking and biking
can make an enormous impact on reducing carbon dioxide emissions and harmful
pollutants.
4. To help reduce traffic accidents — the benefits of schools that teach walking and
bicycling skills result in up to a forty-nine percent decrease in childhood pedestrian
and bicycle collision rates.
5. To foster independence — children who walk or bike to school are more likely to walk
to other destinations in the neighborhood.
6. To increase physical activity — the Center for Disease Control recommends that
children get sixty minutes of physical activity every day.
For more information on WALK! BIKE! FUN!, visit the following MnDOT website:
http://www.dot. state.mn.us/saferoutes/pdf/toolkit/walk-bike-fun-curriculum.pdf
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 6
21V7CIM
event, such as community bike or sporting event. Other SRTS programs offer bike
helmets at greatly reduced costs, such as $5 apiece.
➢ Walk and Bike to School Day — The National Center for Safe Routes to School
(www.saferoutesinfo.org) promotes walking and biking to school by holding a National
Bike to School Day in the spring and a National Walk to School Day in the fall each year.
Many school districts use these days to implement related walking and biking activities,
such as holding a community bike safety event after school. Upcoming National Bike to
School Days includes May 6, 2015; May 4, 2016; and May 10, 2017. Upcoming National
Walk to School Days includes October 5, 2016; and October 4, 2017.
The History of National Walk to School Days
Organized by the Partnership for a Walkable America, Walk to School Day in the USA began in
1997 as a one -day event aimed at building awareness for the need for walkable communities. In
2000, the event became international when the UK and Canada (both of which had already been
promoting walking to school) and the USA joined together for the first International Walk to
School Day. Growing interest in participation all over the world led the International Walk to
School Committee to shift its promotion to International Walk to School Month for the entire
month of October (Source: www.walkbiketoschool.org).
Engineering — The third of the 5 E's, Engineering, refers to making needed operational and
physical improvements to the infrastructure surrounding schools, including roadway
improvements and official traffic controls (i.e., stop lights, speed zones, etc.). Adding traffic
calming improvements, enhanced crosswalks, quality sidewalks, and multi -use trails are all
examples of SRTS initiatives that require engineering. Additional engineering -based SRTS
initiatives include the following examples (also refer to Appendix A for more implementation
ideas).
➢ School Speed Limit Signs — School speed limit signs alert drivers
when they are entering a school zone and communicate the need to
slow down for children during school hours. They can be
extremely effective; however, they also require cooperation with
local police to enforce the speed limit.
Flashing speed limit signs have also become increasing used
adjacent to school. According to the Pedestrian and Bicycle
Reduced Speed During School
www.sqferoutesit?for.org
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 7
21VTGIM
Information Center (PBIC), school flasher speed limit signs that are activated only during
school hours are more effective at drawing a driver's attention compared to school flasher
speed limit signs that flash throughout the day.
Solar Power Changeable Sign
www. safe routes info r. org
Portable Speed Feedback Sign
www. safe routes info r. org
LPARKING
➢ Parking Restrictions — removing parking adjacent to schools to provide
clearer site lines for drivers helps to prevent pedestrian and bicycle
accidents. In residential neighborhoods, parking restrictions can often
YSbecome controversial, so limiting parking during school hours can be a
feasible compromise. Once again, enforcement is often the key element
to properly implementing parking restrictions.
➢ Crosswalk Signs — Installing or upgrading school crosswalks signs is one of the relatively
low-cost engineering solutions to SRTS planning. It is especially important to install
`crosswalk ahead' signs notifying drivers they are approaching a designated crosswalk.
r i
I
;AHEAD
T
l SCHOOL
School Cross Walk Signs
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 8
➢ High -Visibility Crosswalks — ensuring that pedestrians have a better chance of being
seen while using crosswalks is a good idea wherever they are located, but especially in
high traffic areas. The U.S. Department of Transportation authored `Pedestrian
Crosswalk Case Studies: Richmond, Virginia; Buffalo New York; Stillwater Minnesota'
in August 2001. The report helps to highlight the growing evidence that designated
crosswalks are overall safer for pedestrians to use than without marked crosswalks. Part
of the study's findings are summarized below:
"In general, crosswalk markings at
unsignalized intersections appear to have
several positive effects and no observed
negative effects. Specifically, drivers appear to
be aware that pedestrians are in a marked
crosswalk and drive slightly slower.
Crosswalks also have the positive benefit of
channeling pedestrians to the intersection. Sleepy Kids Are More Likely to be
Also, there appears to be no evidence to struck by Cars when Crossing Streets
support the contention that pedestrians feel (Sleep Magazine; April 23, 2014)
protected in marked crosswalks and act more carelessly. In conclusion, it appears that
marking pedestrian crosswalks at relatively narrow, low speed, unsignalized intersections
is a desirable practice (report #FHWA-RD-00-103; page 35)."
Figure A shows six types of crosswalk treatments, with the standard design being used the
most. Using one of the other types of crosswalk treatments has been shown in studies to
increase the distance of drivers seeing pedestrians (Crosswalk Marking Field Visibility Study,
FHWA, 2010; An Empirical Bayesian Evaluation of the Safety Effects of High -Visibility
School (Yellow) Crosswalks in San Francisco, Feldman, Manzi, Mitman, 2010).
Figure A: Crosswalk Treatments
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 9
2117Th
Enforcement — The fourth of the 5 E's, Enforcement, involves partnering with local law
enforcement to ensure that traffic laws are obeyed in the vicinity of schools. This includes
enforcing speed limits, ensuring that drivers yield to pedestrians in crosswalks, and ticketing
vehicles that are parked illegally. It also involves making sure that pedestrians and bicyclists are
properly obeying traffic laws. Engaging law enforcement officials in the SRTS planning process
helps them to better understand exactly what the safety issues are near schools and throughout
the community.
Enforcement strategies often range widely based upon local priorities, but they may also vary by
the time of the year. For example, it is common for law enforcement officials to step up their
enforcement efforts shortly after school starts in the fall. Another variable that effects
enforcement is the community's overall availability of law enforcement personal. Some of the
smaller communities often don't have an extensive police department. Enforcement strategies,
however, can also include parents, students, crossing guards, and residents.
The main goal of all SRTS enforcement strategies is to deter unsafe behavior of all motor
vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. One of the biggest issues addressed by enforcement is
speeding due to the correlation between speeding and pedestrian fatalities (refer to Figure B).
Table A lists some of the unsafe behaviors commonly addressed by SRTS enforcement
strategies. Appendix A contains a list of some of the more common SRTS Enforcement
strategies.
Evaluation — The fifth of the 5 E's, Evaluation, involves monitoring and documenting the
outcomes of SRTS initiatives. This allows for adjustments to be made based upon how much
impact they are having on the desired outcomes. If it is determined the initiatives are not making
a difference, SRTS planners then decide if additional measures need to be taken or if the
initiative should be abandoned and/or replaced with a different strategy. Some of the benefits of
evaluation are outlined below:
➢ Making sure that the underlying problem is identified so that proper strategies to
address the problem are implemented.
➢ Setting reasonable expectations about what the program can do. By knowing the
starting point, SRTS programs can set specific and reasonable objectives.
➢ Identifying changes that will improve the program. Part of evaluation is monitoring
what happens throughout the life of a project so that mid -course corrections can be
made, if needed, to improve chances of success.
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 10
2117Th
Figure B: Fatalities Based On Speed of Vehicle
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
20 m.p.h. 30 m.p.h. 40 m.p.h.
Table A: Unsafe Behaviors
Addressed by SRTS Enforcement Strategies
Unsafe Driver Behaviors
➢ Speeding (refer to Figure IA).
➢ Failing to yield to pedestrians and bicyclists.
➢ Failure to obey traffic controls (i.e., stop lights, stop signs, etc.).
➢ Passing stopped school buses.
➢ Parking or stopping in crosswalks or bus zones.
➢ Violating school drop-off and pick-up procedures.
Unsafe Pedestrian Behaviors
➢ Not looking before crossing the street.
➢ Not crossing the street at a designated crosswalk.
➢ Darting out between parked vehicles.
Unsafe Bicyclist Behaviors
➢ Bicycles not obeying traffic laws.
➢ Not being visible at night when riding on the road.
➢ Riding against traffic instead of with the traffic flow.
Source: SRTS Guide: Enforcement (Pedestrian & Bicycle Information Center; 2007).
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 11
2117Th
➢ Determining if the program is having the desired results. This is a primary purpose
of any evaluation and can be used to inform funding sources, the media, and the
public to help build support for SRTS.
Source. SRTS Guide Evaluation, Pedestrian & Bicycle Information Center, 2007.
Deciding how a SRTS plan should be evaluated needs to be outlined during the plan
development stage. This SRTS plan uses the following five evaluation stages:
1. Understand — Begin with a thorough understanding of the School District's walking and
biking data and issues.
2. Desired Outcomes — A description of what will be done and what change is expected.
3. Monitor — Describe the anticipated methodology used to observe and measure the
results.
4. Interpret — Describe how the monitoring information will be evaluated.
5. Modify — Outline a process that will be used to make the necessary modifications to the
SRTS plan.
D. Hutchinson SRTS Planning Process
Working with the Mid -Minnesota Development Commission (MMDC), the Hutchinson School
District successfully applied to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to create
a Safe Routes to School Plan. MMDC then assisted Hutchinson School District and the City of
Hutchinson with the development of SRTS plan. A Hutchinson SRTS Task Force was created to
help guide the planning process (refer to Table B). The full Task Force met on a quarterly basis
to work on the contents of the Plan.
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 12
Table B:
Hutchinson SRTS Task Force Members
Name
Bonnie Hahn
Lori VanderHeiden
Dolf Moon
Kent Exner
Andrea Wollan
Jean Johnson
Brian D Mohr
Vision Statement
Representing
Park Elementary PE
Park Elementary Assistant Principal
Director of Parks, Recreation, & Community Education
City Public Works Director / City Engineer
Parent
Health Promotion Coordinator, McLeod County Public Health
Director of Buildings, Grounds, & Student Transportation
The Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Task Force created a Vision Statement that guided the
development of the SRTS Plans for West Elementary, Park Elementary, and the Middle School.
Hutchinson School District SRTS Vision Statement:
The Hutchinson School District and the City of Hutchinson are committed to ensuring
that our students can utilize physically active transportation, such as walking or
bicycling, for a safe and enjoyable trip to and from school. This shall be accomplished
by improving infrastructure and enforcement measures, while enacting educational and
encouragement activities to help our children to be independent and healthy.
Goals for the Safe Routes to School Program
To help achieve the Vision Statement, the Hutchinson SRTS Task Force used the following five
goals for the development of the Safe Routes to School Plan (notice they purposely coincide with
the 5 E's of SRTS planning):
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 13
2117Th
Education Goal:
"To provide students and parents with the necessary information they need to
fully understand how important walking and biking is to their student's health."
Encouragement Goal:
"To mitigate the issues that discourage students from walking and biking to
school."
Engineering Goal:
"Implement changes to the built environment to maximize the safety of walking
and biking."
Enforcement Goal:
"To provide the necessary monitoring and enforcement of SRTS routes to ensure
safe and lawful practices and behaviors of all users."
Evaluation Goal:
"To provide an ongoing process to evaluate, and update the SRTS Plan as
progress is made towards achieving the Hutchinson SRTS Vision Statement."
Additional Goals for the Safe Routes to School Program
To help achieve the Vision Statement the three SRTS teams also discuss various goals for the
Safe Routes to School Program. The primary additional goals that were discussed are as follows:
• Help foster physical activity of the students and take steps to improve their
health and wellness.
• Overcome the notion that walking and biking are not viable options for travel to
and from school.
• Learn what corrective measures are needed to establish safe walking and
bicycling accommodations within all three of the schools' walk and bike zones,
and work toward resolving these issues.
• Provide peace of mind to parents of students in the School District of
Hutchinson by:
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 14
2117Th
o developing a safe network of bike and pedestrian routes in the City of
Hutchinson;
o educating and encouraging students to use these routes for their safety,
health, and enjoyment, and
o provide the necessary monitoring and enforcement of these routes to
ensure safe and lawful practices and behaviors of all users.
• Provide a continuing process to evaluate, adjust plans as needed, and move
forward to make progress on meeting the SRTS Vision Statement.
• Unify the School District, City of Hutchison, and all other stake holders to work
together to make progress on meeting the SRTS Vision Statement.
E. Hutchinson SRTS Plan Stakeholders
In order to have a successful Hutchinson SRTS Plan, there are numerous stakeholders who need
to be involved with developing and/or implementing the Plan beyond the Task Force. This
section provides a brief description of the key stakeholders who directly play a role.
Key Local SRTS Stakeholders...
Hutchinson School Board — The Hutchinson School Board consist of six elected members. The
Board meets on the second Monday of each month at the City Center located at 111 Hassan
Street SE at 5:30 pm. Quarterly meetings are held in the months of January, April, July, and
October at a site to be determined. For more information on the Hutchinson School Board, visit
the following website:
www.isd423.org/district-office/school-board
City of Hutchinson — Due to the vast amount of potential
infrastructure improvements need throughout the community, the
Hutchinson City Council and city staff plays a large part in the
successful implementation of the Hutchinson SRTS Plan. For
more information on the City of Hutchinson, visit the City's
official website at:
www.ci.hutchinson.mn.us
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 15
Hutchinson City -School -Community Advisory Committee — The City of Hutchinson and the
Hutchinson School District recognize that both entities contribute to the quality of life in
Hutchinson and to the economic vitality of the community. Both entities also recognize that the
same tax payers provide funds to help each entity offer their programs and services to the
community. To that end, both entities desire to work cooperatively
together to help maximize and achieve the best use of those tax
dollars and maximize the benefit each entity brovides to the
community.
Key State & Regional SRTS Stakeholders...
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) — MnDOT is
the primary stakeholder involved with SRTS planning at the State
level. This involves overseeing the development of SRTS plans and
A walking school bus...
administering SRTS grants. Grant opportunities cover a wide variety
of SRTS needs, including plan development, mini -grants to support SRTS initiatives, and larger
infrastructure grants to improve sidewalks, crosswalks, and traffic controls. MnDOT District 8
staff play a large role in implementing SRTS plans, especially since MnDOT planners and
engineers need to help identify which infrastructure improvements are feasible along MnDOT
owned roads. For more information on MnDOT and their role in SRTS plans, please visit the
following website:
www. dot. state.mn.us/saferoutes/index. html
Statewide Health Improvement Program (SHIP) — The Minnesota Department of Health houses
the Statewide Health Improvement Program. One of the many objectives of SHIP is to help
create active communities by increasing opportunities for walking and biking. They are also
involved in promoting education on a number of other health-related topics, such as healthy
eating, drugs and alcohol prevention, and reducing TV and other screen time. For more
information, visit the following SHIP website:
www. health. state.mn.us/ship
McLeod, Meeker, Sibley Counties Healthy Communities Collaborative (MMS HC) — The
MMS HC is a collaborative between organizations and individuals partnering to promote health
and well-being in communities in the three counties. The Collaborative serves as the Community
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 16
21VTGit
Leadership Team for MMS HC's SHIP grant. For more information, visit the following MMS
HC's web site:
www.mmshealthycommunities.org
Mid -Minnesota Development Commission (MMDC) — The local Regional Development
Commission, serving Kandiyohi, Meeker, McLeod, and Renville Counties, is involved with
taking the lead in the development of SRTS plans. MMDC staff also works with MnDOT on
transportation planning activities and helps local governmental units with technical and grant
writing assistance. For more information on MMDC or the Hutchinson SRTS Plan, visit the
following website:
www.mmrdc.org
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 17
Chapter Two:
Existing Conditions
Hutchinson Public School District # 423
HV7'C1E;
Hutchinson Public schools have four school locations, all in the City of
Hutchinson, Minnesota. The Four schools are the High School (grades
9 — 12), the Middle School (grades 6 — 8), Park Elementary School
(grades 2 — 5) and West Elementary School (pre k, k and 1s). The
School District includes the City of Hutchinson and rural land
surrounding the community. The small city of Cedar Mills (population
under 50 persons) is also located within the school District. There are approximately 2,900
students that attend school in the District. This Safe Routes to School Plan is focusing on the
Middle School, Park Elementary, and West Elementary Schools. The "Minnesota Report Card"
shows the 2014 demographic makeup of these schools as follows:
Table C.
Hutchinson School District Student Ethnicity
Student Ethnicity
Middle
School
Park
Elementary
West
Elementary
White, not Hispanic Origin
90.8%
91.4%
89.8%
Asian/Pacific Islander
2.1%
1.2%
0.9%
Hispanic
5.7%
6.4%
7.8%
Black, not of Hispanic Origin
1.4%
0.9%
1.5%
American Indian
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
In 2014 there were 376 students enrolled in West Elementary, of which 376 attended
Kindergarten and first grade. Park Elementary had an enrollment of 858 children in 2014. The
Middle School had an enrollment of 677 students in 2014.
Hutchinson Public Schools have the following mission, core values and goals:
Mission Statement
Excellence in Academics, Activities, and Character
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 18
Core Values
Hutchinson Public Schools believe that...
