Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
cp12-13-2016CITY OF HUTCHINSON
MCLEOD COUNTY
HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA
Hutchinson City Center
I I I Hassan Street SB
Hutchinson. MN 55350-2522
Phone 320-587-5151. Fax 320-234-4240
NOTICE OF A SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
Tuesday, December 13, 2016
4;00 p.m.
Council Chambers — Hutchinson City Center
Notice is hereby given that the Hutchinson City Council has called a special workshop meeting
for Tuesday, December 13, 2015, in the Council Chambers at the Hutchinson City Center, 111
Hassan Street SE, I lutchinson, Minnesota for the following purpose:
• Review of City Boards/Commissions
Matthe>'launich, City Admi for
DATED: December 7. 2016
POSTED: City Center
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL
MEETING AGENDA
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 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, input
from constituents, and other questions or information that has notyet 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 — Seventh Day Adventist Church
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. RECOGNITION OF GIFTS, DONATIONS AND COMMUNITY SERVICE TO THE CITY
PUBLIC COMMENTS
(This 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 speak for 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 November 22, 2016
(b) Truth in Taxation Hearing Minutes of December 6, 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
(a) Consideration for Approval of Resolution No. 14645 - Amendment to the 2016 General
Fund Budget
(b) Consideration for Approval of Resolution No. 14646 - Transfer Funds to Finance 2016
Aquatic Center Construction Costs
(c) Consideration for Approval of Resolution No. 14647 - Transfer Funds to 2016
Construction Fund and General Fund
(d) Consideration for Approval of Resolution No. 14648 — Resolution to Sell At Auction
Unclaimed Bicycles
(e) Consideration for Approval of Resolution No. 14649 - Authorizing Senior Deferral of
Special Assessment
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DECEMBER 13, 2016
(f) Consideration for Approval of Resolution No. 14650 - Adopting the 2017 Fee Schedule
(g) Consideration for Approval of Resolution No. 14651 - Transferring Funds to the 2014
Construction Fund
(h) Consideration for Approval of Issuing Short -Term Gambling License to Upper Midwest
Allis-Chalmers Club on July 23, 2017, for Orange Spectacular Event at McLeod County
Fairgrounds
(i) Consideration for Approval of Out -of -State Travel for Miles Seppelt on January 9 & 10,
2017, to Attend "Cardinal Manufacturing" Workshop at Eleva-Strum High School in
Wisconsin
(j) Consideration for Approval of Renewing Joint Powers Agreement With the Southwest
Metro Drug Task Force
(k) Consideration for Approval of Improvement Project Change Orders
- Letting No. 4/Project No. 16-04 (Water Tower Reconditioning —Golf Course Road)
- Letting No. 1/Project No. 17-01 (Denver Avenue SE Extension)
(1) Reappointment of Becky Felling as City Representative to the Hutchinson Health Board
to December 2019
(m)Appointments/Reappointment to Parks/Recreation/Community Education Board
1. Don DeMeyer to August 2019
2. Liz Marcus to August 2019
3. Craig Juhnke to August 2019
4. Eric Westlund to August 2020
(n) Claims, Appropriations and Contract Payments
PUBLIC HEARINGS (6:00 P.M.)
8. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 14656 - RESOLUTION TO VACATE CITY
RIGHT OF WAY
9. APPROVE/DENY ORDINANCE NO. 16-766 - AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE
SALE OF REAL PROPERTY TO DAME'S DIGS, LLC (SECOND READING AND
ADOPTION)
10 APPROVE/DENY ORDINANCE NO. 16-764 - TELECOMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCE
REVISIONS (SECOND READING AND ADOPTION)
11. APPROVE/DENY ORDINANCE NO. 16-765 - USE OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
ORDINANCE REVISIONS (SECOND READING AND ADOPTION)
12. SCHOOL ROAD & ROBERTS ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT (LETTING NO.
2/PROJECT NO. 17-02)
(a) Resolution No. 14652 - Resolution Ordering Improvement and Preparation of Plans and
Specifications
2
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DECEMBER 13, 2016
(b) Resolution No. 14653 - Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering
Advertisement for Bids
13. SCHOOL ROAD & ROBERTS ROAD TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (LETTING
NO. 3/PROJECT NO. 17-03)
(a) Resolution No. 14654 - Resolution Ordering Improvement and Preparation of Plans and
Specifications
(b) Resolution No. 14655 - Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering
Advertisement for Bids
MM"ICATIONS RE UESTS AND PETITIONS
purpose o this portion o the agenda is to provide the Councilwith information necessary to craft wise policy.
ides items like monthly or annual reports and communications from other entities.)
14. REVIEW OF 2016 COMPENSATION STUDY
15. REVIEW OF TRUTH IN TAXATION HEARING
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
16. CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 14657 — SUPPORTING A
FASTLANE FEDERAL GRANT APPLICATION FOR U.S. HIGHWAY 212
IMPROVEMENTS
17. CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF COALITION OF GREATER MINNESOTA
CITIES VOLUNTARY ASSESSMENT
18. CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTING 2017 ORGANIZATIONAL
MEETING FOR JANUARY 3, 2017
GOVERNANCE
(The purpose of this 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)
19. MINUTES FROM COMMITTEES, BOARDS OR COMMISSIONS
(a) Public Library Board Minutes from October 24, 2016
NHSCELLANEOUS
20. STAFF UPDATES
21. COUNCIL/MAYOR UPDATE
ADJOURNMENT
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL
MEETING NHNUTES
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 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, input
from constituents, and other questions or information that has notyet 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, Kent Exner, City Engineer and Marc Sebora, City Attorney.
(a) Approve the Council agenda and any agenda additions and/or corrections
Motion by Arndt, second by Lofdahl, to approve agenda as presented. Motion carried
unanimously.
2. INVOCATION — St. Anastasia Catholic Church
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. RECOGNITION OF GIFTS, DONATIONS AND COMMUNITY SERVICE TO THE CITY
Council Member Arndt spoke of the Common Cup fundraiser held on Sunday, November 20,
2016. Area churches put on a concert called "Coming Together in Song". Council Member
Arndt also spoke of speeches he gave at Veterans' Day programs.
(a) Resolution No. 14641 — Resolution Recognizing the 2016 Achievements of Hutchinson
Native Lindsay Whalen
Motion by Arndt, second by Christensen, to approve Resolution No. 14641. Motion
carried unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
(This 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 speak for 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 November 7, 2016
(b) Workshop of November 7, 2016
(c) Canvassing Board of November 14, 2016
Motion by Lofdahl, second by Arndt, to approve 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.)
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 22, 2016
7. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
(a) Consideration for Approval of Resolution No. 14634 — Resolution Establishing Location
for Traffic Control Devices (No Parking Signs on 5t' Avenue SE)
(b) Consideration for Approval of Resolution No. 14636 — Resolution to Sell at Auction
Forfeited Vehicles
(c) Consideration for Approval of Resolution No. 14643 - Resolution Canvassing Election
Returns
(d) Consideration for Approval of Resolution No. 14642 — Resolution Adopting Findings of
Fact and Reasons for Approval of Nokes Addition to Island View Heights Preliminary
and Final Plat With Favorable Planning Commission Recommendation
(e) Consideration for Approval of School Road and Roberts Road Reconstruction Project
(Letting No. 2, Project No. 17-02)
i. Resolution No. 14637 — Resolution Ordering Preparation of Report on Improvement
ii. Resolution No. 14638 — Resolution Receiving Report and Calling Hearing on
Improvement
(f) Consideration for Approval of School Road and Roberts Trail Improvements Project
(Letting No. 3, Project No. 17-03)
i. Resolution No. 14639 — Resolution Ordering Preparation of Report on Improvement
ii. Resolution No. 14640 — Resolution Receiving Report and Calling Hearing on
Improvement
(g) Appointment of Jack Sandberg to Pioneerland Library Board
(h) Claims, Appropriations and Contract Payments — Check Register A
Item 7(d) was pulled for separate discussion.
Motion by Lofdahl, second by Christensen, to approve Consent Agenda I with the
exception of Item 7(d). Motion carried unanimously.
Council Member Arndt noted that he had been asked where the shed/type of shed is
going to be placed on the property. Council Member Arndt noted he would mention this
to the Council. Dan Jochum, Planning Director, presented before the Council. Mr.
Jochum explained that at this time the consideration is for the preliminary and final plat
and building permits will be issued when necessary. No applications have been
submitted for any structures.
Motion by Arndt, second by Lofdahl, to approve Item 7(d). Motion carried unanimously.