• Relationships are essential for student success
• All students learn
• A culture of high expectations is critical
• A meaningful and challenging curriculum is vital
District Goals
It is the goal of the District to:
1. Focus on individual student growth to maximize college and career opportunities.
2. Build positive relationships within our schools and community.
3. Manage our resources efficiently and effectively.
4. Provide a safe and functional environment.
Relevant School Policy Highlights
The following are excerpts from several of the Hutchinson School District Policies that are
relevant to the Safe Routes to School Plan.
From the Wellness Policy:
Physical Activity
A. Students need opportunities for physical activity and to fully embrace regular
physical activity as a personal behavior. Toward that end, health education will
reinforce the knowledge and self-management skills needed to maintain a healthy
lifestyle and reduce sedentary activities such as watching television;
B. Opportunities for physical activity will be incorporated into other subject lessons,
where appropriate; and
C. Classroom teachers will provide short physical activity breaks between lessons or
classes, as appropriate.
Communications with Parents
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 19
The school district will provide information about physical education and other school-based
physical activity opportunities and will support parents' efforts to provide their children with
opportunities to be physically active outside of school.
From the Student Transportation Safety Plan:
Plan for Student Transportation Safety Training
A. School Bus Safety Week. The school district may designate a school bus safety
week. The National School Bus Safety Week is the third week in October.
B. Student Training.
1 The school district shall provide students enrolled in grades kindergarten (K)
through 10 with age-appropriate school bus safety training of the following
concepts:
a transportation by school bus is a privilege, not a right;
b school district policies for student conduct and school bus safety;
c appropriate conduct while on the bus;
d the danger zones surrounding a school bus;
e procedures for safely boarding and leaving a school bus;
f procedures for safe vehicle lane crossing; and
g school bus evacuation and other emergency procedures.
2 All students in grades K through 6 who are transported by school bus and are
enrolled during the first or second week of school must receive the school bus
safety training by the end of the third week of school. All students in grades 7
through 10 who are transported by school bus and are enrolled during the first or
second week of school must receive the school bus safety training or receive bus
safety instruction materials by the end of the sixth week of school, if they have
not previously received school bus training. Students in grades K through 10 who
enroll in a school after the second week of school, are transported by school bus,
and have not received training in their previous school districts, shall undergo
school bus safety training or receive bus safety instructional materials within four
weeks of their first day of attendance.
3 The school district and a nonpublic school with students transported by school bus
at public expense must provide students enrolled in grades K through 3 school bus
safety training twice during the school year.
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 20
2117Th
4 The school district may provide kindergarten students with school bus safety
training before the first day of school.
5 The school district may provide student safety education for bicycling and
pedestrian safety for students in grades K through 5.
6 The school district shall adopt and make available for public review a curriculum
for transportation safety education.
Parent And Guardian Involvement
A. Parent and Guardian Notification. The school district school bus and bus stop
rules will be provided to each family. Parents and guardians are asked to review
the rules with their children.
B. Parents/Guardians Responsibilities for Transportation Safety
Parents/Guardians are responsible to:
1 Become familiar with school district rules, policies, regulations, and the principles
of school bus safety, and thoroughly review them with their children;
2 Support safe riding and walking practices, and recognize that students are
responsible for their actions;
3 Communicate safety concerns to their school administrators;
4 Monitor bus stops, if possible;
5 Have their children to the bus stop five minutes before the bus arrives;
6 Have their children properly dressed for the weather; and
7 Have a plan in case the bus is late.
From the Student Transportation Procedure Policy:
707 TRANSPORTATION OF PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to provide for the transportation of students consistent with the
requirements of law.
II. GENERAL STATEMENT OF POLICY
A. The policy of the school district is to provide for the transportation of students in
a manner which will protect their health, welfare and safety.
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 21
2117Th
III. ELIGIBILITY
A. Upon the request of a parent or guardian, the school district shall provide
transportation to and from school, at the expense of the school district, for all
resident students who reside two miles or more from the school, except for those
students whose transportation privileges have been revoked or have been
voluntarily surrendered by the student's parent or guardian. (Minn. Stat. §
12313.88, Subd. 1)
B. The school district may, in its discretion, also provide transportation to any
student to and from school, at the expense of the school district, for any other
purpose deemed appropriate by the school board.
C. In the discretion of the school district, transportation along regular school bus
routes may also be provided, where space is available, to any person where such
use of a bus does not interfere with the transportation of students. The cost of
providing such transportation must be paid by those individuals using these
services or some third -party payer. Bus transportation also may be provided along
school bus routes when space is available for participants in early childhood
family education programs and school readiness programs if these services do not
result in an increase in the school district's expenditures for transportation. (Minn.
Stat. § 12313.88, Subd. 10, 11, 12, and 13)
D. For purposes of stabilizing enrollment and reducing mobility, the school district
may, in its discretion, establish a full-service school zone and may provide
transportation for students attending a school in that full-service school zone. A
full-service school zone may be established for a school that is located in an area
with higher than average crime or other social and economic challenges and that
provides education, health or human services, or other parental support in
collaboration with a city, county, state, or non-profit agency.
From the 707-P Student Transportation Procedure Policy:
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this procedure is to provide a guideline for the scheduling of routes, location
of bus stops, manner and method of transportation, and any other matter relating thereto to
ensure that bus transportation is safe and efficient to all authorized passengers in accordance
with all applicable state and federal law.
GENERAL STATEMENTS OF POLICY
A. Eligibility.
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 22
21UTGit
Minnesota state law defines the transportation responsibilities of a school district
as follows:
"Upon written request of the parent or guardian, the school district shall provide
transportation to and from school, at the expense of the school district, for all
resident students who reside two miles or more from school, except for those
students whose transportation privileges have been revoked or have been
voluntarily surrendered by the student's parent or guardian. " Minn. Stat. §
12313.88, subd. 1.
This statute is applicable to parochial and Charter School students provided that
those schools have formally requested transportation service.
Transportation funding is provided to Hutchinson Public Schools to transport
students that reside outside of this two mile walk zone. It is, however, the practice
of the school district to provide bus transportation for students that live closer
than two miles from their school building and to some areas outside of the district
at the expense of Hutchinson Public Schools.
B. Non -bussing areas.
Non -bussing areas are determined by measuring the shortest distance from the
student's residence or day care (where the front of the property meets the street),
by reasonable safe walkway, street or highway that is accessible to the public, to
the assigned entrance of the school that the student attends. It is the discretion of
the Board of Education to define non -bussing areas.
C. Walk boundaries.
School sites will be identified as bus stops and students living within the
following geographic areas will be required to walk to that school either for
attendance at that site or to be bussed to another.
(See Maps Below)
D. Walk distances.
Students in grades K-5 will not be expected to walk greater than 3/10 mile, and
grades 6-12 no greater than 1/2 mile to get to their assigned stop. This walk may
include areas where there are curves, hills, without sidewalks, and not be visible
from home. It is the parent's or guardian's responsibility for the student to get to
and from the bus stop safely and to ensure order and discipline at the bus stop.
Students may be required to walk a greater distance to get to their school because
these students are not expected to wait outside in the elements.
IV. REGISTRATION FOR TRANSPORTATION
A. Process
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 23
21VTGit
It is required that each new student to the district be registered for transportation
and it will be assumed that transportation accommodations will remain the same
for the next school year unless a new transportation registration form is submitted.
This registration must be submitted to the district's transportation office (30 Glen
St. N, Hutchinson) by June 1 st of each year for the next school year.
On-line registration will also be accepted if and when that service becomes
available.
B. Assigned Bus And Stop.
1 Students are assigned to specific busses and stops by the district. Parents or
guardians will receive a postcard during the summer that contains pertinent
transportation information such as pickup and drop off bus, location(s), and
time(s).
2 Students are only allowed one pickup and one drop off address***. These
addresses may be different.
3 Students may only ride busses other than their assigned bus or be dropped off at a
stop other that the one to which they are assigned only after approval of the
school district. A written request must be submitted by the parent or guardian to
the Principal of the school for official approval each time this occurs.
*** The district will only permit students to be assigned to multiple pickup or
drop off addresses resulting from a court ordered custody arrangement
(documentation required) or reimburses the district for the cost of the extra
seat(s). The rate will be set each year.
V. BUS ROUTES
The district currently employs a two-tiered bussing system where elementary students are
transported separately from secondary students. Secondary students are not permitted to ride
elementary routes. Secondary students are transported first, both in the morning and the
afternoon, followed by elementary students.
The district goal is to establish regular bus routes so that no resident student rides the bus for
more than 50 minutes.
Bus routes are created during the months of June and July. Requested changes to routes will
not be accepted between August 1st and September 15th of each year. This will allow time
for routes to be finalized, bus drivers to review and practice, and for the district to notify
parents or guardians of the student's assigned bus and bus stop.
VI. BUS STOPS
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 24
21VTGit
A. Establishment.
The establishment of bus stops is at the discretion of the Director of
Transportation. School bus drivers do not have the authority to change or add a
bus stop.
B. Locations.
1 In most cases stops are centrally located to the serviced population and at
intersections to allow the bus driver to have a wide field of view of traffic and
students and at least three blocks away from another. The exception is in high-
density areas where it is beneficial to reduce the number of students at a stop.
2 Except to transport students with special needs, busses are not routed down cul-
de-sacs unless it provides the most efficient location for the bus to change
directions.
3 The district cannot assure that all children can board or exit the bus from the side
of the street of the residence. The district recommends that the students wait on
the side of the street that they reside. The bus will stop traffic in both directions to
accommodate students that need to cross the street to board the bus.
4 Mid -block stops will be avoided if possible, even if this requires the student to
walk along a road without sidewalks. The higher frequency of stops can make the
motoring public impatient. This increases the possibility of motorists disobeying
the bus safety devices and driving around the bus putting students at a greater
risk. Frequent stops also increase overall ride times
C. Changes.
1 Bus stops are reviewed annually and changed as necessary to meet the needs of
the majority of the served students assigned to the stop.
2 Location preference is generally given to Kindergarten and 1st Grade students.
With this in mind, locations will change from year-to-year.
3 Preference is not given to daycare providers. It is the daycare provider's
responsibility to get the students to and from the bus stop.
4 Changes will only be considered for students that have a current registration form
on file.
5 Change requests will not be processed between August 1st and September 15th.
For the portion of the blackout period that is during the school year, it is the
parent or guardian's responsibility to transport the student to an already
established stop.
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 25
21 V Ir C it
Map A: Park Elementary School Current Walk Zone
Map B: Middle School Current Walk Zone
�-.GW
i ..� 7
SaUTH CRS 4l SVV `n
0
a �
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 26
City of Hutchinson
has a land area of 8.6 square miles.
21UTGit
The City of Hutchinson serves as a regional center for
McLeod County and portions of surrounding counties. It is
approximately forty miles west of the Twin Cities
Metropolitan Area. State Highways 7 and 15 are the major
roadways. The community is located in the northwestern
part of the county and shares its borders with the following
townships: Acoma, Hutchinson, Lynn, and Hassan Valley.
The City's 2014 population estimate is 14,124 persons, and
The City of Hutchinson has a long history of being proactive with designing a transportation
system that takes into the account of the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists. The City has
developed a network of off-road trails and bicycle friendly routes throughout the community.
More than 30 miles of multi -use trails, bike lanes, and bicycle friendly routes and trails are
designated for cyclists. The Luce Line State Trail offers a quick way to get across the community
without having to stop for road traffic. In 2015 a community bicycle map was published.
In 2014 the City was designated a "Bicycle Friendly Community" at a Bronze -level by the
League of American Bicyclists. Only a few communities in the state
have been given this recognition as showing a strong commitment to
outstanding bike friendliness. The City has plans to adapt a "Complete
Streets" Policy in the near future. On the City web site, in celebration of
May — National Bike Month, the City posted a variety of helpful BRONZE
bicycling information, including videos about helmet use, bike safety
and respect.
The City has prepared a Light Traffic Plan that outlines routes and options for accessing different
potential traffic generators within the City. This plan "was developed in conjunction with a
Minnesota Department of Transportation grant that involved the Finnish Road Administration
(FinnRA), SK Consulting of Finland, and SRF Consulting of Minneapolis. The focus of the
initiative was on 1) Funding, 2) Technology Transfer, 3) Planning and Project Development, 4)
Detail Design, and 5) Traffic Safety, Education and Enforcement."
In 2012 the City adopted a Transportation Plan for the community. This plan stressed the need to
provide multi -modal transportation choices. A couple of statements within the plan's goal
section demonstrate this point and are shown below.
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 27
"The City shall strive to provide convenient access to natural features and opportunities
to support active living and healthy lifestyle activities."
"Where possible the City will utilize a Complete Streets methodology in the design of Streets."
Hutchinson Schools Settings and Travel Environments
West Elementary and Middle School
West Elementary and the Middle School are located near each other on school grounds on the
west side of Hutchinson. The school property also includes the High School and athletic
facilities. West Elementary is located on the east side of School Road SW, and the Middle
School is located on the north side of South Grade Road SW. Both of the schools only border
one street.
West Elementary, with pre -k, kindergarten, and first grade is located near only one very small
neighborhood that could be considered within walkable range for this age group. This
neighborhood is located across on the other side of School Road, and under current conditions
and traffic volumes too dangerous for these children to cross without be escorted by an adult.
From South Grade Road north, there is a wide sidewalk in excellent condition on the east side of
School Road. The School has a policy to bus all children to and from the facility that are not
brought by parents. Parents who choose to allow their children to walk or ride their bicycles to
school must send written permission to the building principal indicating their desire in this
matter.
The Middle School has sixth through eighth grades and is within walkable range to numerous
houses, primarily on the east and north of the facility. On school property there is a paved trail
between the Middle School and High School (Roberts Road SW) that is utilized by children
walking and bicycling to and from their homes to the north. This trail also has a spur that travels
to West Elementary.
Besides the paved trail connecting the Middle School to the high school, the City of Hutchinson
offers various walking and biking facilities on nearby city streets. All are in good condition.
There is a paved trail/extra-wide sidewalk from Dale Street that extends west to the far edge of
the city. A similar trail runs from South Grade Road north to Roberts Road. North of Roberts
Road are bike lanes that connect on the north side of the Crow River to the Luce Line State Trail.
In FY 2017, plans call to replace the bike lane with an off street trail up to the bridge over the
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 28
Crow River. This trail will also extend west of School Road along Roberts Street to the Roberts'
Park. Currently Roberts Street SW from School Road to South Grade Road is a Bicycle Friendly
Route. Roberts Road east of School Road has a bike lane to Dale Street. One block east of the
school is Dale Street SW. This street runs in a northeast to southwest direction and travels
through large neighborhoods located north of South Grade Road. Dale Street has a combination
of a paved trail and sidewalks on its west side. There is also a bike lane that runs from Linden
Avenue to Juul Road. Dale Street does have a couple of gaps for bicycle facilities. To the east of
Dale Street there is a wide internal network of bicycle facilities.
Both West Elementary and the Middle School are on city streets designated as minor arterials.
School Road has a minor arterial designation north of the intersection with South Grade Road
and is a major collector on the south side of the intersection. South Grade Road is a Minor
arterial east of the School Road intersection, and is a major SouthGrade
collector on the west side of this intersection. Dale Street is
classified as a major collector.
In front of the Middle School, the average annual daily
traffic (AADT) on South Grade Road is 8,100 vehicles. It
is projected to climb to an AADT of 12,200 vehicles by
2032. South Grade Road is a three -lane road, with the
middle lane being the turning lane. The street is posted at
35 mph, with no school reduced speed zone.
In front of the West Elementary School, School Road has a current AADT of 6,900 and is
projected to climb to an AADT of 10,300 by 2032. This road is a wide two lane road with a
posted 30 mph limit. There is not a posted reduced school zone speed limit. The small
neighborhood located on 8th Avenue near West Elementary has a highly visible crosswalk with
school crossing signs.
School Road
Both the Middle School and West Elementary have well
laid out bus pick-up and drop-off sites that are off the
street and separated from parent pick-up and drop-off
locations. At both locations the drop-off and pick-up
locations are at a sidewalk near a school door, without the
need for children stepping into any traffic. High school
students have the option to walk to the middle school to
load the bus at this location. This affords them the
opportunity to walk on an internal school trail for the
equivalent of several blocks. Parents that drive their
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 29
21VTGit
children to and from school utilize the separate entrance visitor parking lots.
Most of the local neighborhood streets in the walk zone of the Middle School do not have
sidewalks. Limited traffic on these streets make it less of a concern. A map in the Apendix shows
sidewalk locations.
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 30
_ e i.RJ•sw—T
tY IL
0�
It 1
vf
2 "
m 5•G ratled2�d•S'N `E
Google-earth
AL
y
21 V Ir C it
Park Elementary School
Park Elementary has grades second through fifth grade. The school is located just west of
Hutchinson's central business district. To the school's north and south sides are large
neighborhoods. To the north side of the school is also neighborhood homes, but the Crow River
is located two blocks from the school. The school takes up two city blocks with a park on its
south side that is also two city blocks in size. The school sits on City property with a long term
lease arrangement.
The school property has city streets on all four sides. All
four streets surrounding the school have a speed limit of
30 mph, and are of standard two lane width. On the
school's south side is Second Avenue, which is
designated as a major collector. There is an approximate
AADT on the street of 4,000 vehicles. Second Avenue
has school zone posted signs for 20 mph. There is a
handicapped school bus drop-off turn in lane on the
north side of Second Avenue in front of the school.