8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA II
2
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 22, 2016
(a) Claims, Appropriations and Contract Payments — Check Register B
Motion by Czmowski, second by Christensen, with Forcier abstaining, to approve
Consent Agenda II. Motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS (6:00 P.M.) - NONE
purpose o t is portion o t e agen a is to provi e the Councilwith information necessary to craft wise policy.
ides items like monthly or annual reports and communications from other entities.)
9. RECOGNITION OF MINNESOTA CLEAN ENERGY COMMUNITY AWARD TO THE
CITY OF HUTCHINSON
Kent Exner, City Engineer, presented before the Council. Mr. Exner noted that the City
received the Minnesota Clean Energy Community Award for its efforts to construct a 400
kW solar array on a closed landfill and supplies the power generated by the system to the
wastewater treatment facility. This is the First Annual Clean Energy Community Awards
that were hosted by the Minnesota Department of Commerce, Division of Energy Resources.
Mr. Exner thanked former mayor Steve Cook for his efforts on this project, as well as staff
members and Ameresco. Other achievement award winners included Minneapolis, St.
Cloud, Morris and the Minnesota Air National Guard.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
10. APPROVE/DENY PROJECT AWARD FOR EDA ENTERPRISE CENTER PROJECT
(LETTING NO. 11, PROJECT NO. 16-11) — RESOLUTION NO. 14644 ACCEPTING BID
AND AWARDING CONTRACT
Miles Seppelt, EDA Director, presented before the Council. Mr. Seppelt noted that a total of
nine bids were received for the construction of the proposed Hutchinson Enterprise Center
small business incubator. The low bid was submitted by Ebert Construction of Corocoran,
Minnesota. Upon review, the EDA is recommending that the base bid along with alternates
1, 2, 3 and 5 be awarded. These alternates include constructing offices, concrete truck lot,
drywall & windows and metal liner. Cost for the building and alternates will total
$2,220,200. Additional costs include soils testing and monitoring by Braun Intertec, various
information technology items, sewer & water access charges, a security access system for the
building and budgeting for contingencies, bringing the total project cost to $2,444,955.
Funding for the project comes from a DEED grant, Minnesota Investment Fund grant dollars
previously obtained by the City, tax increment financing dollars and the community
improvement fund. Mr. Seppelt noted that two companies have been identified as prospective
tenants each taking space of 4000 square feet.
Motion by Czmowski, second by Lofdahl, to approve project award for EDA Enterprise
Center project to Ebert Construction, adopting Resolution No. 14644. Motion carried
unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
11. APPROVE/DENY ORDINANCE NO. 16-766 - AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE
SALE OF REAL PROPERTY TO DAME'S DIGS, LLC (WAIVE FIRST READING, SET
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION FOR DECEMBER 13, 2016)
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 22, 2016
Marc Sebora, City Attorney, explained that last July the Council considered renewing a
franchise to Dame's Digs, LLC, owner of Hometown Realty building, to utilize a portion of
the right-of-way on Jefferson Street side of their building. The City granted a franchise to
Dame's Digs LLC in the 1990s after it was discovered that the then new Hometown Realty
building was built over the lot line approximately 1 '/2 feet into the city right-of-way. At the
July meeting it was mentioned to the Council that it may be better for all parties concerned if
the 1 '/2 foot strip of land was simply conveyed to Dame's Digs LLC in order to avoid the
parties having to periodically renew the franchise agreement and also to help ensure the
marketability of the Hometown Realty building. The matter was then tabeled so that the
feasibility of a conveyance was explored. Staff has spoken with the owner of Hometown
Realty, Cheryl Dooley, and is recommending to convey the property to her rather than
entering into a series of future franchise agreements. Ms. Dooley has agreed to pay $460.00
for the strip of land. Should the ordinance be approved and set for a second reading and
adoption, the Council will then hold a public hearing at the next meeting to consider vacating
this portion of the City right-of-way.
Motion by Lofdahl, second by Arndt, with Christensen abstaining, to waive first reading and
set second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 16-766 for December 13, 2016. Motion
carried unanimously.
12. APPROVE/DENY AGREEMENT WITH TASER FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT BODY
CAMERAS
Dan Hatten, Police Chief, presented before the Council. Chief Hatten requested before the
Council to enter into an agreement with Taser for a five-year term to provide 22 body -worn
cameras, vehicle cameras for ten vehicles and data storage. The agreement also includes
updating equipment 2.5 years into the agreement to ensure reliable equipment in the field.
The total cost of the agreement is $146,319.39. Chief Hatten spoke logistics of the use of the
equipment.
Motion by Christensen, second by Czmowski, to approve agreement with Taser for police
department body cameras. Motion carried unanimously.
13. APPROVE/DENY FIRST READING AND ORDERING PUBLIC HEARING FOR
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCE REVISIONS — ORDINANCE NO. 16-764
John Paulson, Environmental Specialist, presented before the Council. Mr. Paulson
explained that the main driver of the revisions to this ordinance are related to the use of small
cell technologies. These changes are specific to the use of right-of-way and the allowable
size of the equipment used for small cell technologies. These changes have included
feedback from a potential small cell provider as well as the City's telecommunications
consultant. Specific revisions address antenna size of pole -mounted systems and placement
of small cell technology.
.19
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 22, 2016
Motion by Lofdahl, second by Christensen, to approve first reading and set public hearing
and second reading of Ordinance No. 16-764 for December 13, 2016. Motion carried
unanimously.
14. APPROVE/DENY FIRST READING AND ORDERING PUBLIC HEARING FOR USE
OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ORDINANCE REVISIONS — ORDINANCE NO. 16-765
John Paulson, Environmental Specialist, presented before the Council. Mr. Paulson
explained that staff is proposing to revise the public right-of-way ordinance to ensure that
rights-of-way are used for their intended purpose. The proposed revision includes adding the
following language: "Small cell and telecommunications equipment prohibited. Public
rights-of-way shall not be used for the purpose of small cell and telecommunications
equipment installations. The use of public rights-of-way for this purpose is limited to access
of communications or power utilities that are authorized to exist in public right-of-way
through agreement with the City."
Motion by Czmowski, second by Lofdahl, to approve first reading and set public hearing and
second reading of Ordinance No. 16-764 for December 13, 2016. Motion carried
unanimously.
15. APPROVE/DENY SCHOOL ROAD AND ROBERTS ROAD TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS
FEDERAL AID PROJECT MEMORANDUM
Kent Exner, City Engineer, presented before the Council. Mr. Exner explained that as part of
the requirement to receive project federal aid funding ($200,000), City staff has administered
the preparation of a project memorandum document for MnDOT and FHWA
consideration/approval. Mr. Exner distributed the 40 -page memorandum document to the
Council. This draft document has been reviewed by the City's Resource Allocation
Committee and must be formally submitted before December 1, 2016. Mr. Exner also
reviewed the items approved by Council under the Consent Agenda associated with this
project. They included ordering preparation of reports and setting public hearings on
December 13, 2016, for road reconstruction and trail improvements on School Road and
Roberts Road. A neighborhood meeting for this project has been scheduled for December 6,
2016, at 7:00 p.m. at the Event Center.
Motion by Christensen, second by Czmowski, to approve School Road and Roberts Road
Trail Improvements Federal Aid Project Memorandum. Motion carried unanimously.
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)
16. MINUTES FROM COMMITTEES, BOARDS OR COMMISSIONS
�a) Hutchinson Housing & Redevelopment Authority Board Minutes from October 18, 2016
b) Planning Commission Minutes from October 18, 2016
(c) City of Hutchinson Financial Report and Investment Report for October 2016
MISCELLANEOUS
5
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 22, 2016
17. STAFF UPDATES
Kent Exner — Mr. Exner noted that lighting along Roberts Road has been reviewed mainly due
to the school construction. Additional temporary lighting will be put in place and replaced with
permanent lighting when the road construction is completed. Mr. Exner also noted that the
Adams Street alley has been reviewed and a pipe will be jplaced in the alley to assist with
drainage until a more comprehensive project is completed in 2019. However snow removal
operations will not be revised in this area. Mr. Exner stated that Denver Avenue will not be
accessible to the public until next spring. The site is currently under the control of the
contractor and is unfinished. Mr. Exner explained that the Golf Course Road water tower is
near completion. Council Member Lofdahl asked why the City logo wasn't painted on the
water tower instead of the block letters that were used. Mr. Exner noted that the logo was an
alternate bid 10-12 years ago on the Century Avenue water tower and came at a higher cost. In
addition, to get the logo large enough, it could skew the look of it and appear a bit disoriented.
Last, Mr. Exner noted that the leaf vacuum program is completed.
Matt Jaunich — Mr. Jaunich reminded everyone that City offices will be closed this Thursday
and Friday for the Thanksgiving holiday; The Truth in Taxation hearing is set for December 6,
2016, at 6:00 p.m. at the City Center; He is collecting from staff goals and objectives and he
asked that the Council be thinking of things to be addressed in 2017.