Washington Avenue is on the school's north side and
has a road classification as a minor collector. It has an
AADT of 1,850 vehicles near the school.
Grove Street
On the school's west side is Grove Street. This is a one way street with traffic heading north.
Traffic is one lane to accommodate angled school bus parking on the east side. This is the
location of the majority of student bus pick-ups and drop-offs at the school site. From 8:00 a.m.
to 8:45 a.m. and again from 3:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Grove Street is closed to through traffic, other
than buses. This street has minimal traffic.
On the east side of the school is Glen Street which
faces the school's front side. The street is a one-way
street with traffic heading south. Traffic has only one
lane of travel, with diagonal parking on the east side of
the street. The street does not generate a large amount
of traffic. Parents are asked to use Glen Street for pick-
up and drop-off location when transporting their
children. While a majority of parents use this street for
bringing and picking up their children, some do park at
other nearby streets. Written school procedures given
to parents ask that parents do not park cars on
Glen Street
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 32
3xiJTCit
crosswalks, and to observe the parking restrictions that are in place to protect pedestrians. They
are also asked to respect the crossing guards and their directions.
Glen Street has a T -intersection with First Avenue at the school property's mid -location. This
street is also a low volume traffic road. At the Glen Street and First Avenue intersection there is
a city parking lot on the southeast side. Lynn Road is located one-half block west of Grove
Street, on the school property's west side. South of Second Avenue the street is designated as a
major collector, and north to Washington Avenue the street is a minor collector.
Second Ave:nueThe City of Hutchinson has done a good job in
Second Avenue designing traffic calming measures on busy Second
Avenue. The street has islands between lanes at the
intersection with Grove Street. There are curb
extensions at the intersection with Glen Street. The
two intersections on the school's south side utilize
high visibility marked crossings. The intersection
with Lynn Road also has high visibility marked
crossings. The school property's north street
intersections along with the crossing at First Avenue
have marked crossings. The school has sidewalks
located on all four of its surrounding streets.
Sidewalks are located on both sides of these streets,
except for Washington Avenue, which is lacking a sidewalk on the school's property. Bicycle
parking racks are located near the southwest side of the school building.
Park Elementary utilizes trained and adult supervised fourth & fifth grade students as crossing
guards at four intersection locations. The crossing guard locations are at the intersections of
Second Avenue and Grove Street (three crossing guards), Grove Street and Washington Avenue
(two crossing guard), Washington Avenue and Glen
Street (two crossing guards), and Glen Street and Washington Avenue
First Avenue (two crossing guards). There is also a
fifth grade Captain who goes around daily to provide
feedback to the students. Approximately 40 student
volunteers are utilized on a rotational basis for the
ten students utilized at one time.
Most of the local neighborhood streets in walking
distance to Park Elementary do not have sidewalks.
Low traffic volumes on these streets ease some of
the concerns. A map in Appendix B shows where
sidewalks are lacking in the vicinity of the school.
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 33
21 V Ir C it
Map F: West Elementary School
Parent Survey and Student Tally
The Hutchinson School District conducted both parent surveys and in classroom student tallies
as part of this SRTS planning process. This survey information helps to provide an assessment of
how children travel to and from school, and provides insight on attitudes of parents pertaining to
transportation choices. Both surveys will provide a baseline data as a starting point for future
deliberation, monitoring, and evaluation.
The student tally and the parent survey instruments were developed by the National Center for
Safe Routes to School. Student tallies were administered by teachers during the school week.
Parent Surveys were conducted through the School's web site. A complete analysis of the
surveys can be found within the appendix of this plan.
Student Tallv Results
Student Tallies were conducted at Park and West Elementary Schools and the Middle School
during the month of December, 2014. The tallies were conducted for all grade levels at these
three schools. As the tallies were conducted in the winter, it is evident that fewer children walked
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 34
and especially biked than if it were the warmer spring and fall months. Teachers were asked to
conduct the tallies on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday in a given week. Some teachers only
conducted the tallies for two of the three days.
The charts below show comparisons of the mode of travel the children utilized in arriving and
departing the schools. West Elementary School, with attending Kindergarten and First Graders,
discourages walking and bicycling because of the school's location. For that reason there were
no students walking or bicycling to or from school when the tally was administered.
The percentage of children that walk to and from school are similar for Park Elementary and the
Middle School. Slightly more children rode their bikes during the winter at the Middle School
than at Park Elementary, but in both cases the number was very few. As can be seen the school
bus is most heavily utilized by West Elementary students. Nearly eighty percent arrive by bus,
and close to ninety percent depart by bus. Approximately sixty-eight percent of Park Elementary
students ride the school bus in the morning, which increases to over seventy-five percent on
departure. Middle School students utilize the school buses the least, with approximately fifty-two
percent arriving by bus and nearly sixty-two percent departing by bus.
The use of the family vehicle is much greater for all three schools for student arrival than
departure. The Middle School has the largest percentage of students arriving and departing
school by family vehicle. Forty-two percent of Middle School students arrive by a family vehicle
versus approximately twenty-seven percent of Park Elementary students and over twenty-two
percent of West Elementary students. School departure for the Middle School and Park and West
Elementary Schools are 28.3%, 18.1% and 10.3% respectively.
Figure C: West Elementary Morning
& Afternoon Comparison
100
wo
41m
w 50 ■ AM
ANNU
L
a 0 ■ PM
Bus Car Carpool
Mode of Transportation
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 35
Figure D: Park Elementary Morning
& Afternoon Comparison
80.0
b 60.0
m
w 40.0
U
`ON ■ AM
a 20.0
■ PM
0.0
0
G 0
Mode of Transportation
Figure E: Middle School Morning
& Afternoon Comparison
70.0
60.0
50.0
bb
M
40.0
L 30.0
a 20.0 ■ AM
10.0 ■ PM
0.0
0 �t
0 L 0
Mode of Transportation
Parent Survey Results
The SRTS parent survey was conducted in late November of 2014. A total of 337 surveys were
returned between the three schools. There were 88 returns from West Elementary parents, 124
survey respondents from Park Elementary, and 125 responses from parents with children in the
Middle School.
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 36
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
21VTGit
Figure F: Parent Estimate of Distance From Child's Home to School
29.8%
21.0%
_T/O A EL
Less than 1/4 1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile up to 1 1 mile up to 2 2 or more miles
mile 1/2 mile mile miles
Distance Between Home and School
To reach the goal of increased student walking and bicycling, the students that live near the
schools will be the primary concern. When considering walking distance, the parent survey
shows that 35.3 percent of Park Elementary students live within one mile of the school, and 16.8
percent live within one-half mile. Extrapolated out for the entire school's enrollment would mean
that approximately 303 of the school's students live within one mile of the school, and 144
students live within one-half mile. The parent survey shows that 37.6 percent of the Middle
School's enrollment lives within one mile of the school site. Extrapolated to the school's total
enrollment would show that approximately 255 students attending the middle school live within
one mile of the school's location.
The Table below shows how parents answered question 10 on the survey about issues that affect
decisions on allowing children to walk or bike to and from school. The table also shows how
parents with children in each of the three schools answered the question. Poor weather or climate
was the most cited concern. Amount of traffic, speed of traffic and safety concerns at
intersections and crossings were all very strong concerns following weather. As many of the
survey participants live a long distance from the school their child attends, distance was a
common answer for those parents. The age of the child affects how the parent shows concerns on
certain factors. Activities, before and after school, was a larger factor for parents of children
attending the Middle School. Parents with younger children marked down that adults walking or
bicycling with children is a more important factor.
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 37
Figure G:
Concern of Parents for
Walking and Biking
OVERALL
School
West
Park
Middle
Weather or climate
Amount of traffic along route
Safety of intersections
Speed of traffic along route
Distance
Sidewalks or pathways
Time
Adults to walk/bike with
Violence or crime
Child's activities
Crossing Guards
Convenience of driving
72%
66%
77%
71%
61% 67% 61%
56%
60% 63% 61%
58%
59% 65% 60%
53%
54% 61% 61%
42%
40% 43% 43%
33%
36% 33% 40%
35%
32% 43% 34%
21%
32% 31% 37%
26%
31% 23% 31%
37%
20% 35% 20%
80%
14% 9%1 14%
8%
The Chart below shows the responses of parents that live within one-half mile to where their
child attends school. Their concerns fairly well match concerns shown in the overall survey
results, except for a key difference. Distance from school goes from the fifth highest concern to
the lowest concern for these parents.
Figure H: Living within 1/2 Mile From School Parent Concerns
Distance
Crossing Guards
Convenience of driving
Time
Child's before or after activities
Violence or crime
Adults to walk/bike with
Sidewalks or pathways
Speed of traffic along route
Amount of traffic along route
Safety of intersections & crossings
Weather or climate
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Percent
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 38
21VTGit
Question 14 on the survey asks the opinion of parents if the school encourages or discourages
children walking or bicycling to and from school. Nearly eighty percent of the survey
respondents gave the neutral answer that the school neither encourages nor discourages walking
and biking. Eighteen percent of survey respondents from children attending West Elementary
answered either discourages or strongly discourages walking and biking to school. While this is
significantly higher than results from the other two schools, it is surprising in that the school
openly discourages the kindergarten and first grade students from walking and biking to this
school site.
Question 15 asked if walking and biking to and from school is a fun or boring activity for the
children. Fifty-six percent of the survey respondents gave the neutral answer that it was neither
fun nor boring. Nearly thirty-eight percent of the respondents answered either that it was fun or
very fun for children to walk and bike to and from school. Less than two percent of the Park
Elementary respondents answered that walking to school was boring, and no parent answered
that it was very boring for their child walking or biking to Park Elementary School.
Question 16 asked how healthy the parent believes walking and biking to and from school is.
Nearly eighty-four percent of the overall respondents to the question either answered healthy or
very healthy. Only four respondents answered that it was unhealthy. These were from parents
with children living greater than two miles from the schools. The strong attitude that walking and
biking is a healthy activity is encouraging, as it is important factor to attract additional children
to walk and bike to school.
Hutchinson Accident Information
Bicycle and Pedestrian Accidents
According to the crash data tabulated by MnDOT's MNCMAT Crash Mapping Program there
have been twenty-eight pedestrian—motor vehicle accidents and thirty seven bicycle—motor
vehicle accidents from 2004 to 2014 within the City of Hutchinson. This works out to 2.8
accidents involving pedestrians per year and 3.7 accidents involving bicyclists per year. The
accidents are widespread throughout the community, with no particular location that stands out
as a major concern. As one might expect, a larger proportion of the accidents happen on the busy
Highway 15 (Main Street) and on the other arterials and collectors throughout the city.
The analysis shows that of the twenty-eight pedestrian accidents involving motor vehicles,
eighteen (64.3%) happened at intersections. Twenty (71.4%) of the 28 accidents were either the
drivers fault alone or partially the drivers fault. Seven of the accidents involved children, ages 5
to 16 years old. Three of these accidents were caused by children darting into traffic or playing
on the road.
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 39
2117Th
Motor vehicle accidents with bicyclists also occur mainly on the city's arterials and collectors
that have higher levels of traffic. Eleven of the thirty—seven bicycle accidents occurred on Trunk
Highway 15 or just off on a side road location. The one multi -accident location occurred at or
near the intersection of Main Street and Fifth Avenue, with three accidents involving bicyclists
in the ten year period. Greater than 78 percent of the accidents occurred at intersections. Fifteen
of the accidents were the driver's fault, ten were the bicyclist's fault, seven were accidents where
both were at fault, and five accidents did not give blame to the accident Over thirty-five percent
of the reported accidents with bicyclists mentioned that driver distraction played a role. Fourteen
of the accidents involved bicyclists that were children, ages six to sixteen years old. One of the
accidents involved a sixteen year old bicyclist at a school crossing near the High School. Fifty
percent of the accidents involving children bicyclists were the fault, or partially the fault of the
child for the accident.
Accidents Involving Just Motor Vehicles
This Plan also reviewed the ten year accident history of just motorists alone. This analysis is
useful in highlighting intersections and other areas where there have been considerable accidents,
and thus could show a more dangerous location for pedestrians and bicyclists. Most accidents
occur on busy arterials and collectors, particularly where these streets intersect. Local streets
have few reported accidents throughout the community.
Near the Middle School and West Elementary there have been twenty-two accidents reported at
the intersection of School Road and South Grade Road. Another eight accidents have occurred
on South Grade Road between School Road and Dale Street (in front of the Middle School). An
additional twenty-one accidents have occurred at the intersection of South Grade Road and Dale
Street. A significant number of accidents have occurred near the High School on School Road
from McDonald Drive north to the bridge over the Crow River. Fourteen accidents have
occurred at the intersection of Roberts Road and School Road. Many other accidents have
occurred on Roberts Road near the High School.
The largest number of motor vehicle accidents reported near the vicinity of Park Elementary
School occur on Main Street (TH 15). Thirty five accidents alone have occurred at the
intersection of Main Street and Second Avenue South. Another thirty one accidents have
occurred at the intersection of Washington Avenue and Main Street. There have been nineteen
motor vehicle accidents along Second Avenue between Main Street and Lynn Road near the
school. Seven of these accidents took place at the intersection of Lynn road and Second Avenue.
Eighteen accidents have occurred on Washington Avenue west of Main Street to the intersection
with Lynn Road during the ten year timeframe. Ten of these accidents occurred at the
intersection of Washington Avenue and Franklin Street. Glen Street and Grove Street have had
only a marginal number of accidents near Park Elementary over the past ten years.
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 40
Identified Engineering Needs
In review of the current facilities that are in place at and nearby the schools, there are already a
number of well thought out engineered solutions that have been carried out in recent years to
improve safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. In the preparation of this plan, a number of other
infrastructure/engineering needs have been identified.
The infrastructure needs identified within this Plan have come from an audit where school
dismissal was observed at all three school locations, SRTS Team meeting discussions, parent
survey comments, review of current study and plans, and meetings with school officials and the
Hutchinson Public Works Director/City Engineer. The solutions for some of the identified needs
are readily apparent, while other needs will take detailed engineering analysis to find the best
solution. It is not the purpose of this plan to prepare the more detailed engineering solutions to
the more complex needs that have been identified, but to highlight that the needs for the City to
give the proper engineering analysis in the near future.
Engineering Needs on School Property
There are a few infrastructure improvements on school property, including the land at Park
Elementary School where technically the school site is on City park property. At Park
Elementary the sidewalk/bus loading zone along Grove Street should be wider to accommodate
children waiting to load their bus. There is also a missing sidewalk on the north side of Park
Elementary/City Park grounds off of Washington Avenue. While having a sidewalk at this
location would be helpful, it is less of a priority than other needs because very few children are
in need of this sidewalk segment on their trip to and from the school. There is a sidewalk on the
north side of Washington Avenue. Lastly, signage at the High School parking lot may be helpful
to remind persons exiting the grounds to be aware of pedestrians on the trail/sidewalk crossing.
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 41
The Middle School would
benefit from a couple of on -
school property infrastructure
projects. A top priority would
be to create a spur trail from
the trail that connects the High
School and the Middle School.
The spur would be located
north of the baseball field and
proceed east to 8th Avenue
SW. A sidewalk/trail along 8th
Avenue would also be
advisable to the intersection of
Dale Street. This Trail would
bring a number of housing
units closer to the school, and
thus would expand the walk
zone and would make it safer
and more appealing for
students to walk or bike to
houses east of the school. A
sidewalk in front of the school
is needed to connect the front
doors to the street's sidewalk.
Currently pedestrians need to
utilize the school's driveway to
enter the school's south side.
21 V Ir C it
No Sidewalk along south side of Washington Avenue
Missing Sidewalk location at the Middle School 1
Engineering Needs of City Infrastructure for SRTS
The City of Hutchinson has an extensive trail system in the community, however there are
several locations where trail improvements would be very beneficial for children walking and
bicycling to school. One such trail expansion is scheduled to occur in fiscal year 2017. A new
trail will be constructed along School Road from the Crow River Bridge to Roberts Road. The
new trail will also travel along Roberts Road west to the Roberts Park entrance. The City
obtained a federal Transportation Alternatives Program grant to help pay for these upcoming
improvements.
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 42
21VTGit
It would be very beneficial to children attending the Middle School to complete the discontinued
trail along Dale Street. A completed trail between South Grade Road and Roberts Road along
Dale Street would aid in the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists on this collector street corridor.
Another identified trail need is to construct a trail along Roberts Road from School Road to Dale
Street. This is a route that is heavily used by children attending both the Middle School and the
High School. The street is designated as a collector and thus carries considerable traffic. The last
identified need for a trail is along Century Avenue from State Trunk Highway 15 to Jefferson
Street. The construction of this trail segment would mostly aid in the safety of children riding
their bikes from the surrounding neighborhoods. The Middle School is walkable from the
Century Avenue area, but it is of a longer distance than other discussed needed improvements.