18. COUNCIL/MAYOR UPDATE
John Lofdahl — Council Member Lofdahl noted that as a member of the Bicycle/Pedestrian
Committee it was discussed whether or not there is language in the zoning ordinance, or if
language could be added to the zoning ordinance, referencing that when anew major building is
constructed that a bicycle lane be required. Council Member Lofdahl also spoke about public
transportation efforts he has been working on. Council Member Lofdahl also spoke about an
environmental special assessment that the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities is asking cities
to be a part of.
Mary Christensen — Council Member Christensen mentioned that the pool project is currently
on schedule and is slated to open the end of May 2017.
Gary Forcier — Mayor Forcier mentioned having a workshop for council members to review the
boards/commissions they are assigned to to see if any assignments should be changed.
Motion by Christensen, second by Forcier, to set Council workshop for December 13, 2016, at
4:00 p.m. to review board/commission assignments. Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Arndt, second by Lofdahl, to adjourn at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL
TRUTH IN TAXATION HEARING
DECEMBER 6, 2016
CALL TO ORDER — 6:00 P.M.
Members Present: Mayor Gary Forcier, Bill Arndt, Mary Christensen, Chad
Czmowski and John Lofdahl
Others present: Andy Reid, Finance Director, Matt Jaunich, City Administrator, and
Marc Sebora, City Attorney
2. TRUTH IN TAXATION HEARING
Mayor Forcier opened the hearing at 6:00 p.m.
Matt Jaunich, City Administrator,presented before the Council. Mr. Jaunich
explained the budget process the City has used to date. Four work sessions have been
held over the past seven months. The Council adopted the preliminary budget and tax
levy in September and last month truth in taxation notices were mailed to all City
property owners. Mr. Jaunich explained the purpose for tonight's hearing is to
enhance public participation in the property tax system by allowing a public forum to
discuss the budget, discuss the proposed tax levy, explain the increases and hear
public comments and questions on the budget and tax levy. If the hearing needs to be
continued it will continued at the next Council meeting on December 13, 2016, and
the final budget and tax levy is expected to be adopted by the Council on December
27, 2016. Mr. Jaunich briefly explained market valuations and how they relate to a
property's tax. Mr. Jaunich also explained that the preliminary budget set in
September showed a tax increase of 2.7% that included a deficit of $92,130. The
revised budget has maintained the same 2.7% increase from September, however the
City has adjusted its revenue projections and eliminated roughly $96,869 in expenses
since its preliminary budget was adopted to eliminate the deficit.
Hutchinson's 2016 average City tax rate ranked the second lowest in McLeod County
and is the fourth highest among other outstate regional centers. Hutchinson is the
lowest of all outstate regional centers for the povery level, 5 highest of all outstate
regional centers for median household income, 8 highest of all outstate regional
centers for median home value and is the third lowest of all outstate regional centers
in LGA payments. These statistics are among 19 outstate regional centers. Mr.
Jaunich provided information on variables used in calculating local government aid
and provided a brief overview on property taxation and homestead exclusion. Mr.
Jaunich also provided an overview on the history of market values. Mr. Jaunich
provided various reasons as to why property taxes may vary from year to year.
Mr. Jaunich then reviewed the City's mission statement and six core areas of focus.
Mr. Jaunich reviewed the proposed tax levies for 2017 which is a 2.7% increase for
the City's portion and a 3.9% increase for the EDA and HRA levies, for a total
increase of 2.8%. The proposed 2017 tax levy includes the second straight year of an
increase in the general fund portion of the levy since 2011. The proposed 2017 tax
levy includes the first year a 0% increase to the debt fund portion of the levy since
2013 and not expected to increase again until 2023. Compared to 2011, the City's
total tax levy has increased by 9.3%. The average annual tax levy increase since
2011 has been 1.5%. The 2017 city tax levy accounts for a per capita tax of $491, up
from $481 in 2016.
Mr. Jaunich reviewed the general fund revenues and expenses. Mr. Jaunich explained
that the general fund revenues include property taxes, other taxes, licenses & permits,
intergovernmental revenue, charges for service, fines & forfeitures, miscellaneous
revenue, transfers -in and fund balance. Mr. Jaunich also spoke about local
government aid and the variables used in LGA calculations, such as: pre -1940
housing units, housing units 1940-1970, total housing units, household sizes, number
of employees, peak population decline, sparsity adjustment and tax effort rate. Mr.
Jaunich noted that additional facts on general fund revenues include: general fund
revenues include a 4% tax levy increase, property taxes account for 39% of the
general fund revenues, $444,000 increase in "charges for service" to account for new
waterpark revenue, general fund revenues include a reduction of the transfer from the
HUC in the amount of $111,733, City is increasing the LGA portion to the general
fund by $137,500 to help offset the loss of HUC money, expecting most of the other
revenue sources to remain relatively flat, minor changes in transfer -ins from
enterprise funds and a 1% tax levy increase to the general fund is equivalent to
$45,690. Total general fund expenses are comprised of wages & benefits, supplies,
services & charges, miscellaneous expenses, transfers -out and capital outlay. Mr.
Jaunich explained that wages & benefits increased 7.6% in 2017 and include
performance and other annual adjustments and additional staff (aquatic center
seasonal staff, new full-time waterpark/ ark maintenance position, new police officer,
other changes/shifts). Wages & bene Its account for 67% of general fund expenses
and is the largest expense in the general fund. Operational & supplies for the aquatic
center are included in the 2017 budget at $142,500. Inflation and other miscellaneous
costs make up the additional increases. The 2017 budgeted expenses are balanced
with revenues. Mr. Jaunich then reviewed the aquatic center budget which is
forecasted at $444,000 in revenues and $423,596 in expenses.
Mr. Jaunich then reviewed the enterprise funds — consisting of the liquor, compost,
refuse, water, sewer and stormwater funds. All of these funds are cash flowing and
are healthy funds. Mr. Jaunich noted that the Liquor Hutch and Creekside continue to
do well and will contribute $610,000 to thegeneral fund in 2017. This is the second
straight year Creekside assumes a reduced production model focusing on higher
margin products. There will be no increases in garbage, water and sewer rates. All
enterprise funds continue to have healthy fund balances and are borrowing against the
refuse fund to help pay for the aquatic center. There will be a slight rate increase to
stormwater rates of 3%. Transfers to the general fund from the enterprise funds will
be at $785,000 in 2017 which is up 8.1% from the $726,290 budgeted for in 2016.
Mr. Jaunich reviewed the 2017 capital improvement plan and debt management plan.
Major capital items included in the capital plan are: completion of the aquatic
center/rec center upgrades, Roberts Road/School Road/South Grade Road and trail
improvement projects, south central trunk storm sewer project, capital upgrades to
Creekside and wastewater plant and various equipment/fleet vehicle replacements and
facility upgrades. The debt management plan has a target debt levy at $2.6 million.
The 2004 debt payment of $436,450 has its last payment this year. After a 1% debt
levy increase in 2016, the debt plan won't need another debt levy increase until 2023.
The 2023 tax levy will be a 1.5% increase. Years 2024 to 2032 will see an average
increase of 1.7%. The planincludes financing for heavy equipment in 2017-2021.
The plan moves annual project costs from $1.5 million to $1.9 million. The plan
moves the annual debt limit from $2.2 million to $2.6 million.
Mr. Jaunich noted that the three main factors behind the levy increase are that the
general wage and benefit increases are expected to cost $121,200; new positions and
salary adjustments not associated with the aquatic center are expected to cost
$176,182, and a loss of $111,733 in HUC's PILOT payment. Mr. Jaunich lastly
noted that there are no significant staffing cuts and/or changes in service. The new
aquatic center has been included in the 2017 budget. Staffing costs and capital needs
are the biggest "driver" of the City's budget. Fund balances continue to remain high
and the fiscal condition of the City is healthy. The State's budget forecasts continues
to remain good and there shouldn't be any fiscal restraints at the State that would
impact the City. Home values are increasing and the local economy appears to be
improving from the recession years.
Motion by Lofdahl, second by Christensen, to close public hearing at 7:25 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously.
There were a couple of comments from the public in attendance throughout the
presentation put on by Mr. Jaunich.
3. ADJOURN
Following the public hearing, the meeting was adjourned.