Four primary road intersection crossings have been identified in this planning process which
have safety concerns for children traveling to and from school. City engineering staff will need
to further investigate these intersections to determine the proper fix for the safety concerns. It
may be possible in one or more of the identified intersections that only high visible pedestrian
crossings are needed, but a couple of the intersections will take a much more sophisticated fix
with dealing with high volumes of traffic and unique roadway geometrics. The four priority
intersections identified are:
1. The intersection at Kay Street and Roberts Road. The observation of the Middle
School dismissal has shown a number of students cross Roberts Road at this
intersection. The intersection currently is unmarked.
2. The Intersection at Dale Street and South Grade Road. South Grade Road being a
minor arterial and Dale Street being a city collector route means there is a large
amount of traffic at this intersection traveling at all directions. The intersection
has a four way stop, but the pedestrian crossings do not currently cover the full
intersection. To complicate the crossing, Dale Street crosses South Grade Road on
a diagonal alignment. Some Middle School children go to after-school activities at
the church located on the southeast side of the intersection. See images below.
3. Near Park Elementary School, the intersection of Second Avenue and Lynn Road
has been identified as a safety concern from SRTS Team members. The
intersection currently has high visibility marked crossings. A ten-year history
shows the intersection had only seven accidents involving motor vehicles, and
none involving pedestrians and bicyclists. The City will consider what else can be
done to improve the perceived safety issue. The School could also consider
posting a crossing guard at the location.
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 43
21UTGit
4. The City would like to create a safe crossing of State Trunk Highway 7 at the
intersection with Montana Street. There currently is no safe crossing of TH 7
between School Road and State Trunk Highway 15 intersections, a distance of
well over a mile. Montana Street is located approximately mid -way between these
two intersections. There will be no easy, inexpensive, solution for making this
crossing safe. The City is considering the possibility of placing a High -Intensity
Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) at this location. MnDOT will need to approve any
pedestrian crossing project that the City wishes to pursue at this location.
FHWA Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-10-045 states that "The HAWK
beacon is not illuminated until it is activated by a pedestrian, triggering the
warning flashing yellow lens on the major street. After a set amount of time, the
indication changes to a solid yellow light to inform drivers to prepare to stop. The
beacon then displays a dual solid red light to drivers on the major street and a
walking person symbol to pedestrians. At the conclusion of the walk phase, the
beacon displays an alternating flashing red light, and pedestrians are shown an
upraised hand symbol with a countdown display informing them of the time left
to cross. During the alternating flashing red lights, drivers can proceed after
coming to a full stop and checking that pedestrians have already crossed their lane
of travel. Each successive driver is legally required to come to a full stop before
proceeding during the alternating flashing red phase."
Outside of the four intersections mentioned above. The intersection crossings of School Road at
Eight Street and at McDonald Drive have been mentioned as safety concerns. Both intersections
are T -intersections. On the north side of Eight Street there is a high visibility marked crossing of
School Road. There are no current markings at McDonald Drive.
Vehicle speeding, particularly along School Road, was mentioned by a number of parents that
answered the survey. The City will consider a variety of measures to calm traffic along School
Road at and near the school property through roadway geometrics, greater enforcement
measures, feedback signs, and other helpful steps. South Grade Road at the Middle School
currently has a 35 mph, with no school reduced speed zone. Such a posted reduced speed zone
should be considered at this location.
Main Street (TH 15) in downtown Hutchinson has been addressed in other city planning
documents. Currently key intersections are lighted with crosswalk lighting. When the Minnesota
Department of Transportation decides to reconstruct the highway in the downtown, a redesign
will take place that will include improvements to the pedestrian travel environment. This could
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 44
occur as soon as 2020, according to MnDOT's long range plans. When implemented in the long
term future, TH 15 pedestrian crossings in downtown Hutchinson will see safety improvements.
Map G: Intersection of South Grade Road and Dale Street.
There are safety concerns for pedestrians at this location.
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 45
Below are two aerial photos highlighting some of the key infrastructure needs around the school
campus on the west side of the City of Hutchinson.
Map H: School Area Infrastructure Needs/Concerns
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 46
Crow River
� t
sSchool
► Off Road Trail in FY 2017
rFuture Trail Need
Roberts Park �sy. +
Crossing Safety Concerns
Current Paved Trail
i P
t I t • ' �?•
• W° _ .y jW
t-4
High Schoolvoebe�-51-5,
Et
b�
Google -earth
2a14.GaogEe r T - °. _ 1 COO ft ��
21VTGit
Enforcement, Education, and Encouragement Measures
The needs and strategies for the SRTS Plan dealing with the categories of enforcement,
education, and encouragement are all interrelated. There will be some planned measures that can
easily fit and be discussed within more than one of these three categories. All three categories
must be worked on together to reach the vision of this plan.
While the needs for engineering solutions are location specific, many of the enforcement,
education, and encouragement goals are the same for each of the three schools this plan is
addressing. Many of the needs in these areas can be discussed from the District level, where the
schools can work together in developing action measures. Obviously, age of the child will play a
large role in determining what measures will best be utilized in creating effective strategies for
encouragement and education. Thus, some of the measures will be very different between the
Middle School and the elementary schools.
When implementing the SRTS Plan, the three schools can work together on some shared action
steps. This will save time, effort, and costs in a shared approach. For example, if an organization
like the Minnesota Bicycle Alliance is brought in to help with educating Middle School students,
Park Elementary School could also see that they utilize their talents by setting up another
training opportunity for their students on the same day. SRTS media campaigns can be
coordinated at the District Office level. Anytime the developed action steps are similar between
the schools, coordination between the schools should be a priority.
Enforcement Needs and Measures
The primary purpose of SRTS enforcement strategies is to deter unsafe behaviors of motorists,
pedestrians, and bicyclists and to encourage all road users to obey traffic laws and share the road
safely. Enforcement measures are not only the responsibility of the local police, but with the
school and the community at large as well. Enforcement measures go hand in hand with
education and safety awareness measures that are also discussed within this plan.
Through the various needs identification steps taken in preparing this plan there have been
unsafe behaviors that have been identified for streets around the school and on the school
campus. Speeding is a concern on the streets surrounding the school, particularly on School
Road, and South Grade Road. Particular attention needs to be paid to the school's designated
school speed zones. A speed zone should be studied along South Grade Road in front of the
Middle School. Studies show that speed matters when it comes to determining if a pedestrian
lives or dies in an accident. "At 20 mph, a pedestrian has a 5 percent chance of dying if he/she is
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 48
2117Th
hit by a car. At 30 mph, the chance of dying increases to roughly 45 percent. If a pedestrian is hit
by a motor vehicle traveling 40 mph, the risk of dying increases to 85 percent."
Another enforcement concern is for motorists to follow the laws regarding yielding to
pedestrians. All city street intersections are crosswalks, not just the marked crosswalks. The law
is unfortunately often ignored. Concerns are also with motorists obeying crossing guards at the
Park Elementary School crossing locations. An observed problem at Park Elementary School is
that there are occasions when parents that pick up their children from school park in the cross
walk in front of where the student crossing guards are standing. This causes these patrollers
needing to stand out in the road with their flags. In addition, motorists need to make full stops at
the marked stop signs on the streets near the schools, and obey laws regarding passing stopped
school buses. With the High School being on the same campus as West Elementary School and
the Middle School special care is needed to be sure the inexperienced teenage drivers follow safe
driving laws.
Pedestrian and bicyclist poor behaviors are also a concern when it comes to traveling to and from
school. While steps to correct these problems will be mainly addressed under education, it is
proper under enforcement measures to stop children when seen not obeying laws to point out
their errors, and take the appropriate corrective measures.
The Hutchinson Police Department works with the School District in providing a safe
environment for students arriving and leaving the schools after dismissal. During the first week
of school, the Police Department takes a very active role in directing traffic at each of the school
buildings. This sets a tone for the upcoming year and make sure things now properly. The
crossing patrol supervisor reports incidents to the Assistant Principal, and she determines if the
Police Department needs to become involved. Bus drivers report non -serious incidents to their
supervisor or directly to the Police Department if the incident is serious.
The Hutchinson Police Department encourages residents to register their bicycles with the city.
This can be done for a one-time fee of five dollars. Such registration makes it easier to connect a
bike to its owner in event of a theft. The City has a Police Bicycle Patrol that helps ensure the
enforcement of laws regarding protecting bicyclists, and also providing a presence that helps
educate the public on the laws and best practices for bicycling.
School and Community Enforcement Measures
As described in the Travel Environment Section of this plan, Park Elementary School provides
adult supervised student crossing guards at four locations surrounding the school. The crossing
guards do not only make it safer for the students traveling to/from school, but also leads to more
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 49
21VTGit
parents feeling comfortable about their children walking or biking to school. Proper annual
education of the crossing guards need to be continued.
School staff is also stationed outside observing and assisting with both student arrival and
departure. The staff help ensure that students follow proper safety measures on the school's
property.
The school needs to periodically purchase replacement patrol gear such as safety vests, flags, and
rain ponchos. There is also the need to periodically purchase new pedestrian signs that are
wheeled out every day. The Hutchinson Police Department has funded these signs in the past.
There are a couple of community enforcement programs that are available, and should be
investigated to determine if volunteers are available and willing to participate. On the
neighborhood level, surrounding the school, some homeowners may put up yard signs or stickers
to encourage drivers to slow down. Signs could possibly be designed and made ready by art
classes at the schools. Another possible program would have parent volunteers who drop off
and/or pick up their children at school to agree to be part of a "pace car" program. A pace car
program uses volunteers who take a pledge to follow speed limits, stop at stop signs, and obey
other traffic control devices and school rules. The pace cars slow traffic down by modeling good
behavior.
Education and Encouragement Needs and Measures
Education and encouragement will be discussed together as they work hand in hand, and the
activities involved often address both areas. Hutchinson Schools will play an important role with
these activities, but other organizations in the community will also play important roles.
While, engineering solutions, discussed above, offer opportunities for greatly improving safety
of children that walk and bike to and from school, safety education to both pedestrians and
bicyclists has the greatest potential for children's safety. Education is not limited to specific
locations as are engineering improvements. Children that are educated in safety procedures,
provide improved safety at all locations. Studies have shown that the majority of school age
pedestrian crashes occur not at the school site, but at locations on their journey to and from
school.
Studies have also shown that the most predominant factors contributing to school age crashes are
crashes that occur when children dash out from behind parked cars, and pedestrian crashes at
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 50
21VTGit
mid -block locations. These types of pedestrian crashes are best handled through education.
Children are rarely involved in crashes when they are properly crossing a street.
Community -wide driver awareness and educational programs also are considered important in
improving safety of students. Education reminds motorists that children are present and to slow
down and follow traffic rules. Education of motorists is especially helpful when it comes to
interaction with bicyclists, as many drivers are not currently aware of the laws pertaining to
bicycle interaction.
The City of Hutchinson, as part of their Bicycle and Pedestrian Friendly City Initiative, provides
bicycle safety training to the Hutchinson Public Schools, holds an annual "Bike and Blade
Bonanza" which promotes safety through training and bike maintenance. The event, which is
targeted for children, has given away thousands of helmets in the last 10 years. At the most
recent Bike and Blade Bonanza $40 helmets were sold for just $5 at the annual event. The event,
which has sponsorship help from the Hutchinson Jaycees, is given assistance from members of
the Hutchinson High School Mountain Bike Team and members of the Hutchinson Mountain
Bike Association.
The City's web site provides educational material about bicycling safety, including videos about
helmet use, bike safety, and respect. The web site also provides a map of the City's Bicycle
facilities. This bicycle map is also available as a brochure type handout.
At the School District's Parent Open House event the Physical Education Department handed out
Hutchinson Bike Route Maps. At the event there was drawing that gave out one bike helmet per
grade.
Hutchinson's Parks, Recreation, and Community Education Department offer a wide variety of
fitness, recreation and sporting activities for Hutchinson youth of all age groups. They also
provide classes for older driving residents with classes from AARP for defensive driving and
refining existing driving skills. The Department could possibly be asked to look into providing
some education for young bicyclists, and or take young children out on walking field trips where
pedestrian education could be taught.
Meeker, McLeod, Sibley Healthy Communities operates the three county area's State Health
Improvement Program (SHIP) grant. Their staff has been part of the SRTS Team and can
continue to help provide ongoing support for SRTS implementation. There will be possible
opportunities for some small funding to help carry out some SRTS initiatives.
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 51
Heart of Hutch is an organization made up of a "group of people of all ages
and backgrounds who want to inspire positive change in habits, behaviors
Heart orHutch and attitudes" across the community. This past year, with assistance from
Hutchinson Health Wellness Coordinator and Park Elementary School, they
helped organize children participating in International Walk to School Day.
The event also included children riding their bikes as an alternative. Over one hundred Park
Elementary students participated in walking school buses that were led by adults including the
Mayor, the Police Chief, and the Fire Chief. Participating children received an apple and a bottle
of water after arriving at school. Heart of Hutch also sponsors a "Take a Kid Mountain Biking
Day" as another of its many activities aimed at helping residents live well.
There are a variety of other organized biking events that various clubs and organizations sponsor.
One of the most prominent events is the annual Water Carnival Bike Ride that is sponsored by
the Hutchinson Rotary Club and the Outdoor Motion Bike Shop.
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 52
Chapter Three:
SRTS Goals, Objectives, and Action Plan
This Chapter establishes an SRTS Action Plan for the Hutchinson School District and City of
Hutchinson. The Action Plan consists of five goals areas (based upon the 5 E's of SRTS
planning) and corresponding objectives and action steps. This Chapter will help guide the School
District in making decisions and implementing SRTS initiatives from 2015-2021.
L- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
For the purposes of this Plan, goals, objectives, and action steps are defined in the following
way:
Goal: This is an idealistic statement intended to be attained at some undetermined future
date. Goals are purposely general in nature.
Objective: Objectives are tangible actions that need to be completed in order to achieve a
specific goal.
Action Step: An Action Step is a specific activity that will be taken in order to achieve a
goal and objective. For the purposes of this Plan, the action steps identify if they pertain
to West Elementary, Park Elementary, the Middle School, or the entire Hutchinson
School District. Action steps may involve one of the schools, the entire school district,
the City of Hutchinson, and/or various other entities in the community.
Hutchinson School District
Safe Routes to School
Goals, Objectives, and Action Steps
L Education Goal:
"To provide students and parents with the necessary information they need to fully
understand how important walking and biking is to their health. "
Objective A: To teach bike and pedestrian safety laws and skills in a way that is clear,
hands-on, and consistent.
I.A.1. Consider using Minnesota's Walk! Bike! Fun! as a basis to customize appropriate
grade level curriculum.
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 53
2117Th
➢ Who: School District.
➢ When: Begin in the fall 2016.
➢ Funding: In-kind expenses (printing and staff time).
I.A.2. Investigate ways to provide students with bicycle and pedestrian educational
opportunities. This may be accomplished through incorporating bicycle and
pedestrian education within physical education classes. The School District will also
consider looking for opportunities to incorporate classroom lessons where
appropriate in such subjects as math, science, social studies, and health that meet
state and District curriculum standards. Curriculum examples are available.
➢ Who: School District.
➢ When: Begin in the spring 2016. Update after the first year and biannually
thereafter.
➢ Funding: In-kind expenses (staff time).
I.A.3. Continue the annual "Bike and Blade Bonanza" event, aimed at children, that
promotes safety through bicycle training and maintenance and provides the
opportunity for parents to purchase $40 helmets for their children for just $5.
➢ Who: Hutchinson Jaycees, City of Hutchinson, High School's Mountain
Bike Team, Hutchinson Mountain Bike Association.
➢ When: Ongoing. Held in May.
➢ Funding: Even expenses, In-kind expenses and cost to subsidize bike helmets.
Objective B: To educate students, parents, and citizens on key pedestrian and bicycling
issues in the community, and the benefits of SRTS and a more active
lifestyle.
I.B.1. Provide education and reminders to drivers of the community to obey traffic laws,
and be vigilant, especially near schools. This will be done with school information to
parents and city information to all residents through the city's web site and various
media opportunities. The City's web site also includes educational videos pertaining
to bicycle safety.
➢ Who: School District and City of Hutchinson.
➢ When: Ongoing, with emphasis made at the beginning of the school year.
➢ Funding: In-kind expenses (printing, staff and volunteer time).
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 54
21VTGit
I.B.2. Provide handouts and provide information on the school's web site at the beginning
of the school year explaining busing, parking, walking, and bicycling issues, focusing
on safety rules and school policies.
➢ Who: School District.
➢ When: Annually.
➢ Funding: In-kind expenses (printing, staff and volunteer time).
I.B.3. Create a school zone pedestrian and bicycle map (i.e. route map) to be distributed to
students in the fall and spring. Encourage parents to go over walking and biking
options with their children.
➢ Who: SRTS Task Force.
➢ When: 1 st map ready for spring 2016. Update annually as needed.
➢ Funding: MMDC will create and update the maps.
I.B.4. Work with the media to highlight key SRTS information, events, and initiatives.
Target drivers encouraging them to slow down and pay attention to bicycles and
pedestrians.
➢ Who: School District, PTO, and Sheriff's Office.
➢ When: Ongoing.
➢ Funding: In-kind expenses (staff and volunteer time).
I.B.S. Because the High School is located near West Elementary and the Middle School,
continue to implement teen driver campaigns, such as don't text and drive, for
Hutchinson High School students. Look into applying for stakeholder funding to
enhance the programs and/or to establish an incentive program.