ATTEST:
Gary T. Forcier
Mayor
Matthew Jaunich
City Administrator
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL ci=qf�
Request for Board Action 7AL =-XZ
Agenda Item: Amendment to the 2016 General Fund Budget
Department: Finance
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 12/13/2016
Application Complete N/A
Contact: Andy Reid
Agenda Item Type:
Presenter:
Reviewed by Staff ❑
Consent Agenda
Time Requested (Minutes): 3
License Contingency N/A
Attachments: Yes
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OFAGENDA ITEM:
With the Aquatic Center project underway with an estimated 50% completion by the end of 2016, we must finance the
construction costs paid in 2016. We have discussed the funding sources as being the Community Improvement
Fund, Capital Projects Fund, General Fund reserves, and an inter-fund loan from the Refuse fund.
2016 Funding 2017 Funding Total Funding
Community Improvement Fund $1,500,000 $ 750,000 $2,250,000
Capital Projects Fund $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000
General Fund (reserves) $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $1,000,000
Refuse Fund (inter-fund loan) $ 0 $ 750,000 $ 750,000
TOTALS $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $6,000,000
The General fund reserves at the end of 2015 were approximately 60% of our budgeted expenditures, well above the
state auditor's recommendation of 40-50%. We have determined that we can utilize up to $1,000,000 of general fund
reserves for the aquatic center without impacting our bond rating and still maintain a fund balance above 50%.
The Capital Projects fund is accounting for all construction costs related to the aquatic center. The general fund
budget amendment accounts for a transfer of general fund reserves to the capital projects fund to allow for an
adequate cash balance in the capital projects fund to cover the 2016 construction costs paid.
The transfer of reserve funds was not included in the original 2016 General fund budget and therefore a budget
amendment is required to properly account for the transfer and funding of the aquatic center project costs.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve resolution 14645 to amend the 2016 general fund budget.
Fiscal Impact: $ 500,000.00 Funding Source: General Fund Reserves
FTE Impact: Budget Change: Yes
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
RESOLUTION NO. 14645
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA:
THAT the annual General Fund budget of the City of Hutchinson for fiscal year 2016 is amended
to account for the transfer of $500,000 to the Capital Projects Fund to finance the 2016 Aquatic
Center construction costs.
REVENUES
Taxes
Other Taxes
Licenses & Permits
Intergovernmental Revenue
Charges for Services
Fines & Forfeitures
Miscellaneous Revenues
Transfers -In
Fund Balance
TOTAL REVENUES
EXPENDITURES
Wages & Benefits
Supplies
Services & Charges
Miscellaneous Expenses
Transfers -Out
Capital Outlay
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
NET REVENUE OVER /
(UNDER) EXPENDITURES
GENERALFUND
Original Amended
Budget Amendment Budget
$ 4,581,035
$ 4,581,035
272,000
272,000
271,500
271,500
1,284,330
1,284,330
2,350,666
2,350,666
55,000
55,000
291,300
291,300
2,332,404
2,332,404
25,000
25,000
$ 11,463,235 $
- $ 11,463,235
$ 7,595,480
$ 7,595,480
770,593
770,593
2,461,936
2,461,936
525,226
525,226
100,000
500,000 600,000
10,000
- 10,000
$ 11,463,235 $
500,000 $ 11,963,235
$ - $ (500,000) $ (500,000)
Adopted by the City Council this 13th day of December 2016.
/_11a9x0192191
Matthew Jaunich
City Administrator
Gary T. Forcier
Mayor
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL
ci=qf�
Request for Board Action
7AL =-WZ
Agenda Item: Resolution 14646 Transfer Funds to Finance 2016 Aquatic Center
Construction Costs
Department: Finance
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 12/13/2016
Application Complete N/A
Contact: Andy Reid
Agenda Item Type:
Presenter:
Reviewed by Staff ❑
Consent Agenda
Time Requested (Minutes):
License Contingency N/A
Attachments: Yes
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OFAGENDA ITEM:
The attached resolution transfers the reserve funds from the Community Improvement and General funds to the
Capital Projects fund to finance a portion of the Aquatic Center construction costs paid in 2016. The Capital Projects
fund is accounting for all of the project costs and will run into a significant cash deficit
if the transfers are not made.
The planned funding sources are as follows:
2016 Funding 2017 Funding
Total Funding
Community Improvement Fund $1,500,000 $ 750,000
$2,250,000
Capital Projects Fund $1,000,000 $1,000,000
$2,000,000
General Fund (reserves) $ 500,000 $ 500,000
$1,000,000
Refuse Fund (inter-fund loan) $ 0 $ 750,000
$ 750,000
TOTALS $3,000,000 $3,000,000
$6,000,000
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve fund transfers per Resolution 14646.
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. 14646
TRANSFERRING FROM COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AND GENERAL FUNDS
TO THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
FOR FINANCING 2016 AQUATIC CENTER CONSTRUCTION COSTS
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA
THAT, $1,500,000 is hereby transferred from the Community Improvement Fund to the
Capital Projects Fund.
THAT, $500,000 is hereby transferred from the General Fund to the Capital Projects
THAT, said transfers are hereby effective and apply to the 2016 fiscal year.
Adopted by the City Council this 13th day of December 2016.
ATTESTED:
Matthew Jaunich
City Administrator
Gary T. Forcier
Mayor
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL ci=qf�
Request for Board Action 7AL =-XZ
Agenda Item: Resolution 14647 Transfer Funds to 2016 Construction Fund and General Fund
Department: Finance
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 12/13/2016
Application Complete N/A
Contact: Andy Reid
Agenda Item Type:
Presenter:
Reviewed by Staff ❑
Consent Agenda
Time Requested (Minutes):
License Contingency N/A
Attachments: Yes
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OFAGENDA ITEM:
This resolution identifies the following transfers of monies related to the 2016 street projects:
1) Transfers from the enterprise funds to the 2016 construction fund to finance a portion of the total project costs.
These transfers help to keep our annual bonding amount within the guidelines of the Debt Management Plan. Without
enterprise fund transfers we would either have to reduce our project scope for street projects or increase our debt.
2) Transfers from the 2016 construction fund to the general fund for to cover the fees for engineering and project
administration.
3) A transfer from the 2016 construction fund to the capital projects fund for future comprehensive plan updates and
other city planning needs.
4) A transfer from the capital projects fund to the general fund for engineering fees on the street seal-coating project.
The cost to seal-coat streets is not included in our bonded debt as it is considered maintenance rather than a capital
improvement and has a shorter life than the 15 year debt. Our funding source for seal coating is the Miscellaneous
Infrastructure Maintenance fund within the capital projects fund.
All transfers in this resolution were reviewed by Public Works, Finance and Administration and presented to the
Resource Allocation Committee as the annual improvement projects were discussed.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve fund transfers per Resolution 14647.
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. 14647
TRANSFERRING FROM WATER, SEWER, AND STORMWATER FUNDS
TO THE 2016 IMPROVEMENT BOND CONSTRUCTION FUND
FOR FINANCING THE 2016 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM COSTS
AND
FROM THE 2016 IMPROVEMENT BOND CONSTRUCTION FUND
TO THE GENERAL FUND & CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
FOR ENGINEERING AND PROJECT ADMINISTRATION FEES
AND
FROM THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND TO THE GENERAL FUND
FOR ENGINEERING FEES ON THE STREET SEALCOATING PROJECT
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA
THAT, $265,352 is hereby transferred from the Water Fund to the 2016 Construction Fund.
THAT, $36,378 is hereby transferred from the Sewer Fund to the 2016 Construction Fund.
THAT, $270,097 is hereby transferred from the Storm Water Fund to the
2016 Construction Fund.
THAT, $325,890 is hereby transferred from the 2016 Construction Fund to the
General Fund for Engineering Fees.
THAT, $65,178 is hereby transferred from the 2016 Construction Fund to the
General Fund for Project Administration Fees
THAT, $65,178 is hereby transferred from the 2016 Construction Fund to the Capital
Fund for the purpose of Comprehensive Planning and other planning needs.
THAT, $21,960 is hereby transferred from the Capital Projects Fund to the
General Fund for Engineering Fees.
THAT, said transfers are hereby effective and apply to the 2016 fiscal year.
Adopted by the City Council this 13th day of December 2016.
ATTESTED:
Matthew Jaunich
City Administrator
Gary T. Forcier
Mayor
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL ci=v-f�
Request for Board Action 7AL =-ft
Agenda Item: Resolution 14648 - Authorization to Sell Unclaimed Property
Department: Police
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 12/13/2016
Application Complete N/A
Contact: Daniel Hatten
Agenda Item Type:
Presenter: Daniel Hatten
Reviewed by Staff ✓❑
consent Agenda
Time Requested (Minutes):
License Contingency N/A
Attachments: Yes
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OF AGENDA ITEM:
Presenting Resolution No. 14648 , requesting authorization to sell unclaimed property.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Approval to sell unclaimed items.