➢ Who: School District and Sheriff s Office.
➢ When: Ongoing.
➢ Funding: In-kind expenses (printing, staff and volunteer time).
I.B.6. Consider Incorporating SRTS education into classroom art projects or after school
activities (i.e., posters, paintings, etc.) by emphasizing various SRTS topics (i.e.,
International Walk to School Day, Don't Text and Drive, etc.). Display artwork in
hallways and periodically hold an art contest to provide incentives.
➢ Who: School District.
➢ When: Ongoing.
➢ Funding: $500; In-kind expenses (supplies, printing, staff time).
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 55
2117Th
I.B.7. Educate students on the importance of using designated crosswalks, especially when
walking or biking to and from school.
➢ Who: School District.
➢ When: Ongoing.
➢ Funding: In-kind expenses (supplies, printing, staff time).
II. Encouragement Goal:
"To mitigate the issues that discourage students from walking and biking to school. "
Objective A: To build confidence in students and parents that walking and biking to
school and throughout the community is both healthy and safe.
II.A.1. Encourage that each classroom (K-5) organizes at least one walking field trip
annually (i.e., playground, library, post office, Luce Line State Trail, etc.). Use the
walk as an educational opportunity to teach/strengthen pedestrian skills.
➢ Who:
School District.
➢ When:
Begin in the spring 2015.
➢ Funding:
None needed.
II.A.2. Continue to Participate annually in the International Walk to School Day.
➢ Who: School District, Heart of Hutch, City of Hutchinson.
➢ When: Continue in the fall 2015.
➢ Funding: In-kind expenses (printing, staff and volunteer time).
II.A.3. Continue to participate in the annual National Bike to School Day.
➢ Who: School District, Heart of Hutch, City of Hutchinson.
➢ When: Ongoing.
➢ Funding: In-kind expenses (printing, staff and volunteer time).
II.A.4. Conduct a bike rack assessment, ensuring that key locations (i.e., schools, library,
etc.) have quality bike racks. Find a stakeholder who is willing to provide bike locks
as an incentive to those using their bicycles.
➢ Who: School District, City of Hutchinson.
➢ When: Ongoing.
➢ Funding: $500 for bike locks; $500 for conducting the bike rack assessment.
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 56
2117Th
II.A.5. Continue to provide map flyers that promote and show Hutchinson's bike trails and
bicycle friendly facilities.
➢ Who: City of Hutchinson.
➢ When: Ongoing.
➢ Funding: $1,500.
II.A.6. Continue to provide parents and students with safety rules and school procedures
dealing with students arriving and departing to/from school by all modes of travel,
through the handbook given to parents and using the school website. Continue to have
parents sign that they have read and understood the handbook.
➢ Who: School District.
➢ When: Ongoing.
➢ Funding: In-kind expenses (printing and staff time).
II.A.7. Purchase additional bicycle racks. Place at Middle School, Park Elementary, and
near the school's athletic facilities.
➢ Who: School District
➢ When: Look for first opportunity that SRTS Mini -grants are made available
➢ Funding: $1,000
II.A.8. Continue to provide a variety of community organized walk, run, and bicycling
family events such as the Heart of Hutch's "Take a Kid Mountain Biking Day," the
annual Water Carnival Bike Ride sponsored by the Hutchinson Rotary Club and the
Outdoor Motion Bike Shop, and the Open Streets Hutchinson event.
➢ Who: Various community clubs and organizations.
➢ When: Ongoing.
➢ Funding: Limited expenses per event funded through the sponsor organizations.
III. Engineering Goal:
"Implement changes to the built environment to maximize the safety of walking and
biking. "
Objective A: To proactively mitigate needs on or next to school property.
III.A.1. Install a sidewalk at the Middle School from the public sidewalk to the front door
entrance area. This will allow pedestrians to stay off the vehicle entrance and parking
lot.
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 57
2117Th
➢ Who: School District.
➢ When: 2016.
➢ Funding: Moderate cost to be determined.
III.A.2. Install a trail connecting the trail between the Middle School and the High School on
the north side of the ballfield connecting to 8th Avenue SW. It is hoped that the City
would consider extending this trail by a trail or sidewalk on 8th Avenue SW from
school property to Dale Street SW.
➢ Who: School District and City of Hutchinson.
➢ When: 1 — 5 years.
➢ Funding: School District and/or City of Hutchinson.
III.A.3. Widen sidewalk at Park Elementary School Bus loading zone on the east side of
Grove Street NW to offer a safer environment for those students entering and exiting
the buses.
➢ Who: School District and City of Hutchinson.
➢ When: 1 — 5 years.
➢ Funding: School District and/or City of Hutchinson.
III.A.4. Install a sidewalk on the south side of Washington Avenue between Grove Street and
Glen Street (Park Elementary block).
➢ Who: School District and City of Hutchinson.
➢ When: Within five to ten years.
➢ Funding: School District and/or City of Hutchinson.
Objective B: To proactively identify and mitigate pedestrian and bicycle safety issues
throughout the City of Hutchinson.
III.B.1. The City of Hutchinson has plans to write and pass a Complete Streets Ordinance to
help foster improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities throughout the community
including streets utilized by children walking and biking to and from school.
➢ Who: City of Hutchinson.
➢ When: 2015 or 2016.
➢ Funding: In-kind staff time.
III.B.2. Create improved pedestrian crossings at the following intersections: (a) South Grade
Road and Dale Street (b) Kay Street and Roberts Road (c) McDonald Drive and
School Road (d) Second Avenue SW and Lynn Road SW.
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 58
21VTGit
➢ Who: City of Hutchinson.
➢ When: 2016 to 2020.
➢ Funding: Each project will need to be separately evaluated to determine best fix
and cost.
III.B.3. Improve Pedestrian crossings along TH 15 (Main Street) in the downtown business
district when MnDOT schedules the road to be reconstructed.
➢ Who: MnDOT and City of Hutchinson.
➢ When: 2020 at the earliest.
➢ Funding: To be determined, but a significant cost.
III.B.4. Improve the safety of Crossing State Highway 7 at Montana Street. This project shall
require engineering analysis to determine the best solution. MnDOT will need to give
their approval of any project across their highway. One possible solution is the
construction of a High -Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) at this location.
➢ Who: City of Hutchinson, MnDOT.
➢ When: 2017 or beyond.
➢ Funding: Cost will depend upon engineering solution, but will likely be a
significant amount, likely greater than $100,000. Seek grant funding.
III.B.5. Produce an engineering and enforcement plan for traffic calming measures along
School Road. Measures will likely be a combination of roadway geometrics, driver
feedback signs, and stepped up enforcement measures.
➢ Who: City of Hutchinson.
➢ When: Within one to three years.
➢ Funding: In -Kind staff time and $10,000 if special study.
III.B.6. Create an off road paved trail along School Road from the bridge to Roberts Road.
The trail will turn west on Roberts Road and proceed to the entrance at Roberts Park.
➢ Who: City of Hutchinson.
➢ When: FY 2017.
➢ Funding: Project is programed. TAP grant and City matching funds.
III.B.7. Complete the disconnected trail along Dale Street between South Grade Road and
Roberts Road.
➢ Who: City of Hutchinson.
➢ When: To be determined.
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 59
2117Th
➢ Funding: Cost to be determined.
III.B.8. Expand city trail system along Roberts Road from School Road to Dale Street and
along Century Avenue between State Highway 15 and Jefferson Street.
➢ Who:
City of Hutchinson.
➢ When:
To be determined.
➢ Funding:
Cost to be determined.
IV. Enforcement Goal:
"To provide the necessary monitoring and enforcement of SRTS routes to ensure safe
and lawful practices and behaviors of all users. "
Objective A: To ensure that students, parents, and citizens understand and follow
existing vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle laws.
IV.A.1. Encourage the City of Hutchinson Police Department to adopt a "Zero Tolerance"
policy towards vehicles not obeying the law near the schools and student utilized
walk and bike routes. Also, encourage officers and school staff to proactively address
unsafe pedestrian and bicycle activities.
➢ Who: City of Hutchinson Police.
➢ When: Ongoing.
➢ Funding: In-kind expenses (staff time).
IV.A.2. Encourage bus drivers, school staff, students, parents, and citizens to report to
authorities all unsafe vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle behaviors when someone's life
is at risk.
➢ Who: City of Hutchinson Police and School District staff.
➢ When: Ongoing.
➢ Funding: In-kind expenses (staff time).
IV.A.3. Continue the adult supervised student crossing guard program at Park Elementary
School at the current four locations. Continue to supply crossing guards with
appropriate equipment, vests, and training.
➢ Who: School District.
➢ When: Ongoing.
➢ Funding: $1,000 for supplies and training; In-kind expenses (staff and volunteer
time).
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 60
2117Th
IV.A.4. Examine acquiring driver feedback electronic signs and utilizing them, especially
after school begins in the fall, to remind drivers to keep within the posted speed limits
within the School Safety Zone. Provide for extra enforcement when trailers are
present.
➢ Who: City of Hutchinson.
➢ When: If move forward with purchase, ongoing activity.
➢ Funding: Cost of driver feedback sign equipment. In-kind expenses (staff time
and stakeholder's equipment).
V. Evaluation Goal:
"To provide an ongoing process to evaluate, and update the SRTS Plan as progress is
made towards achieving the Hutchinson SRTS Vision Statement. "
Recommended Evaluation Strategies:
Evaluation is an important component of any SRTS program. There needs to be an impartial
review of what strategies have been implemented to determine if adjustments or changes are
necessary to meet the goals and objectives laid out in the Plan. In addition, new strategies may
need to be developed to better meet the Plan's objectives. The parent survey and student tally
results may be utilized as a baseline to help measure student travel behavior and measure
effectiveness of SRTS efforts over time.
Evaluation Strategy Action Steps:
➢ Keep the SRTS Task Force in place to meet periodically to work on encouragement,
education, and enforcement goals and to evaluate and push for activities related to
engineering action steps. There should be no cost for this strategy step.
➢ On an annual basis, conduct classroom student tallies to determine if progress is being
made on the number of students walking and biking to school with the SRTS efforts
being conducted. There should be no cost for this strategy step.
➢ After it is determine that an appropriate number of action steps have been taken under
education, encouragement, enforcement, and engineering, conduct another parent survey
to determine if attitudes are improving over children walking and biking to school.
Resurvey every few years. This would involve a modest cost for making copies of the
survey and for tabulating the results.
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 61
21VTGit
➢ After engineering action steps have been taken, the SRTS Task Force shall conduct a
walking and/or biking audit of the improvement to see firsthand if the results of the new
improvements have corrected the safety problems identified. There should be no cost for
this strategy step.
➢ On an ongoing, periodic basis, ask the City of Hutchinson for both traffic count data and
accident data to determine what changes are occurring over time. There should be no cost
for this strategy step.
➢ Review and revise SRTS Plan. The SRTS Task Force should review how progress is
being made on the action steps, and adjust efforts accordingly. Understanding that this
Plan is created at a specific moment in time, the SRTS Task Force should review the Plan
in detail periodically. Times, conditions, attitudes, and desires all will change over time.
For this reason, the Plan should be revisited at least every 5 years to determine what
changes are needed and what new action steps should be added to keep the Plan relevant
in the future. There should be no cost for conducting this strategy step, however new
activities will likely be added that will cost money when implemented.
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 62
21VTGit
Chapter Four:
SRTS Implementation Resources
A successful implementation of a SRTS plan will need the continued effort of the School's
SRTS Team, along with the support from the School District, the City of Hutchinson, and
various other organizations mentioned as part of this plan. The engagement of the parents and the
general public will also be very important to successfully implementing the SRTS plan. There
are both federal and state resources that can be utilized to assist with the plan. This section
provides web addresses for some of the better-known websites. The SRTS Team may also utilize
web search engines to look for issues specific in a particular activity that likely will result in
finding additional resources.
MnDOT with collaboration with the Minnesota Department of Health, Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Minnesota Center for Prevention and the Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota has developed an on-
line resource center for Safe Routes to School. "The resource center is a valuable way for SRTS
Programs and partners across the state to share information about SRTS in Minnesota. It also
provides education, outreach, and training resources for Minnesota communities."
"Things you can expect to find on the Minnesota SRTS Resource Center:
• Information about what SRTS is and how to get started
• Resources to implement the 5 E's (education, engineering, enforcement, evaluation and
encouragement)
• Tool kits and other resources for events, school programs, and more
• Success stories and information from Minnesota programs
• New tip sheets on SRTS policies, starting SRTS programs (walking school buses, bike
trains, events) and starting a SRTS team."
www.mnsaferoutestoschool.org
The National Center for Safe Routes to School provides a very complete website with
information and resources on all aspects of a Safe Routes to School.
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/index.cfm
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 63
21VTGit
International Walk to School maintains a website that shares SRTS information along with their
efforts in organizing the annual International Walk to School Day.
http://www.iwalktoschool.org/index.htm
The Minnesota Department of Transportation's SRTS website has general information and
resources, grant information, success stories, online webinars, and many other topics to assist
with SRTS.
//www. dot. state. mn.us/saferoutes/
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) maintains a useful SRTS website containing
information about the program.
http://safeiy.fhwa.dot.gov/saferoutes/
The Safe Routes to School Partnership provides links and contacts to businesses and
organizations in each state that support SRTS, along with other useful information.
http://www.saferoutespartnership.org/
Funding Sources
A variety of resources can be utilized in funding SRTS activities. This includes both public
grants as well as private sector funding.
Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP)
The new federal transportation act, MAP -21, combined the Safe Routes to School grant program
in with several other grant programs into a new program called the Transportation Alternatives
Program (TAP). The Minnesota Department of Transportation will administer the program. With
this being a brand new program, details about how the program will be funded were still being
worked on at the time this plan was written. A new application process will be developed. An
important change over the past SRTS Program application is that there will now be a match
requirement of likely 20 percent on projects that are funded. The Minnesota Department of
Transportation should be contacted to learn more about this competitive grant.
Other Transportation Funding
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 64
21VTGit
It may be possible to include a SRTS safety project as part of a planned road major repair or
reconstruction project. The engineer for the government entity that jurisdictionally operates the
road should be contacted to discuss SRTS safety needs early on when a road project is being
designed. There may be sources of funding these engineers could also possibly apply for that
would help pay for SRTS safety projects that involve the streets near the school.
School District and City Funding and Other Local Government Funding
The School District and the City have been mentioned in the Action Plan for helping to carry out
various inexpensive activities. The School and the City may also be needed as a source for match
dollars for grant dollars that are obtained. The County's Department of Health may have
programs or resources available to assist with educating and encouraging more physical activity.
Private Sector Funding
Often, local SRTS programs can solicit funding from non-governmental resources within their
own communities. The multiple benefits of SRTS programs, including the safety, health,
environment, and community impacts, often align with the interests of the local community.
Civic Organizations such as the local Lions Club, Kiwanis Club, Rotary Club, Jaycees, and
others may be willing to help pay for a particular project.
Foundations and corporations/businesses may be willing to assist with a SRTS project. One
example of this is Minnesota Blue Cross/Blue Shield that has helped fund SRTS activities in
various communities in the past.
Individuals could be possibly approached for funding through beginning a local fund drive.
Many programs have raised funds by holding special events. Use the SRTS theme to attract
funding. Hold a walkathon or a bicycle event. You can also choose more traditional funding
efforts such as bake sales, concerts, talent shows, etc.
Hutchinson Safe Routes to School Plan 65
Appendix A:
Safe Routes To School
Program Matrix
Education
III
• • afe Routes to School Matrix
Program Name
Game
Description
Assemblies grab students' attention through fun, interactive
Topics
Bicycling;
Format
Assembly;
Target Audience
Elementary;
Primary Outcomes
Increased Walking, Bicycling,
Secondary Outcomes
Increased Walking, Bicycling,
Resource Notes
Potential Lead/Champion: Parent, teacher, or administrator
Shows
activities, such as games, skits, or demonstrations. Safe Routes
Walking; Bus/
Event;
Middle School;
Transit Use, and Carpooling;
Transit Use, and Carpooling;
Potential Partners: Teachers/administrators/staff; PTA/parents;
to School assemblies often cover pedestrian and/or bicycle
Transit; Driving/
Contest/
High School;
Improved Walking/Bicycling and
Improved Walking/Bicycling and
school district; public health/local gov't.; local law enforcement;
safety but can also address bicycling skills, the environment,
Carpool; Safety;
Competition;
Teachers/
Driving Safety Behavior;
Driving Safety Behavior;
local groups/advocates/volunteers; League of American Bicyclists
health, and other topics. A game show covering safety questions
Skills; Incentives;
Curriculum/
Faculty/Staff;
Health and Environmental
Health and Environmental
instructors; older students
makes a good format for a smaller group such as a single
Environment;
ClassroomConnections;
Parents;
Connections;
Resources Needed: Time for preparation/rehearsal; script/
classroom.
Health
Activity
District;
Youth Empowerment
Youth Empowerment
presentation; props; A/V equipment; class time; assembly venue
Neighbors
Bicycle Rodeo
Bicycle Rodeos are events that offer bicycle skills and safety
Bicycling; Safety;
Assembly;
Elementary;
Improved Walking/Bicycling
Increased Bicycling;
Potential Lead/Champion: PTA/parents, local law enforcement,
stations for children - and sometimes parents - to visit (e.g.,
Skills; Incentives;
Event;
Middle School;
Safety Behavior;
Health and Environmental
or bicycling group/enthusiast
obstacle course, bicycle safety check, helmet fitting, instruction
Family
Skills Training/
Parents
Youth Empowerment
Connections
Potential Partners: Teachers/administrators/staff; PTA/parents;
about the rules of the road, etc.). Bicycles rodeos can be held
Hands On
school district; public health/local gov't.; local law enforcement;
as part of a larger event or on their own, and either during the
Training;
local groups/advocates/volunteers; League of American Bicyclists
school day or outside of school. Adult volunteers can administer
Information for
instructors; local bike shop/business; older students
rodeos, or they may be offered through the local police or fire
Parents
Resources Needed: Station content and materials; bicycles and
department.
safety gear; cones, street signs, and chalk; basic supplies; adult
volunteers; planning/coordination time
Bike Mechanic
Learning bike repair skills encourages students and families to
Bicycling; Safety;
Skills Training/
Middle School;
Increased Bicycling;
Improved Walking/Bicycling
Potential Lead/Champion: PTA or local group/volunteer/business
Training
bicycle to school and empowers students to take charge of their
Skills
Hands On
High School
Youth Empowerment
Safety Behavior;
Potential Partners: Teachers/administrators/staff; PTA/parents;
own transportation. A bicycle mechanic training can be made
Training
Health and Environmental
school district; local groups/advocates/volunteers; League of
available to students as a one-time basics lesson or as a multi-
Connections;
American Bicyclists instructors; local bike shop/business
session course. This training can be offered after school or on
Vocational Skills
Resources Needed: Curriculum; instructor(s); bicycle repair tools
weekends, and can be combined with an earn -a -bike program,
and equipment; venue for classes; time for planning/coordination
bike rodeo, or bicycle safety/skills trainings.
Classroom Lessons
Safe Routes to School classroom lessons address walking and/
Bicycling;
Curriculum/
Elementary;
Increased Walking, Bicycling,
Increased Walking, Bicycling,
Potential Lead/Champion: Teacher/administrator
or bicycling and other related topics while also meeting state or
Walking; Bus/
Classroom
Middle School;
Transit Use, and Carpooling;
Transit Use, and Carpooling;
Potential Partners: School district; PTA/parents; public health/
district curriculum standards. Lessons can be taught as part of
Transit; Driving/
Activity
High School;
Improved Walking/Bicycling
Improved Walking/Bicycling
local gov't.; local groups/advocates/volunteers
many subjects, including math, science, social studies, health,
Carpool;
Teachers/
Safety Behavior;
Safety Behavior;
Resources Needed: Curriculum; preparation time; class time; an
p p Y
and physical education.
Safety; Skills;
Faculty/Staff
Health and Environmental
Health and Environmental
visuals, worksheets, or instruction materials
Environment;
Connections;
Connections;
Health
Youth Empowerment
Youth Empowerment
Earn -A -Bike
Over a number of sessions, students learn the basics of bike
Bicycling; Safety;
Incentive
Middle School;
Increased Bicycling;
Health and Environmental
Potential Lead/Champion: PTA or local group/volunteer
Program
repair and maintenance, bicycle safety, and related topics while
Skills; Incentives;
Program;
High School
S
Improved Walking/BicyclingConnections;
p
Potential Partners: Teachers/administrators/staff; PTA/parents;
refurbishing an abandoned or donated bike. At the end of the
Environment;
Skills Training/
Safety Behavior;
Vocational Skills
school district; local groups/advocates/volunteers; League of
program, students earn the bikes they learned to repair.
Health
Hands On
Youth Empowerment
American Bicyclists instructors; local bike shop/business
Training
Resources Needed: Curriculum; instructor(s); bicycles, helmets,
and safety gear; bike repair tools; time for planning/coordination;
storage space
Family Biking Class
Family Biking Classes are great tools for educating and
Bicycling;
Event;
Elementary;
Increased Bicycling;
Health and Environmental
Potential Lead/Champion: Parents/PTA or bicycling group/
encouraging families to ride bicycles. Education trainings can
Safety; Skills;
Skills Training/
Parents
Improved Walking/Bicycling
Connections
enthusiast
cover safety checks, skills instruction, basic bike maintenance,
Environment;
Hands On
Safety Behavior
Potential Partners: Teachers/administrators/staff; PTA/parents;
how to carry kids by bicycle, cargo bike demonstrations, bike
Health; Family
Training;
school district; public health/local gov't.; local groups/advocates/
rodeos, and/or guided bike rides.
Information for
volunteers; League of American Bicyclists instructors; local bike
Parents
shop/business
Resources Needed: Curriculum; instructor; materials/handouts;
bicycles/gear for demonstration and training; preparation time;
venue for classes
ANN ESOrylo
a` iQ,
a v OF 7µPN
Education
III
• • afe Routes to School Matrix
Program Name
Biking Guide
Description
This guide is a how-to manual on family biking, including cargo
Topics
Bicycling;
Format
Information for
Target Audience
Elementary;
Primary Outcomes
Increased Bicycling;
Secondary Outcomes
Health and Environmental
Resource Notes
Potential Lead/Champion: Parents/PTA or local groups/gov't.
bikes and gear, safety considerations, tips for picking a route,
Safety; Skills;
Parents
Parents
Improved Walking/Bicycling
Connections
Potential Partners: Teachers/administrators/staff; PTA/parents;
ideas for rides, etc. The guide can be distributed as part of an
Environment;
Safety Behavior
school district; public health/local gov't.; local law enforcement;
event or training or to interested parents at school.
Health; Family
local groups/advocates/volunteers; League of American Bicyclists
instructors; local business
Resources Needed: Time to prepare guide and distribution
strategy; platform for posting online or funds for printing copies
Idling Reduction
Car exhaust not only pollutes, it also disproportionately affects
Bus/Transit;
Campaign;
Elementary;
Improved Driving Safety Behavior;
Youth Empowerment
Potential Lead/Champion: Parents/PTA, local groups/
Campaign
the health of exposed children. An anti -idling campaign debunks
Driving/
Information for
Middle School;
Health Connections;
government, or student group
myths about idling your car and encourages drivers to spare
Carpool; Safety;
Parents
High School;
Environmental Connections
Potential Partners: School district; teachers/administrators/staff;
the air by turning off their engines when waitingfor student
Environment;
Parents;
PTA/parents; public health/local gov't.; students
dismissal. The campaign can include street signs, a marketing
Health; Family
District
Resources Needed: Preparation time; informational materials/
campaign led by students, and informational materials for
signs
parents. Materials may be produced in school, but the campaign
will likelytake place during pick-up/drop-off or outside of school.
In -School Bicycle
Bicycle safety training is most appropriate beginning in or after
Bicycling; Safety;
Assembly;
Elementary;
Improved Walking/Bicycling
Increased Bicycling;
Potential Lead/Champion: Teacher/administrator
Safety Education
the third grade. It helps children understand that they have the
Skills
Skills Training/
Middle School
Safety Behavior;
Health and Environmental
Potential Partners: PTA/parents; school district; public health/
same responsibility as motorists to obeytraffic laws. In -school
Hands On
Youth Empowerment
Connections
local gov't.; local law enforcement; local groups/advocates/
curriculum often includes three parts: in -class lessons, mock
Training;
volunteers; League of American Bicyclists instructors
street scenarios or skills practice, and on -street riding. Various
Curriculum/
Resources Needed: Curriculum; class time; time for instructor
existing curricula are available online from a number of sources
Classroom
training/preparation, if needed; bicycles, helmets, and safety gear;
at no cost, or schools may choose to develop one on their own.
Activity
cones, street signs, and chalk; basic supplies; chaperones
In -School
Pedestrian safety education aims to ensure that every child
Walking; Safety;
Assembly;
Elementary
Improved Walking/Bicycling
Increased Walking;
Potential Lead/Champion: Teacher/administrator
Pedestrian Safety
understands basic traffic laws and safety rules. It teaches
Skills
Skills Training/
Safety Behavior;
Health and Environmental
Potential Partners: PTA/parents; school district; public health/
Education
students basic traffic safety, sign identification, and decision-
Hands On
Youth Empowerment
Connections
local gov't.; local law enforcement; local groups/advocates/
making tools. Training is typically recommended for first- and
Training;
volunteers; older students
second -graders and teaches lessons such as "look left, right,
Curriculum/
Resources Needed: Curriculum; class time; time for instructor
and left again". Curriculum often includes three parts: in -class
Classroom
training/preparation, if needed; mock street and street signs; basic
lessons, mock street scenarios, and on -street practice. Various
Activity
supplies; one or more adult chaperones
existing curricula are available online at no cost, or schools may
choose to develop one on their own.
Mock City
A mock city provides a safe environment in which students can
Bicycling;
Assembly;
Elementary
Improved Walking/Bicycling
Increased Walking, Bicycling,
Potential Lead/Champion: Local law enforcement
learn pedestrian, bicycle, or general traffic safety. A course is
Walking; Bus/
Event;
Safety Behavior;
Transit Use, and Carpooling;
Potential Partners: School district; teachers/administrators/staff;
built or set up and students walk, bike, or "drive" through to learn
Transit; Driving/
Skills Training/
Youth Empowerment
Improved Driving Safety Behavior
PTA/parents; public health/local gov't.; local groups/advocates/
appropriate behaviors in various street situations. A mock city
Carpool; Safety;
Hands On
volunteers; older students
requires a lot of work or a partnership with an organization that
Skills
Training
Resources Needed: Mock city and curriculum
already has the equipment. This program can take place in or out
of school, and is a memorable experience for students.
Parent Workshop
Since parents are usually the ones deciding whether their
Bicycling;
Event;
Elementary;
Increased Walking, Bicycling,
Increased Walking, Bicycling,
Potential Lead/Champion: Parents/PTA or local groups/gov't.
children walk or bike to school, a workshop designed for them
Walking; Bus/
Skills Training/
Middle School;
Transit Use, and Carpooling;
Transit Use, and Carpooling;
Potential Partners: Teachers/administrators/staff; PTA/parents;
can provide the tools, resources, and support needed to begin
Transit; Driving/
Hands On
High School;
Improved Walking/Bicycling and
Improved Walking/Bicycling and
school district; public health/local gov't.; local law enforcement;
walking or biking for transportation. Topics could include
Carpool; Safety;
Training;
Parents
Driving Safety Behavior;
Driving Safety Behavior;
local groups/advocates/volunteers; League of American Bicyclists
startinga walking school bus, carpool matching, launching a
g p g' g
Skills; Incentives;
Information for
Health and Environmental
Health and Environmental
instructors
safety campaign, how to be a responsible driver, or organizing an
Environment;
Parents
Connections
Connections
Resources Needed: Presentation/agenda; instructor; materials/
event, such as Walk and Bike to School Day.
Health; Family
handouts; time for preparation and scheduling
Walk and Bike to
Route maps show signs, signals, crosswalks, sidewalks, paths,
Bicycling;
Information for
Elementary;
Improved Walking/Bicycling
Increased Walking, Bicycling,
Potential Lead/Champion: Public health/local government
School Route Map
crossing guard locations, and hazardous locations around a
Walking; Bus/
Parents
Middle School;
Safety Behavior
Transit Use, and Carpooling
Potential Partners: School district; teachers/administrators/
school. They identify the best way to walk or bike to school.
Transit; Driving/
High School;
staff; PTA/parents; local groups/advocates/volunteers; local law
Liability concerns are sometimes cited as reasons not to publish
Carpool; Safety;
Parents
enforcement
maps; while no route will be completely free of safety concerns,
Family
Resources Needed: Time and technology to prepare map; funds
a well-defined route should provide the greatest physical
for printing; platform for posting online; approval to distribute
separation between students and traffic, expose students to the
lowest traffic speeds, and use the fewest and safest crossings.
Encouragem-1111afe
Routes to School
Matrix
Program Name
Club
Description
An after-school club can take many forms and address
Topics
Bicycling;
Format
Skills Training/
Target Audience
Elementary;
Primary Outcomes
Increased Walking, Bicycling,
Secondary Outcomes
Increased Walking, Bicycling,
Resource Notes
Potential Lead/Champion: Teacher/parent, local groups/
many different themes, including bike repair, sport cycling,
Walking;
Hands On
Middle School;
Transit Use and Carpooling;
Transit Use and Carpooling;
advocates/volunteers
environmental issues (green teams), community/civic
Safety; Skills;
Training;
High School
Improved Walking/Bicycling and
Improved Walking/Bicycling and
Potential Partners: Teachers/administrators/staff; PTA/parents;
engagement, etc.
Environment;
Campaign
Driving Safety Behavior;
Driving Safety Behavior;
school district; local groups/advocates/volunteers
Health
Health and Environmental
Health and Environmental
Resources Needed: Materials/supplies/equipment as needed;
Connections;
Connections;
planning/instruction time
Youth Empowerment
Youth Empowerment
Bike Train
A Bike Train is very similar to a Walking School Bus: groups of
Bicycling; Safety;
Event;
Elementary;
Increased Bicycling
Improved Walking/Bicycling
Potential Lead/Champion: PTA/parents
students accompanied by one or more adults bicycle together
Skills; Incentives;
School Journey/
Middle School;
Safety Behavior;
Potential Partners: Teachers/administrators/staff; PTA/parents;
on a pre -planned route to school. Routes can originate from a
Environment;
Pick-up and
Parents
Health and Environmental
school district; public health/local gov't.; local law enforcement;
particular neighborhood or, in order to include children who live
Health; Family
Drop-off
Connections
local groups/advocates/volunteers; local businesses/celebrities
too far to bicycle the whole way, begin from a park, parking lot,
Resources Needed: Coordination/recruitment time; promotional
or other meeting place. Bike trains help address parents' safety
materials, such as flyers/posters; supplies/materials, if needed
concerns while providing a chance for students and their families
to socialize and be active.
Competition/
Competitions and contests reward students by tracking the
Bicycling;
Event;
Elementary;
Increased Walking, Bicycling,
Health and Environmental
Potential Lead/Champion: Faculty/staff or PTA
Challenge
number of times they walk, bike, carpool or take transit to
Walking; Bus/
Contest/
Middle School;
Transit Use and Carpooling;
Connections
Potential Partners: Teachers/administrators/staff; PTA/parents;
school. Contests can be individual, classroom competitions,
Transit; Driving/
Competition
High School
Youth Empowerment
school district; local groups/advocates/volunteers; older students;
school wide, or between schools. Students and classrooms can
Carpool;
local business
compete for prizes and bragging rights. Inexpensive incentives
Incentives;
Resources Needed: Coordination time; promotional materials,
- such as shoelaces, stickers, bike helmets, or class parties - can
Environment;
such as flyers/posters; program materials, such as posters for
be used as rewards for participation. Examples include a Golden
Health; Family
tracking; rewards or prizes
Sneaker Award classroom competition or a Walk and Bike to
School Day challenge. See also: Trip/Mileage Tracking Program
Family Bike Ride
A family bike ride will generally take place in the evening or on
Bicycling;
Event
Elementary;
Increased Bicycling;
Health and Environmental
Potential Lead/Champion: Parent or local group/volunteer
a weekend, and is designed to give students and their family
Safety; Skills;
Middle School;
Improved Walking/Bicycling
Connections
Potential Partners: Teachers/administrators/staff; PTA/parents;
members an opportunity for safely giving bicycling a try and
Environment;
Parents
Safety Behavior
public health/local gov't.; local groups/advocates/volunteers
socializing with other families. Rides often have themes, always
Health; Family
Resources Needed: Planning/coordination time; ride leader and
have a pre -planned route and designated route leader, and offer
volunteers; promotional materials; bicycles, safety gear, and basic
safety checks and basic skills reinforcement.
repair tools
International Walk
Walk and Bike to School Day is an international event that
Bicycling;
Event;
Elementary;
Increased Walking and Bicycling;
Improved Walking/Bicycling
Potential Lead/Champion: PTA/parents or local groups/
and Bike to School
attracts millions of participants in over 30 countries in October.
Walking;
School Journey/
Middle School
Youth Empowerment
Safety Behavior;
volunteers
Day
The event encourages students and their families to try walking
Incentives;
Pick-up and
Health and Environmental
Potential Partners: Teachers/administrators/staff; PTA/parents;
or bicycling to school. Parents and other adults accompany
Environment;
Drop-off
Connections
school district; public health/local gov't.; local law enforcement;
students, and staging areas can be designated along the route to
Health; Family
local groups/advocates/volunteers; older students; local business;
school where groups can gather and walk or bike together. These
local celebrities
events are often promoted through press releases, backpack/
Resources Needed: Coordination time; promotional materials,
folder/electronic mail, newsletter articles, and posters. Students
such as flyers/posters; program materials; rewards or prizes
can earn incentives for participating or there is a celebration at
school following the morning event. These events can be held for
more than a day; see Ongoing Walk and Bike to School Days.