Fiscal Impact: $ 0.00 Funding Source:
FTE Impact: 0.00 Budget Change: No
Included in current budget: No
PROJECT SECTION:
Total Project Cost:
Total City Cost: Funding Source:
Remaining Cost: $ 0.00 Funding Source:
RESOLUTION TO SELL AT AUCTION
Unclaimed Property
Resolution No. 14648
WHEREAS, the Hutchinson Police Department has accumulated various unclaimed
items.
AND WHEREAS, the Hutchinson City Code provides pursuant to Section 91,
Subdivision 3, Paragraph C for the sale at auction of unclaimed property.
AND WHEREAS, the unclaimed property, at the time of auction, will have been in the
possession of the police services for more than thirty (30) days.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA.
That the Hutchinson City Council hereby approves the sale at auction of unclaimed items
identified on "Attachment A."
Items to be sold through Fahey Auction Center.
Adopted by the City Council this 6t' day of December, 2016
Mayor
City Administrator
Page 1
Attachment A
HPS Case 9
Item Description
16012538
Red Huffy Santa Fe 20" Men's Bicycle
16011317
Black Roadmaster Granite Peak Bicycle
16011232
Black Huffy 311 Women's Bicycle
16010880
Blue Roadmaster Ultra Terrain 24" Men's Bicycle
16010880
Silver Vertical PK7 24" Bicycle
16010857
Blue/Purple Roadmaster Mt. Climber 24" Men's Bicycle
16010873
Light Blue Roadmaster Mt. Fury 26" Women's Bicycle
16010610
Gray Huffy Trail Runner 26" Women's Bicycle
16012573
Gray/Orange Tony Hawk Frisco 20" Bicycle
16011663
Black/Silver Trek Mt 220 24" Men's Bicycle
16010670
Blue/Silver Mongoose Hooped 20" Bicycle
16010398
Black Magna Glacier Point 24" Men's Bicycle
16010389
Silver/Purple Roadmaster Mt. Sport 24" Women's Bicycle
16010389
Blue Huffy Stalker 26" Men's Bicycle
16010389
Gray Mongoose Sycamore 26" Men's Bicycle
16010220
Gray Mongoose Sycamore 26" Men's Bicycle
16009833
Silver Triax PK7 26" Bicycle
16009627
Silver Haro Race Group #1 16" Bicycle
16009270
Gray/Green Trek 820 26" Women's Bicycle
16011359
Green Huffy Superia Men's Bicycle
16011375
Blue MurrayMtn. Scene Men's Bicycle
16010110
Orange/Silver Next Turbo X/Moto X Bicycle
16007585
Blue Fila Men's Mountain Bicycle
16008090
Red Huffy Rock It 20" Boy's Bicycle
16008176
Red Next Shocker 26" Men's Bicycle
16008833
Black Schwinn Hurricane 26" Men's Bicycle
16010514
1 Eddie Bauer Baby Stroller
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL ci=v-f�
Request for Board Action 7AL =-WZ
Agenda Item: Resolution 14649 Authorizing Senior Deferral of Special Assessment
Department: Finance
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 12/13/2016
Application Complete N/A
Contact: Andy Reid
Agenda Item Type:
Presenter:
Reviewed by Staff ❑
Consent Agenda
Time Requested (Minutes):
License Contingency N/A
Attachments: Yes
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OFAGENDA ITEM:
State statute and city resolution #14628 allow for the deferral of special assessments on homestead property owned
by a senior citizen (65 years or older), a person on disability as defined by the Social Security Administration, or for a
member of the National Guard or military reserves in active service, for whom it would be a hardship to make
payments.
Resolution #14649 seeks authorization to defer the special assessment for the property located at 664 Milwaukee Ave
SW. The homeowner has applied for the senior deferral and meets the low income guideline and asset limitation as
set forth in resolution #14628 (attached). This assessment is related to the 2016 pavement management project with
the assessment repayment originally set for the 10 year period of 2017-2026.
City staff has reviewed the submitted application and tax documents and recommend deferral. If authorized, the
assessment will remain in deferred status until any one of the following occur:
1. The owner dies and the spouse is not otherwise qualified;
2. The property or any part thereof is sold, transferred, or subdivided;
3. The property should lose its homestead status; or
4. If for any reason the City determines that there would be no hardship to require immediate or partial payment
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the senior deferral of special assessment at 664 Milwaukee Ave SW per resolution 14649.
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 14649
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON,
MINNESOTA:
THAT, the following property can be certified as deferred due to hardship for the senior citizen
or disabled person as outlined by state statute, city ordinance, and city resolution 14628.
Property Description
Block 8 South Half
City of Hutchinson Lot 6
Owner
Tamara J Luhman
664 Milwaukee Ave SW
Hutchinson, MN 55350
THAT, the following assessment roll shall be deferred under the above guidelines:
City and County Roll: #5113
Amount: $3,749.85
2016 Project and assessment Interest rate of 2.71 %
Adopted by the City Council on this 13th day of December 2016.
Gary T. Forcier, Mayor
ATTESTED:
Matthew Jaunich, City Administrator
CITY OF HUTCHINSON MN
RESOLUTION NO. 14528
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 1442.1 ESTABLISHING INCOME GUIDELINES &
ASSET LIMITATIONS, FOR SENIOR CITIZENS 65 YEARS OR OLDER, DISABLED
CITIZENS, ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY RESERVES OR NATIONAL GUARD
DEFERRED ASSESSMENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS REDUCED REFUSE RATE
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Statutes provide tax deferral of homestead property for senior citizens 65 years
of'age or older, or a Person(s) on disability as defined by the Social Security Administration, or for members ofthe
National Guard or military reserves in active service, for whom it would be a hardship to make payments, and
WHEREAS. the home owner can make application for deferred payment of special assessments on forms
which can be obtained from the City Administrator's office, and
WHEREAS, the home owner/renter can make application for reduced rel'use rate on forms which can be
obtained firom the City Administrator's office.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council has established the following income guidelines. asset limitations,
and verification requirements for applications for deferred assessments and/or reduced refuse rates:
To be granted to person(s) with a low income of $24,650.00 per year for one person and $28,150.00
per year for a married couple, joint tenants or tenants in common.
'[o be granted to person(s) with an asset limitation of not to exceed $30,000.00, excluding the
homestead and automobile.
Deferred assessments andlor reduced refuse requests may only be applied for il' the following
documents are submitted at the time ofsaid application.
A. f=ederal Income Tax Form 10€0. 1040A, 1040EL; or
E3. Minnesota Property 'Fax Refund Form 10-1PR
Every two years the City can request said information to continue deferral of assessments or reduced
refuse charges; existing deferred assessments and reduced refuse accounts shall submit the same
documentation to continue the reduced charges.
The right of determent is automatical ly terminated if:
A. The owner dies and the spouse is not otherwise qua] itied;
13. The property or any part thereof is sold, transferred, or subdivided;
C. The property should lose its homestead status.. or
U. If for any reason the City detennines that there would be no hardship to require immediate or
partial payment.
Adopted by the Hutchinson City Council this 25`� day of October, 2016.
ATTEST:
N,
Matthew 1a rch, City Administrator Gary Forcie , Mayor
r��r
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL
ci=v-f�
Request for Board Action
7AL =-ft
Agenda Item: Resolution 14650 Adopting the 2017 Fee Schedule
Department: Finance
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 12/13/2016
Application Complete N/A
Contact: Andy Reid
Agenda Item Type:
Presenter:
Reviewed by Staff ❑
Consent Agenda
Time Requested (Minutes): 5
License Contingency N/A
Attachments: Yes
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OF AGENDA ITEM:
Attached is the 2017 Fee Schedule for City operations with all changes shown in red font.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve Resolution 14650 Adopting the 2017 Fee Schedule
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. 14650
ADOPTING 2017 FEE SCHEDULE
WHEREAS, the City of Hutchinson is empowered by previously passed ordinances to
impose fees for services, and
WHEREAS, based upon the recommendation of costs for providing the services for
various city departments
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA THAT THE FOLLOWING FEE SCHEDULES ARE ADOPTED AND
THAT THESE FEE SCHEDULES REPLACE ANY FEE SCHEDULES PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
BY THE HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL.
2017 Building Permit Fee Schedule
2017 Compost/Transfer Facility Fee Schedule
2017 Event Center Fee Schedule
2017 Evergreen Reservation Fee Schedule
2017 Finance Department Fee Schedule
2017 Fire Department Fee Schedule
2017 HRA Fee Schedule
2017 Legal Department Fee Schedule
2017 Licenses and Permits Fee Schedule
2017 Liquor License Fee Schedule
2017 Mapping and Printing Service Fee Schedule
2017 Parks, Recreation, and Community Education Fee Schedule
2017 Planning and Land Use Fee Schedule
2017 Police Department Fee Schedule
2017 Public Works Fee Schedule
* Fee Schedules attached
Adopted by the City Council this 13th day of December 2016.