Ongoing Walk and
Ongoing walk and bike to school days are organized events
Bicycling;
Event;
Elementary;
Increased Walking and Bicycling;
Improved Walking/Bicycling
Potential Lead/Champion: PTA/parents or local groups/
Bike to School Days
encouraging students to walk or bicycle to school. These events
Walking;
School Journey/
Middle School
Youth Empowerment
Safety Behavior;
volunteers
can be held monthly, weekly, or even on an ongoing basis,
Incentives;
Pick-up and
Health and Environmental
Potential Partners: Teachers/administrators/staff; PTA/parents;
depending on organization capacity, the level of support, and
Environment;
Drop-off
Connections
school district; public health/local gov't.; local law enforcement;
school interest. Like Walk and Bike to School Day, incentives or
Health; Family
local groups/advocates/volunteers; older students; local business;
celebrations recognize students' efforts. See International Walk
local celebrities
and Bike to School Day for more information.
Resources Needed: Coordination time; promotional materials,
such as flyers/posters; program materials; rewards or prizes
ANN ESOrylo
a` iQ,
a v OF 7µPN
Encouragem-1111afe
Routes to School
Matrix
Program Name
and Walk
Description
This program is designed to encourage families to park several
Topics
Walking; Bus/
Format
Event;
Target Audience
Elementary;
Primary Outcomes
Increased Walking
Secondary Outcomes
Improved Walking/Bicycling
Resource Notes
Potential Lead/Champion: PTA/parents
blocks from school and walk the rest of the way to school. Not
Transit; Driving/
School Journey/
Middle School;
Safety Behavior;
Potential Partners: Teachers/administrators/staff; PTA/parents;
all students are able to walk or bike the whole distance to school;
Carpool; Safety;
Pick-up and
Parents
Health and Environmental
school district; local law enforcement; local groups/advocates/
they may live too far away or their route may include hazardous
Skills; Incentives;
Drop-off
Connections
volunteers; local businesses/celebrities
traffic situations. This program allows students who are unable
Environment;
Resources Needed: Coordination/recruitment time; promotional
to walk or bike to school a chance to participate in Safe Routes
Health; Family
materials, such as flyers/posters; supplies/materials, if needed
to School programs. It also helps reduce traffic congestion at the
school.
Poster, T -Shirt, or
These types of activities are great for engaging middle and high
Bicycling;
Contest/
Elementary;
Increased Walking, Bicycling,
Increased Walking, Bicycling,
Potential Lead/Champion: Teacher/parent
Video Contest
school students in Safe Routes to School efforts. Students can
Walking; Bus/
Competition;
Middle School;
Transit Use and Carpooling;
Transit Use and Carpooling;
Potential Partners: Teachers/administrators/staff; PTA/parents;
get creative for a cause by designing and producing posters,
Transit; Driving/
Campaign;
High School
Improved Walking/Bicycling and
Improved Walking/Bicycling and
school district; public health/local gov't.; local law enforcement;
t -shirts, videos, or other materials that communicate about
Carpool; Safety;
Information for
Driving Safety Behavior;
Driving Safety Behavior;
local business; students
active transportation. A contest like this can be combined with
Skills; Incentives;
Parents
Health and Environmental
Health and Environmental
Resources Needed: Materials/equipment as needed; promotional
any type of campaign, like a school safety campaign or anti-
Environment;
Connections;
Connections;
materials; oversight time; class time (if desired); funds for
idling campaign.
Health
Youth Empowerment
Youth Empowerment
production/printing
Trip/ Mileage
A trip or mileage tracking program can be implemented as
Bicycling;
Event;
Elementary;
Increased Walking, Bicycling,
Health and Environmental
Potential Lead/Champion: Faculty/staff or PTA
Tracking Program
an opt -in club, a classroom activity, or a collaborative school-
Walking;
Incentive
Middle School;
Transit Use and Carpooling;
Connections
Potential Partners: Teachers/administrators/staff; PTA/parents;
wide event. Students track trips or mileage made by walking,
Bus/Transit;
Program
High School
Youth Empowerment
school district; local groups/advocates/volunteers; older students;
bicycling, transit, and/or carpools with some type of goal or
Driving/Carpool;
local business
culminating celebration or reward. Students can work towards a
Incentives;
Resources Needed: Coordination time; promotional materials,
certain milestone to earn a prize or raffle entry, or they can track
such as posters; program materials, such as punchcards or
their individual or group progress as miles across their town,
Environment;
classrroomoom posters for tracking; rewards or prizes
the state of Minnesota, or the United States. Example programs
Health;
include Pollution Punchcards or Walk Across America. See also:
Family
Competition/Challenge.
Walk/Bike Field
A field trip made by foot or by bicycle gives students a
Bicycling;
Event
Elementary;
Increased Bicycling;
Health and Environmental
Potential Lead/Champion: Teacher/parent
Trip
supportive environment in which to practice their pedestrian
Safety; Skills;
Middle School;
Improved Walking/Bicycling
Connections
Potential Partners: Teachers/administrators/staff; PTA/parents;
safety or bicycling skills and showcases the many benefits of
Environment;
High School;
Safety Behavior;
school district; public health/local gov't.; local groups/advocates/
walking and bicycling for transportation, including health and
Health
Teachers/
Youth Empowerment
volunteers
physical activity, pollution reduction, and cost savings. The
Faculty/Staff;
Resources Needed: Coordination time; bicycles, helmets, and
destination of the field trip may vary, or the field trip could be the
Parents
safety gear; permission slips; basic repair tools; adult chaperones
ride itself.
Walking School Bus
A Walking School Bus is a group of children walking to school
Walking; Driving/
Event;
Elementary;
Increased Walking
Improved Walking/Bicycling
Potential Lead/Champion: PTA/parents
with one or more adults. Parents can take turns leading the bus,
Carpool; Safety;
School Journey/
Middle School;
Safety Behavior;
Potential Partners: Teachers/administrators/staff; PTA/parents;
which follows the same route every time and picks up children
Skills; Incentives;
Pick-up and
Parents
Health and Environmental
school district; public health/local gov't.; local law enforcement;
from their homes or designated bus stops at designated times.
Environment;
Drop-off
Connections
local groups/advocates/volunteers; local businesses/celebrities
Ideally, buses run every day or on a regular schedule so families
Health; Family
Resources Needed: Coordination/recruitment time; promotional
can count on it, but they often begin as a one-time pilot event.
materials, such as flyers/posters; supplies/materials, if needed
A Walking School Bus can be as informal as a few parents
alternating to walk their children to school, but often it is a well -
organized, PTA -led effort to encourage walking to school.
Enforcement
Programsafe Routes to School
Matrix
Program Name
Description
Some types of enforcement do not require the presence of a law
Topics
Bicycling;
Format
Campaign;
Target Audience
Elementary;
Primary Outcomes
Improved Driving Safety Behavior
Secondary Outcomes
Increased Walking and Bicycling
Resource Notes
Potential Lead/Champion: Local law enforcement
Enforcement
enforcement officer and are automated. Photo detection, radar
Walking;Information
for
Middle School;
Potential Partners: School district; teachers/administrators/staff;
trailers, or speed feedback signs are examples of automated
Bus/Transit;
Parents
High School;
public health/local gov't.; PTA/parents; local groups/advocates/
enforcement.
Driving/Carpool;
Parents;
volunteers
Safety;
Neighbors
Resources Needed: Funding for police overtime (not always
Family
required, but can be helpful); equipment; promotional/educational
materials (if desired)
Crossing Guards
Crossing guards are trained adults, paid or volunteer, who are
Bicycling;
Skills Training/
Elementary;
Improved Walking/Bicycling
Increased Walking and Bicycling
Potential Lead/Champion: School district, school administration,
legally empowered to stop trafficto assist students with crossing
Walking;
Hands On
Middle School;
Safety Behavior;
local law enforcement, or PTA
the street.
Bus/Transit;
Training;
Parents;
Improved Driving Safety Behavior
Potential Partners: School district; teachers/administrators/staff;
Driving/Carpool;
School Journey/
Neighbors
PTA/parents; public health/local gov't.; local law enforcement;
Safety
Pick-up and
local groups/advocates/volunteers
Drop-off
Resources Needed: Training materials; funding to pay crossing
guards; safety vests and stop signs
Drop-off Student
In a valet program, students, teachers, or volunteers are trained
Bicycling;
Skills Training/
Elementary;
Improved Driving Safety Behavior;
Improved Walking/Bicycling
Potential Lead/Champion: School district, school administration,
Valet Program
to assist with drop-off and pick-up procedures to expedite and
Walking;
g.
Hands On
Middle School;
Youth Empowerment
p
Safety Behavior;
or PTA
standardize the process. This allows students to get in and out
Bus/Transit;
Training;
Parents
Environmental Connections
Potential Partners: School district; teachers/administrators/staff;
of cars safely and quickly, discouraging parents from unsafe
Driving/Carpool;
School Journey/
PTA/parents; public health/local gov't.; local law enforcement;
behaviors and reducing hazards for students arriving or leaving
Pick-up and
local groups/advocates/volunteers; older students
school.
Safety;
Drop-off
p
Resources Needed: Training materials; supervision/oversight;
Family
safety vests
Law Enforcement
Enforcement tools are aimed at ensuring compliance with traffic
Bicycling;
Campaign;
Elementary;
Improved Driving Safety Behavior
Increased Walking and Bicycling
Potential Lead/Champion: Local law enforcement, school district,
and parking laws in school zones. Enforcement activities help
Walking;
Information for
Middle School;
or administration
to reduce common poor driving behavior, such as speeding,
Bus/Transit;
Parents
High School;
Potential Partners: School district; teachers/administrators/staff;
failing to yield to pedestrians, turning illegally, parking illegally,
Driving/Carpool;
Parents;
public health/local gov't.; local law enforcement; PTA/parents;
and other violations. Law enforcement actions include School
local groups/advocates/volunteers; local businesses
Zone Speeding Enforcement and Crosswalk Stings. Other
Safety;
y%
Neighbors
g
Resources Needed: Funding for police overtime (not always
enforcement actions can be led by the school administration,
Family
required, but can be helpful); equipment; promotional/educational
such as parking lot citations.
materials (if desired)
School Safety
A safety campaign is an effective wayto build awareness around
Bicycling;
Campaign;
Elementary;
Improved Walking/Bicycling and
Increased Walking, Bicycling,
Potential Lead/Champion: School administration or PTA
Campaign
students walking and biking to school and to encourage safe
Walking;
Information for
Middle School;
Driving Safety Behavior;
Transit Use and Carpooling;
Potential Partners: School district; teachers/administrators/staff;
driving behavior among parents and passersby. A School Traffic
Bus/Transit;
Parents
High School;
Youth Empowerment
Health and Environmental
PTA/parents; public health/local gov't.; local law enforcement;
Safety Campaign can use media at or near schools - such as
Driving/Carpool;
Parents;
Connections
local groups/advocates/volunteers; students; local businesses
posters, business window stickers, yard signs, and/or street
Safety;
Neighbors
Resources Needed: Promotional materials and collateral;
banners - to remind drivers to slow down and use caution in
advertising (if desired); time to supervise/oversee student efforts
school zones. This type of campaign can also address other
Skills;
specific hazards or behaviors, such as walking or bicycling to
Environment;
school, school bus safety, and/or parent drop-off and pick-up
Health;
behavior.
Family
School Safety
School safety patrols are trained student volunteers responsible
Bicycling;
Skills Training/
Elementary;
Improved Walking/Bicycling
Increased Walking and Bicycling;
Potential Lead/Champion: School district, school administration,
Patrols
for enforcing drop-off and pick-up procedures and assisting with
Walking;
Hands On
Middle School
Safety Behavior;
Environmental Connections
or PTA
street crossing. They do not stop vehicular traffic, but rather look
Bus/Transit;
Training;
Improved Driving Safety Behavior;
Potential Partners: School district; teachers/administrators/staff;
for openings and then direct students to cross. Student safety
Driving/Carpool;
School Journey/
Youth Empowerment
PTA/parents; public health/local gov't.; local law enforcement;
patrols increase safetyfor students and traffic flow efficiencyfor
Safety
Pick-up and
local groups/advocates/volunteers; older students
parents.
Drop-off P-
Resources Needed: Training materials; supervision/oversight;
safety vests
ANN ESOrylo
a` iQ,
a v OF 7µPN
Appendix B:
Additional Maps
1. Park Elementary Walk Zone and Sidewalks
2. Park Elementary Current Information
3. Middle School Facilities Map
• -�- '
a6
7j-
�' s
is
'NaSfitngt05
irk Element ry
1.5I-AvL•`_i'11i' 1•S'•i1vi:'•.�' :.
—2nd 've-5W Q 'r f-Avc 5E—
tr;-Aye-SW , T
.` = r2 w
i a r m +
C } seer-gen s -Rd -5'i1' n - .+ s
bu I-Ave•5VV - 5thi Ave 5E
RI
' uu1-R-d-SW '
earth
SchoolWalkZoneSidewalk
• �- _ --
* Stars are Crossing c ' .v
11C
i•
an-,rve•SW Was'hgngton-A•ve W-'
..�� t-�ncv * AApT = 1850 � -.- •' _ .
Ar
* is •:r., x ' r�y� - t
it
�� • - _{_fix '� ��`�� ,x
VSchool Buses Pick-up &
4C prop -off on Grove Strdet yk yk
ral Business;
istrict
PARK
r Grove St reel is a "Share
the Road" Bikloute
a v
yy * Bike Rack
A.�
Handicapped
J7
Bu rop-off
�..�.;.si,►� .�,� ••a��
�F aft
AADT =4250
2nd Ave�W'•Major Collector
South Park
o le earth `'
G ►�
400ft -_�
H yden--Ave-SW
0
► o fir.?�y` �°'�N 9 ► D tgo0a Ave -SW
{
�r ■r <i %r - [I7.
C r 1�
- Tiw
b emas-Ave;S5th-Ave-S
Z 1 .;un -51W
m N' d -SW
- N ; J ■t adson Fve SW
� N 0. * ,' �--Milwaukee Ave' -SW- - L
'McDorald.@r-SIS,
Vy
r
-Goebel St- ' SOU_
j
School Property - `— N
. ■{ i 2 ,
�• ..� • I L ' ■fir' I (�
— --S-Grade:.Rd SWCBicycle Facilities Near ---� .-
Schools 4t'ter► c�+ .S
,
15
RIM, 3k
■ -■ •-
dL i is La■ [ r ■ ,
— Bike Lane
— Bicycle
� f
FriendlyRoute
Bike Lane to Trail in 2017
--TS!-C j e n u r y- ve I
�''49d
Bicycle Friendly Route • -Blackbird-fir
Trail in 2017
m ❑
_ o. _ J
�. 'sem
I 20010 f
Appendix C:
Parent Survey Form
Parent Survey About Walking and Biking to School
Dear Parent or Caregiver,
Your child's school wants to learn your thoughts about children walking and biking to school. This survey will take about 5 - 10 minutes to
complete. We ask that each family complete only one survey per school your children attend. If more than one child from a school brings a
survey home, please fill out the survey for the child with the next birthday from today's date.
After you have completed this survey, send it back to the school with your child or give it to the teacher. Your responses will be kept
confidential and neither your name nor your child's name will be associated with any results.
Thank you for participating in this survey!
+ CAPITAL LETTERS ONLY — BLUE OR BLACK INK ONLY +
School Name:
1. What is the grade of the child who brought home this survey? m Grade (PK,K,1,2,3...)
2. Is the child who brought home this survey male or female? 1:1 Male Female
3. How many children do you have in Kindergarten through 8th grade? m
4. What is the street intersection nearest your home? (Provide the names of two intersecting streets)
and
Place a clear'X' inside box. If you make a mistake, fill the entire box, and then mark the correct box.
5. How far does your child live from school?
❑ Less than '/4 mile ❑ '/z mile up to 1 mile ❑ More than 2 miles
❑ 1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 1:1 1 mile up to 2 miles 1:1 Don't know
Place a clear'X' inside box. If you make a mistake, fill the entire box, and then mark the correct box. +
6. On most days, how does your child arrive and leave for school? (Select one choice per column, mark box with X)
Arrive at school Leave from school
❑ Walk ❑ Walk
Bike Bike
School Bus School Bus
Family vehicle (only children in your family) Family vehicle (only children in your family)
Carpool (Children from other families) Carpool (Children from other families)
Transit (city bus, subway, etc.) Transit (city bus, subway, etc.)
Other (skateboard, scooter, inline skates, etc.) Other (skateboard, scooter, inline skates, etc.)
+ Place a clear'X' inside box. If you make a mistake, fill the entire box, and then mark the correct box
+
7. How long does it normally take your child to get to/from school? (Select one choice per column, mark box with X)
Travel time to school Travel time from school
Less than 5 minutes Less than 5 minutes
5 — 10 minutes 5 — 10 minutes
11 — 20 minutes 11 — 20 minutes
❑ More than 20 minutes More than 20 minutes
Don't know / Not sure Don't know / Not sure
+ +
+
+
S. Has your child asked you for permission to
walk or bike to/from school in the last year? ❑ Yes No
9. At what grade would you allow your child to walk or bike to/from school without an adult?
(Select a grade between PK,K,1,2,3... ) 11-1 grade (or) ® I would not feel comfortable at any grade
Place a clear `X' inside box. If you make a mistake, fill the entire box, and then mark the correct box
10. What of the following issues affected your decision to 11. Would you probably let your child walk or bike to/from
allow, or not allow, your child to walk or bike to/from school if this problem were changed or improved? (Select one
school? (Select ALL that apply) choice per line, mark box with X)
❑ My child already walks or bikes to/from school
❑ Distance.............................................................................................................