ATTESTED:
Matthew Jaunich
City Administrator
Gary T. Forcier
Mayor
2017 FEE SCHEDULE
City of Hutchinson
2017 Fee Schedule
Fee Schedule includes the following (in alphabetical order)
I:\Finance\FEE SCHEDULES\2017 Fee Schedule\2017 Fee Schedule - PRELIMINARY Page 2 of 21 12/1/2016
Pace
- Building/Plumbing/Mechanical permits
3
- Creekside
5
- Event Center
5
- Evergreen Senior Dining
6
- Finance
7
- Fire Department
7
- HRA
8
- Legal
8
- Licenses (general and liquor)
8
- Mapping/Printing
10
- Parks, Recreation, Community Education
11
- Plan Review
13
- Planning/Land Use
13
- Police Department
14
- Public Works: Engineering
16
Water
17
Sewer
18
Storm Water
19
Garbage
19
Cemetery
20
HATS Facility
21
Airport
21
Operations & Maintenance
21
I:\Finance\FEE SCHEDULES\2017 Fee Schedule\2017 Fee Schedule - PRELIMINARY Page 2 of 21 12/1/2016
City of Hutchinson
2017 Fee Schedule
Fee Type
2017 Fees
Notes
2016 Fees
%
Last
Chane
Change
Building/Plumbing/Mechanical Permits
Fixed Fees:
1 & 2 Family Residential Reroofing
$50.00
plus surcharge fee
$50.00
0.0%
2011
1 & 2 Family Residential Residing
$50.00
plus surcharge fee
$50.00
0.0%
2011
1 & 2 Family Residential Window/Door
$50.00
plus surcharge fee
$50.00
0.0%
2011
Replacement
Manufactured (Mobile) Home Install
$185.00
plus surcharge fee. Separate mechanical & plumbing permit
$185.00
0.0%
2011
required.
Utility Sheds
$50.00
under 200 sq. ft - surcharge does not apply.
$50.00
0.0%
2011
$21.29 /sq.ft.
Sheds over 200 sq. ft. valuation of $21.29 / sq. ft.
$21.29 /sq.ft.
0.0%
2016
Moving Permit
$175.00
plus surcharge fee, includes excavation permit fee,
$175.00
0.0%
2011
if applicable
Demolition Permit
$50.00
Residential remodels & accessory structures
$50.00
0.0%
2015
$125.00
Residential demolition
$125.00
$250.00
lCommercial demolition
$250.00
Residential Square Foot Valuation:
Dwellings
$100.26 /sq.ft.
Rate x Sq. Ft. to arrive at the
$100.26 /sq.ft.
0.0%
2016
Basements
Finished
$10.00 /sq.ft.
Construction Valuation which is
$10.00 /sq.ft.
0.0°k
2011
used to calculate the actual fee
Semi -Finished
$10.00 /sq.ft.
(see fee rates under Construction Valuation)
$10.00 /sq.ft.
0.0%
2011
Unfinished
$20.00 /sq.ft.
Example: 100 sq. ft. 3 -Season Porch
$20.00 /sq.ft.
0.0%
2011
Porches
3 Season Porch
$70.18 /sq.ft.
Construction Valuation = $70.18 x 100 sq. ft
$70.18 /sq.ft.
0.0%
2016
4 Season Porch
$100.26 /sq.ft.
Construction Valuation = $7,018
$100.26 /sq.ft.
0.0%
2016
Screened Porch
$40.10 /sq.ft.
Fee ($2,001 - $25,000 valuation range)
$40.10 /sq.ft.
0.0%
2016
Garages
Attached
$38.56 /sq.ft.
1 st $2,000 of value: $80.17
$38.56 /sq.ft.
0.0%
2016
Detached
$21.29 /sq.ft.
Remaining value $5,018/1000 x $15.44 $77.48
Total Fee $157.65
$21.29 /sq.ft.
0.0%
2016
Gazebo
$19.00 /sq.ft.
$19.00 /sq.ft.
0.0%
2011
Deck
$10.00 /sq.ft.
$10.00 /sq.ft.
0.0%
2015
Construction Valuation:
$1 -$1,200
$52.37
minimum valuation and permit amount
$49.88
5.0%
2011
$1,201 - $2,000
$55.68
for the first $1,200 plus $3.36 for each additional $100
$53.03
5.0%
2011
or fraction thereof to and including $2,000
$2,001 - $25,000
$80.17
for the first $2,000 plus $15.44 for each additional $1,000
$76.35
5.0%
2011
or fraction thereof to and including $25,000
$25,001 - $50,000
$452.92
for the first $25,000 plus $11.14 for each additional $1,000
$431.35
5.0%
2011
or fraction thereof to and including $50,000
$50,001 - $100,000
$745.23
for the first $50,000 plus $7.72 for each additional $1,000
$709.74
5.0%
2011
or fraction thereof to and including $100,000
I:\Finance\FEE SCHEDULES\2017 Fee Schedule\2017 Fee Schedule - PRELIMINARY Page 3 of 21 12/1/2016
City of Hutchinson
2017 Fee Schedule
Fee Type
2017 Fees
Notes
2016 Fees
%
Chane
Last
Change
$100,001 - $500,000
$1,150.39
for the first $100,000 plus $6.17 for each additional $1,000
or fraction thereof to and including $500,000
$1,095.61
5.0%
2011
$500,001 - $1,000,000
$3,743.47
for the first $500,000 plus $5.25 for each additional $1,000
or fraction thereof to and including $1,000,000
$3,565.21
5.0%
2011
$1,000,001 and Up
$6,492.83
for the first $1,000,000 plus $3.48 for each additional
$1,000 or fraction thereof.
$6,183.65
5.0%
2011
Penalty Fee
Double the Permit Fee - per City Administrator's
memo of 5-17-88
Refund Policy
Refunds may be available at the discretion of the
Building Official.
Plumbing Permit Fees:
Fixture of Item Fee 1$12.00 $12 per roughed -in fixture or item. Minimum of $50.00 1$12.00 1 0.0% 2011
Mechanical Permit Fees:
Gas Conversion Connection (switch) $125.00 plus surcharge fee $125.00 0.0% 2011
Gas Appliance Replacement $50.00 plus surcharge fee $50.00 0.0% 2011
Mechanical Fee 1.25% Valuation X 1.25% - plus State surcharge. 1.25% 0.0% 2011
Minimum of $50.00 plus State surcharge.
Miscellaneous Fees:
Rental registration/inspection
$20.00 /unit
Initial inspection and 1 follow up inspection, if needed.
$20.00 /unit
0.0%
2016
Rental Unit Reinspection
$50.00 /unit
Double the cost of
previous inspection
Second follow-up inspection
Subsequent additional/follow-up inspections
$50.00 /unit
Double the cost of
previous inspection
Failure to Appear at Scheduled Rental Inspection
$50.00
Fee for not showing up at scheduled inspection
$50.00
Rental Complaint Inspection
$50.00
$50.00
0.0%
2011
Existing Home Inspection (FMHA)
$75.00
$75.00
0.0%
2011
Parkland Dedication
Per subdivision ordinance
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy
Refundable Deposit
Add'I staff time and follow-up is required for temp C.O.s.
Deposit of $500.00 required and will be refunded if final
within timeframe established by Building Department
Refundable Deposit
Temporary Permits, including footing and foundation
permits and preconstruction demolition
$125.00
Temporary permits allow limited work to be done prior to
complete plan submittal and review
$125.00
0.0%
2011
All other non-specified inspections'
$60.00
Minimum fee plus State surcharge
or the total hourly costs of the jurisdiction, whichever is
the greatest. The cost shall include supervision, overhead
equipment, hourly wages, and fringe benefits of the
employees involved.
$60.00
0.0%
2011
Fire Sprinkler Fees:
New or Additional Fire Sprinkler Systems
1.25%
Fee is equal to 1.25% (.0125) of the total fire sprinkler
contract amount, plus a State surcharge.
Minimum of $50 plus State surcharge.