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Not Sure
❑ Convenience of driving.....................................................................................
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Not Sure
❑ Time..................................................................................................................
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Not Sure
Child's before or after-school activities.............................................................
Yes No Not Sure
Speed of traffic along route..............................................................................
Yes No Not Sure
Amount of traffic along route...........................................................................
Yes No Not Sure
Adults to walk or bike with...............................................................................
Yes No Not Sure
❑ Sidewalks or pathways......................................................................................
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Not Sure
❑ Safety of intersections and crossings...............................................................
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Not Sure
❑ Crossing guards.................................................................................................
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Not Sure
❑ Violence or crime..............................................................................................
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Not Sure
❑ Weather or climate............................................................................................
❑ Yes ❑ No 1:1 Not Sure
+ Place a clear `X' inside box. If you make a mistake, fill the entire box, and then mark the correct box
12. In your opinion, how much does your child's
school encourage or discourage walking and biking to/from school?
Strongly Encourages 0 Encourages
!__I Neither ❑ Discourages Strongly Discourages
13. How much fun is walking or biking to/from school for your child?
❑ Very Fun ❑ Fun
❑ Neutral ❑ Boring ❑ Very Boring
14. How healthy is walking or biking to/from
school for your child?
Very Healthy � Healthy
El Neutral ❑ Unhealthy ❑ Very Unhealthy
+ Place a clear'X' inside box. If you make a mistake, fill the entire box, and then mark the correct box +
15. What is the highest grade or year of school you completed?
Grades 1 through 8 (Elementary)
College 1 to 3 years (Some college or technical school)
Grades 9 through 11 (Some high school)
College 4 years or more (College graduate)
❑ Grade 12 or GED (High school graduate)
❑ Prefer not to answer
16. Please provide any additional comments below.
Appendix D:
Detailed Parent Survey Results
Hutchinson School District Parent Survey Results
337 surveys returned in December, 2014
Grade Levels of Children Represented in the Survey
Responses Per Grade
Grade In School
Number
Percent
Kindergarden
41
12.2%
1st Grade
47
13.9%
2nd Grade
24
7.1%
3rd Grade
30
8.9%
4th Grade
34
10.0%
5th Grade
37
11.0%
6th Grade
1 361
10.7%
7th Grade
51
15.1%
8th Grade
37
11.0%
No response: 0
Grade of Child That Brought Home Survey
14%
7°%
The Child that Brought Home Survey is Male or Female
Male 187
Female 149
so Kindergarden
■ 1st Grade
■ 2nd Grade
■ 3rd Grade
■ 4th Grade
5th Grade
6th Grade
■ 7th Grade
■ 8th Grade
Parent Estimate of Distance From Child's Home to School
Distance between home & school
Number of Children
Percent
Less than 1/4 mile
26
8.3%
1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile
25
7.9%
1/2 mile up to 1 mile
66
21.0%
1 mile up to 2 miles
94
29.8%
2 or more miles
104
33.0%
Tota I
Don't know or no response
315 100.0%
18
Parent Estimate of Distance From Child's Home to
School
0.35 —
0.3 —
0.25 - - —
0.2 — — —
0.15 0.298 0.33 —
0.1 —
0.05
0
2 or more miles
1 mile up to 2 miles
1/2 mile up to 1 mile
1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile
Less than 1/4 mile
Distance Between Home and School
Tvoical Mode of Arrival and Deoarture From School
Number of
Time of Trip Trips Walk
Bike
School
Bus
Family
Vehicle
Carpool
Transit
Morning 336 17
9
217
92
0
1
Afternoon 334 31
9
240
53
0
1
Typical Mode of Arrival At and Departure From School
Morning
Afternoon
nnn
Typical Mode of School Arrival and Departure by Distance Child Lives From School
SCHOOL ARRIVAL
Distance
Walk
Bike
School
Bus
Family
Vehicle
Carpool
Less than 1/4 mile
9
0
5
11
0
1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile
4
2
14
5
0
1/2 mile up to 1 mile
3
7
44
12
0
1 mile up to 2 miles
0
0
66
27
0
2 or more miles
1
0
71
32
0
Tota 1
17
9
2001
871
0
Don't Know
1 01
0
151
41
0
Total with Don't Knows
1 171
9
2151
911
0
No Answers: 4
One of the no answers says the child rides the transit bus.
SCHOOL DEPARTURE
Distance
Walk
Bike
School
Bus
Family
Vehicle
Carpool
Less than 1/4 mile
13
0
9
3
0
1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile
7
2
15
0
0
1/2 mile up to 1 mile
6
7
44
9
0
1 mile up to 2 miles
3
0
77
13
0
2 or more miles
1
0
77
25
0
Tota 1
30
9
222
50
0
Don't Know
11
1
16
1
0
Total with Don't Knows
1 311
10
238
51
0
No Answers: 4
One of the no answers says the child rides the transit bus.
Children who have asked permission to walk or bike to or from school
by distance from school
Distance
Asked Permission
Yes No
Total
Percent
Yes
Percent
No
Less than 1/4 mile
8 18
26
31%
69%
1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile
13 12
25
52%
48%
1/2 mile up to 1 mile
21 45
66
32%
68%
1 mile up to 2 miles
34 59
93
37%
63%
2 or more miles
44 60
104
42%
58%
Total
120 194
314
38%
62%
Don't Know
6131
19
32%
68%
Total with Don't Knows
126 2071
333
38%
62%
No Answers: 4
Distance from School by factors concerned with question 10's factors
Percentages are of the total from each distance category
Possible Answers
Factor
Distance
Weather or climate
Speed of traffic along route
Amount of traffic along route
Safety of intersections & crossings
Violence or crime
Time
Sidewalks or pathways
Child's before or after activities
Adults to walk/bike with
Convenience of driving
Crossing Guards
26 25 66
<1/4 mile
Percent Number
1/4 to 1/2 mile
Percent Number
1/2 to 1 mile
Percent Number
12%
3
12%
3
38%
25
50%
13
68%
17
68%
45
35%
9
32%
8
55%
36
27%
7
52%
13
58%
38
42%
11
56%
14
59%
39
19%
5
36%
9
24%
16
19%
5
24%
6
27%
18
27%
7
36%
9
38%
25
12%
3
36%
9
27%
18
31%
8
28%
7
24%
16
19%
5
24%
6
14%
9
12%
3
24%
6
21%
14
Distance from School by factors concerned with question 10's factors continued
Percentages are of the total from each distance category
Possible Answers 93 104 19
Factor
Distance
Weather or climate
Speed of traffic along route
Amount of traffic along route
Safety of intersections & crossings
Violence or crime
Time
Sidewalks or pathways
Child's before or after activities
Adults to walk/bike with
Convenience of driving
Crossing Guards
1 to 2 miles
Percent Number
Over 2 miles
Percent Number
Don't know
Percent Number
59%
55
77%
80
74%
14
86%
80
65%
68
84%
16
73%
68
58%
60
79%
15
73%
68
59%
61
79%
15
70%
65
57%
59
68%
13
31%
29
38%
39
42%
8
39%
36
33%
34
21%
4
44%
41
37%
38
58%
11
34%
32
31%
32
47%
9
34%
32
34%
35
47%
9
14%
13
12%
12
11%
2
26%
24
14%
15
21%
4
Parents' opinions about how much their child's school encourages or discourages walking
and biking to/from school
Percent Number
Strongly encourages
1.2%
4
Encourages
13.2%
43
Neither
79.5%
260
Discourages
3.1%
10
Strongly discourages
3.1%
10
TOTAL
100%
337
No Answer:
10
Note: Higher percentage of West Elementary say
discourage and strongly discouage.
Opinion on if school encourages or discourages
walking/biking to school
0.031 0.031 0.012
■ Strongly encourages
■ Encourages
■ Neither
■ Discourages
0.795 ■ Strongly discourages
Parents' opinions about how much fun walking/bicycling to/from school is for their child
Percent Number
Very fun
11.4%
37
Fun
26.5%
86
Neutral
56.3%
183
Boring
3.4%
11
Very boring
2.5%
8
TOTAL
100.1%
325
No Answers:
12
Parents' opinions about how much fun
walking/bicycling to/from school is for their child
0.034 0.025 0.114
■ Very fun
■ Fun
Neutral
0.563 ■ Boring
■ Very boring
Parents' opinion on how healthy walking or biking to/from School is
Percent Number
Very healthy
41%
134
Healthy
43%
139
Neutral
15%
49
Unhealthy
0%
0
Very Unhealthy
1%
4
TOTAL
100%
326
No Responses:
11
Parents' opinion on how healthy walking or biking
to/from school is
0 0.012
I■ Very healthy
0.411 ■ Healthy
■ Neutral
0.426 ■ Unhealthy
Very Unhealthy
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL ci=V�f�
Request for Board Action 79 M-W
Agenda Item: Calling a Special Workshop Meeting for 4:15 pm on April 26
Department: Administration
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 4/12/2016
Application Complete N/A
Contact: Matt Jaunich
Agenda Item Type:
Presenter: Matt Jaunich
Reviewed by Staff ❑
New Business
Time Requested (Minutes): 1
License Contingency N/A
Attachments: No
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OF AGENDA ITEM:
Staff would like to have a workshop session with the Council to discuss the City's Debt Management Plan and to
discuss some proposed changes to that plan. Staff has identified a "gap" within in our debt plan and would like to
discuss plans on filling that gap. Some of those plans could result in a future tax levy increases. Staff is asking that
the Council officially set that workshop date and time.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Approval of calling a special workshop meeting for 4:15 p.m. on April 26
Fiscal Impact: $ 0.00 Funding Source:
FTE Impact: Budget Change: No
Included in current budget: Yes
PROJECT SECTION:
Total Project Cost:
Total City Cost: Funding Source:
Remaining Cost: $ 0.00 Funding Source:
Library Board Meeting Minutes
Monday, February 22, 2016
Attending: Steve Bailey, Gerry Grinde, Mary Christensen, Julie Lofdahl, Katy Hiltner Ex -Officio
Excused: Jon Ross, Dianne Wanzek, Jack Sandberg,
Steve Bailey called the meeting to order. The minutes from the January 25, 2016 meeting were reviewed. One
change noted. Julie's title should be Secretary not Treasurer. Motion to approve with change by Gerry Grinde,
seconded by Mary Christensen. Motion approved.
Old Business:
Update on wiring in main elevator room:
Inspector came today. All wires have to be removed from the elevator machine room. This means that the
computers in the Children's area may have to be changed to wireless. We have until December 2016 to make
the change. Looking into options for computers. PLS is helping with this. One good thing is that computers
were scheduled to be updated, so large additional costs should not be a factor.
Also need to change the hatch on top of the elevator to allow access for people to enter to help those in
elevator. There is a hatch now, but it does not meet current requirements. Jeff Liestman, maintenance, is
working with the state elevator inspector on the elevator issues.
One Book, One Community "Historical Background"
January 31St program had great attendance with 102 people. Steve, Gerry and Julie went to the event and
thought it was well done. Comments made were that people liked the three different parts of the program - the
historical background, hands-on fur talk, and the video about Eric Sevareid.
Genealogy XChange Meeting
Meeting was on January 28th at 7 pm. Stephanie Chappell and Pam Dille officiated the meeting. Fifteen people
attended. They all talked as old friends. Stephanie looked for someone's great-grandmother and found her. It
was a great way to end the meeting. The group wants to meet each month and it will run like a book club
meeting.
2016 One Book, One Community Upcoming Events
Sunday, March 6, 2:00 pm at the McLeod County Museum. Outdoor enthusiast Rudy Goldstein's adventure to
recreate Eric Sevareid and Walt Port's canoe trip to Hudson Bay. There will also be another short video about
Eric Sevareid. A community book discussion to follow.
Sunday, April 3, 2:00 pm at the Hutchinson Event Center. Natalie Warren's Hudson Bay presentation.
New Business:
Resignation of a Library Assistant I
Theresa Piepmeier and her family moved to North Carolina. She was a senior this year. Current employees have
stepped forward to fill in her hours for the winter. Summer will have college kids coming back, so a replacement
will be hired in July.
Computer Replacement Project
PLS likes the libraries to upgrade all their computers at one time. Hutchinson will be upgrading eleven patron
computers and five staff computers. Three of the patron computers may be wireless in the Children's area.
Funds have been put into reserves for the computer update. At this time, there is about $22,000 in reserves.
Hutchinson computers have heavy usage. Wireless users in 2015 were 14,912; laptop circulations 261; iPads, 56
checkouts since we received them. These figures are reported on the annual report by Laurie Ortega.
Lighting in library
Fixture in upstairs needs new ballast. Jamie Johnson, MN GreenCorps intern working with the city, is looking for
a "green" solution for the replacement. Jeff Liestman may have to change bulb before something is found. City
will cover this cost.
Other.
Dianne Wanzek will be asking Linda Remucal to come to our March meeting to talk to talk about the Southwest
Initiative Foundation.
Next time Winsted Library has a fundraising event, talk was to go as a board to the event.
Next meeting: March 28, 2016 at 4:30 p.m.
Motion to adjourn by Mary Christensen, seconded by Gerry Grinde. Motion passed.
Meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
Minutes submitted by,
Julie Lofdahl, Secretary
January 2016 Donations
TOPS Group
$ 30.72
Total $ 30.72
Resource Allocation
Committee
February 3, 2016
4:00 PM
Hutchinson City Center
Attendees: Gary Forcier, John Lofdahl, Matt Jaunich, Andy Reid, Kent Exner (Committee Members)
Dolf Moon (Contributing Participants)
Meeting Minutes
1. 2016 Infrastructure Improvement Program — review preliminary estimated cost/funding worksheet
- Kent E. provided the initial draft of the 2016 Infrastructure Improvement Program worksheet. This worksheet included cost estimations
and associated funding alternatives relative to previously identified projects.
2. 2016 Street Seal Coating —review project scope and basic specifications
- Kent E. provided an overview of the identified roadways (drawing provided) to be addressed within the upcoming 2016 Street Seal
Coating project. RAC members also discussed the construction methods and timeframes associated with this project.
3. 2016 Infrastructure Maintenance Funds — review estimated funding and potential improvements
- Item postponed to a future meeting due to John O. not being present.
4. 2016 Pavement Management Report — review annual report and associated information
- Item postponed to a future meeting due to John O. not being present.
5. Safe Routes to School Plan — review document final draft and City related items/roles
- Kent E. provided a review of the draft Hutchinson School District #423Safe Routes to School Plan. As noted to RAC members, City staff
has been involved in the preparation of this document and believe that it has been a worthwhile effort. Due to the City being referenced
in regards to several plan goals/objectives/initiatives/activities, RAC members agreed that the City Council should have an opportunity to
review this document prior to it being finalized.
6. McLeod County Trails Plan — review draft document and upcoming approval/adoption process
- Kent E. provided a brief review of recent document preparation activities and the future approval/adoption process relative to the McLeod
County Trails Plan.
7. Levee Area Walkway Feasibility Study —review final document and potential project delivery
- Kent E. presented the final draft of the Levee Area Walkway Feasibility Study. The preparation of this document was jointly funded and
administered with the Hutchinson EDA. At this point, three (3) project alternatives have been identified and will be considered as the
EDA examines potential adjacent property redevelopment opportunities.
8. City Citizen Survey — review results related to infrastructure functionality/maintenance/improvements
- Item postponed and will be addressed at a future meeting.
9. Other Discussion
To: Mayor and Council
From: Candice Woods, Liquor Hutch Director
Date: 04/06/2016
Re: Liquor Hutch Sales January— March 2016
2015
2016
Change
Year to Date Sales: $1,171,949
$1,229,707
4.9% Increase
Liquor $ 420,584
$ 436,084
3.7016 increase
Beer $ 544,976
$ 566,642
4.0016 increase
Wine $186,920
$ 207,010
10.7% increase
Year to Date Gross Profit Dollars: $289,182
$310,767
7.5% increase
Year to Date Customer Count:
49,685
51,802
4.3% increase
Average Sale per Customer:
$23.58
$23.74
$0.16 increase
Gross Profit Percentage:
24.7%
25.3%
.60%
IMPORTANT TO NOTE: Easter Holiday in March 2016 (was in April 2015).
Store Activity Highlights:
• GrapeVine Tasting event held January 215tfeaturing Duckhorn Vineyards
• Cocktail Mixology Seminar held February 25th. Resulting in $1,252 in added sales
• Customer Appreciation Week February 8th —13t" with advertising, InStore Tastings and
Giveaways
• Performance Reviews completed for 2 Full Time and 16 Part Time Employees
• New website design completed allowing our customers to access our complete inventory and
event calendar, sign up for events, place on line orders for instore pickup, and check out new
products
• Attended Minnesota Municipal Beverage Association Legislative Day at the State Capital and
spoke with 5 different Representatives about issues important to our profitability
• GrapeVine Tasting event held on March 24th featuring German Wines
Further details of all statistics have been provided to the Administrative Department. Please feel free to contact me
with any questions or requests for additional data.