1.25%
0.0%
2011
I:\Finance\FEE SCHEDULES\2017 Fee Schedule\2017 Fee Schedule - PRELIMINARY Page 4 of 21 12/1/2016
City of Hutchinson
2017 Fee Schedule
Fee Type
2017 Fees
Notes
2016 Fees
%
Last
I
Chane
Change
Creekside
Gate Fee:
McLeod County resident leaves, grass clippings,
No Charge
ID required and bags emptied
No Charge
2001
and brush (under 6" in diameter)
Commercial Leaves and Grass Clippings
$10.00 /ton
$10.00 /ton
0.0%
2001
(bio-corp/paper bag - no plastic)
Commercial Leaves and Grass Clippings (plastic)
Not Accepted
Plastic determination is at the discretion of the monitor
Not Accepted
2001
and determined on a per load basis
Commercial Brush (under 6" in diameter)
No Charge
No Charge
2001
Logs (6" diameter or greater)
No Charge
No Charge
2001
Pallets and Crates
$24.00 /ton
$24.00 /ton
0.0%
2001
Stump Chips
No Charge
No Charge
2001
Clean Wood
No Charge
No Charge
2001
Concrete (Dirty)
$5.00 /ton
as determined by Creekside staff review
$5.00 /ton
0.0%
2001
Asphalt (Dirty)
$5.00 /ton
as determined by Creekside staff review
$5.00 /ton
0.0%
2001
Event Center
Great Room: Monday - Thursday
$350.00
Seating up to 525 dinner or 1,100 theatre
$325.00
7.7%
2014
Friday, Saturday, Holidays
$700.00
$600.00
16.7%
2014
Sunday
$400.00
$400.00
0.0%
2014
Linen Service Fee
$95.00
$95.00
0.0%
2013
Half Great Room: Monday - Thursday
$185.00
Seating up to 250 dinner or 550 theatre
$180.00
2.8%
2014
Friday, Saturday, Holidays
$375.00
$350.00
7.1%
2014
Sunday
$275.00
$275.00
0.0%
2014
Linen Service Fee
$50.00
$50.00
0.0%
2013
Quarter Great Room: Monday - Thursday
$100.00
Seating up to 100 dinner or 125 theatre
$90.00
11.1%
2001
Friday, Saturday, Holidays
$225.00
$225.00
0.0%
2014
Sunday
$175.00
$150.00
16.7%
2014
Linen Service Fee
$25.00
$25.00
0.0%
2013
Meeting Room: Ambassador
$25.00
Seating for 40 - two hour minimum
$20.00
25.0%
2001
Westlund
$25.00
$20.00
25.0%
2001
McCormick
$25.00
$20.00
25.0%
2001
Program Room: Cash Wise
$125.00
Seating for 75 - two hour minimum
$125.00
0.0%
2013
MidCountry
$20.00
Seating for 15 - two hour minimum
$20.00
0.0%
2001
Steans
$20.00
Seating for 15 - two hour minimum
$20.00
0.0%
2001
Hoefer
$20.00
Seating for 15 - two hour minimum
$20.00
0.0%
2001
I:\Finance\FEE SCHEDULES\2017 Fee Schedule\2017 Fee Schedule - PRELIMINARY Page 5 of 21 12/1/2016
I:\Finance\FEE SCHEDULES\2017 Fee Schedule\2017 Fee Schedule - PRELIMINARY Page 6 of 21 12/1/2016
City of Hutchinson
2017 Fee Schedule
Fee Type
2017 Fees
Notes
2016 Fees
%
Chane
Last
Change
LCD Projector 3500 Lumen
$300.00
$300.00
0.0%
2001
LCD Projector 1100 Lumen
$100.00
$100.00
0.0%
2001
Overhead Projector
$27.00
$27.00
0.0%
2001
Slide Projector
$27.00
$27.00
0.0%
2001
Front Truss Screen 9X12
$83.00
$83.00
0.0%
2001
Rear Truss Screen 9X13
$117.00
$117.00
0.0%
2001
Podium
$10.00
$10.00
0.0%
2001
Podium with Microphone
$35.00
$35.00
0.0%
2001
Wireless Microphone
$35.00
$35.00
0.0%
2001
TV & VCR Lap top
$30.00
$30.00
0.0%
2001
VCR/DVD/CD Player
$20.00
$20.00
0.0%
2001
Internet Connection
$20.00
$20.00
0.0%
2001
Piano
$25.00
$25.00
0.0%
2001
Security
$51 /hr/officer
For events with alcohol, we require at least one Hutchinson
police officer on duty until the end of the event (minimum of 4
hours). For groups of 250 or more, a second officer may be
required for the final 4 hours of the event. The fee for each
officer is $51 /hr. Please refer to "Rental Policy".
$51 /hr/officer
0.0%
2012
Refundable Damage Deposit
$300 /event
$300 /event
0.0%
2014
White Board/Stand 3X4
$11.00 /day
$11.00 /day
0.0%
2001
White Board/Stand 4X6
$14.00 /day
$14.00 /day
0.0%
2001
Coffee
$15.00 /30 cups Hutchinson Event Center catered events
$20.00 /50 cups Non HEC catered events
$15.00 /30 cups
$20.00 /50 cups
0.0%
0.0%
2014
2014
Tripod Screen 6'
$10.00 /day
$10.00 /day
0.0%
2001
Tripod Screen 8'
$15.00 /day
$15.00 /day
0.0%
2001
Food Fee -Large Group
$80.00 /day
$75.00 /day
6.7%
2001
Food Fee -Small Group
$50.00 /day
$50.00 /day
0.0%
2014
China/Flatware
$1.00 /place setting
Food vendor may add additional fees
$1.00 /place setting
0.0%
2013
Draper Easels
$5.00 /day
$5.00 /day
0.0%
2001
Speaker Phone
$20.00 /day
$20.00 /day
0.0%
2001
Evergreen Senior Dining
Dining Room & Kitchenette
$100.00
$100.00
0.0%
2009
Carpeted Room
$60.00
$60.00
0.0%
2009
After Hours Open or Lock-up
$50.00
$50.00
0.0%
2007
Damage Deposit
$100.00
Separate check to be returned when keys are returned
and if rooms are cleaned up and no damage has occurred
$100.00
0.0%
2007
I:\Finance\FEE SCHEDULES\2017 Fee Schedule\2017 Fee Schedule - PRELIMINARY Page 6 of 21 12/1/2016
City of Hutchinson
2017 Fee Schedule
Fee Type
2017 Fees
Notes
2016 Fees
%
Chane
Last
Change
Finance
Returned check from the bank (NSF or Closed Account) $30.00 Covers bank charge $30.00 0.0% 2010
Returned electronic payment (ACH) from the bank $30.00 Covers bank charge $30.00 0.0% 2010
Returned on-line bank payments (Utility Billing) $35.00 Covers bank charge $35.00 0.0% 2014
Lodging Tax - City of Hutchinson 3.00% per City ordinance 116.01 3.00% 0.0% 1989
Lodging Tax - penalty for late payment 10.00% per City ordinance 116.22 10.00% 0.0% 1989
Local Option Sales Tax: Applied to debt service on water and sewer facilities.
Local Sales Tax Rate 0.50% On retail sales made within, or delivered within, the city limits 0.50% 0.0% 2012
of Hutchinson. The tax applies to sales that are taxable
under the Minnesota sales and use tax laws.
Local Excise Tax $20.00 Per new or used vehicle sold by a dealer located within $20.00 0.0% 2012
Hutchinson, in lieu of the Local Sales Tax Rate.
Local Excise Tax - Late Fee 10.00% Dealers are required to report excise tax by the 15th day of N/A new in 2017
the following month. The late fee shall be imposed if not paid
by the 20th day of the following month.
Fire Department
Fire Engine
$200.00 /hr
each hour on scene
$200.00 /hr
0.0%
2014
Grass Truck/Unit
$100.00 /hr
each hour on scene
$100.00 /hr
0.0%
2010
HERT Trailer (Haz-Mat)
$50.00 /hr
Plus material and/or equipment used
$50.00 /hr
0.0%
2010
Incident Commander (IC)
$50.00 /hr
each hour on scene
$50.00 /hr
0.0%
2014
Certified Firefighter
$30.00 /hr
each hour on scene
$30.00 /hr
0.0%
2014
Platform Truck
$350.00 /hr
each hour on scene
$350.00 /hr
0.0%
2014
Rescue
$200.00 /hr
First hour on scene
$200.00 /hr
0.0%
2014
$100.00 /hr
Each hour after the first hour on scene
$100.00 /hr
0.0%
2014
Water Tanker Truck
$150.00 /hr
each hour on scene
$150.00 /hr
0.0%
2010
Repeat False Alarm
Calculated Amount
Calculation based on the apparatus and labor charges per
N/A new in 2017
hour on scene
Fire Safety Inspection
$50.00
Daycare/Foster Care units, Basic Commercial and
N/A new in 2017
Residential include one free re-inspection
Fire Incident Reports (paper or electronic copies)
$15.00
no pictures included in report
N/A new in 2017
$40.00
pictures included in report
Fireworks:
Fireworks Only Business & Tent Sales
$350.00
License fee is non-refundable, cannot be prorated,
$350.00
0.0%
2010
(Jan 1 - Dec 31)
and cannot be waived
(Jan 1 - Dec 31)
Other retailers
$100.00
License fee is non-refundable, cannot be prorated,
$100.00
0.0%
2010
(Jan 1 - Dec 31)
land cannot be waived
(Jan 1 - Dec 31)
I:\Finance\FEE SCHEDULES\2017 Fee Schedule\2017 Fee Schedule - PRELIMINARY Page 7 of 21 12/1/2016
I:\Finance\FEE SCHEDULES\2017 Fee Schedule\2017 Fee Schedule - PRELIMINARY Page 8 of 21 12/1/2016
City of Hutchinson
2017 Fee Schedule
Fee Type
2017 Fees
Notes
2016 Fees
%
Chane
Last
Change
HRA
Pre Energy Audit $250 Post Energy Audit $150
$400.00
$400.00
0.0%
2016
Subordination Request Processing Fee
$100.00
$100.00
0.0%
2003
Duplicate Document Fee
$50.00
$50.00
0.0%
2007
Loan Processing:
CRPI Rehab Loan Admin Fee
CRNPI Rehab Loan Document Preparation
$2,600.00
$350.00
Owner match to CRPI
$2,600.00
$350.00
0.0%
0.0%
2015
2015
GMHF & CRV Gap Loan Admin Fee
$500.00
$350.00
42.9%
2006
SCDP Rental Rehab Project Loan Admin Fee
13.00%
% of SCDP Loan
13.00%
0.0%
2015
HRA Entry Cost Loan Admin Fee
$400.00
$400.00
0.0%
2014
Revolving New Const. Gap Loan Admin Fee
$700.00
$700.00
0.0%
2016
Credit Report Fee
$15.00
$15.00
0.0%
2000
Lead Risk Assessment
Single Family housing (1-4 units)
$475.00
$450.00
$550.00
single request
per unit, 2 or more requests at a time
MHFA Rehab Loan Program (additional samples required)
$475.00
$450.00
$550.00
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2016
2008
2016
Lead Clearance Testing
$250.00
$75.00
for one unit
for additional units up to 4 units
$250.00
$75.00
0.0%
0.0%
2016
2016
MHFA Rehab Loan Program Admin Fee
14.00%
% of loan amount (changed from specific dollar amount)
14.00%
0.0%
2008
City Deferred Grants Administration Fee (TIF)
10.00%
% of loan amount
10.00%
0.0%
2016
FUF/CFUF & HHILP Title Search Fee
$50.00
$25.00
100.0%
2008
FUF/CFUF & HHILP Loan Document Preparation Fee
$50.00
$50.00
0.0%
2008
FUF/CFUF & HHILP Loan Origination Fee
1.00%
% of loan amount
1.00%
0.0%
2008
HRA HILP Loan Application Fee
$350.00
$350.00
0.0%
2016
Housing Quality Standards (HQS) Inspection Fee
$600.00
N/A - new in 2017
Legal
Attorney's Fees for Litigation
$100.00 /hr Charged per 1/4 hour
$100.00 /hr
0.0%
2008
Paralegal's Fees for Litigation
$50.00 /hr Charged per 1/4 hour
$50.00 /hr
0.0%
2008
Contract Review Fee
$100.00 /hr Charged per 1/4 hour
$100.00 /hr
0.0%
2008
Attorney's Fees for Rental Registration Prosecution
$100.00 /hr Charged per 1/4 hour
$100.00 /hr
0.0%
2008
Paralegal's Fees for Rental Registration Prosecution
$50.00 /hr Charged per 1/4 hour
$50.00 /hr
0.0%
2008
Dangerous Dog Designation Hearing
Up to $1,000.00
Up to $1,000.00
0.0%
2008
Licenses
Carnival
$525.00 Refundable deposit
$525.00
0.0%
2009
Dance Permit
$55.00 Short Term
$55.00
0.0%
2009
Massage Services
$175.00 January 1 - December 31
$175.00
0.0%
2009
Motorized Golf Cart
$10.00 January 1 -December 31
$10.00
0.0%
2009
ATV
$45.00 3 year license
$45.00
0.0%
2016
Short -Term Gambling
$30.00 Short Term
$30.00
0.0%
2009
I:\Finance\FEE SCHEDULES\2017 Fee Schedule\2017 Fee Schedule - PRELIMINARY Page 8 of 21 12/1/2016
I:\Finance\FEE SCHEDULES\2017 Fee Schedule\2017 Fee Schedule - PRELIMINARY Page 9 of 21 12/1/2016
City of Hutchinson
2017 Fee Schedule
Fee Type
2017 Fees Notes
2016 Fees
%
Chane
Last
Change
Garbage & Refuse Haulers:
Commercial
Residential
Recycling
Recycling
$125.00 January 1 - December 31
$125.00 January 1 -December 31
$55.00 January 1 -December 31
$30.00 /day Per Day
$125.00
$125.00
$55.00
$30.00 /day
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2009
2009
2009
2009
Peddler/Solicitor/Transient Merchant
$125.00 Per License
$125.00
0.0%
2009
Pawn Shops and Precious Metal Dealers
$125.00 January 1 -December 31
$125.00
0.0%
2009
Second Hand Goods Dealers
$125.00 January 1 -December 31
$125.00
0.0%
2009
Shows/Exhibitions
$100.00 Short Term
$100.00
0.0%
2010
Tattoo License
$175.00 January 1 -December 31
$175.00
0.0%
2009
Taxi Cab License (per cab)
$5.00 /cab January 1 -December 31
$5.00 /cab
0.0%
2009
Tobacco License
$175.00 January 1 -December 31
$175.00
0.0%
2009
Rental Housing Registration
$10.00 /unit
$10.00 /unit
0.0%
2009
Food Cart
$125.00
$125.00
0.0%
2013
Liquor:
Club Liquor License
Under 200 Members
201 - 500 Members
501 - 1000 Members
1001 - 2000 Members
2001 - 4000 Members
4001 - 6000 Members
Over 6000 Members
Maximum fee amount set by state statute
$300.00 January 1 - December 31
$500.00 January 1 - December 31
$650.00 January 1 - December 31
$800.00 January 1 - December 31
$1,000.00 January 1 - December 31
$2,000.00 January 1 - December 31
$3,000.00 January 1 - December 31
$300.00
$500.00
$650.00
$800.00
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$3,000.00
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
Consumption & Display
$250.00 January 1 - December 31
$25.00 /event Temporary
$250.00
$25.00 /event
0.0%
0.0%
2012
2012
Wine License
$425.00 January 1 - December 31
$425.00
0.0%
2009
On -Sale Intoxicating Malt Liquor & Wine License
$600.00 January 1 -December 31
$600.00
0.0%
2009
On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License
$2,000.00 January 1 -December 31 (prorate; refundable)
$2,000.00
0.0%
2015
On -Sale Sunday Intoxicating Liquor License
$125.00 January 1 -December 31
$100.00 Temporary License (One Day)
$125.00
$100.00
0.0%
0.0%
2009
2009
On -Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor License
$425.00 January 1 - December 31 (nonrefundable)
$75.00 Short Term
$425.00
$75.00
0.0%
0.0%
2009
2013
Off -Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor License
$300.00 January 1 -December 31 (nonrefundable)
$300.00
0.0%
2009
Temporary Liquor License
$125.00 minimum
$125.00 minimum
0.0%
2013
Intoxicating Liquor Investigations
$375.00 Nonrefundable
$375.00
0.0%
2009
3.2 Malt Liquor Investigations
$125.00 Nonrefundable
$125.00
0.0%
2009
Caterer's Permit
$100.00 Per Event
$300.00 Annual
$100.00
$300.00
0.0%
0.0%
2010
2010
Brewer (off -sale)
$375.00 Annual
$375.00
0.0%
2014
Brew pub off -sale
$375.00 Annual
$375.00
0.0%
2014
Taproom (on -sale)
$600.00 Annual
$600.00
0.0%
2014
I:\Finance\FEE SCHEDULES\2017 Fee Schedule\2017 Fee Schedule - PRELIMINARY Page 9 of 21 12/1/2016
I:\Finance\FEE SCHEDULES\2017 Fee Schedule\2017 Fee Schedule - PRELIMINARY Page 10 of 21 12/1/2016
City of Hutchinson
2017 Fee Schedule
Fee Type
2017 Fees
Notes
2016 Fees
%
Chane
Last
Change
Mapping and Printing
Comprehensive Plan
Book
DC
Color Copy with Foldouts
$25.00
$15.00
$75.00
Website copy available free of charge
Four books
$25.00
$15.00
$75.00
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2009
2009
2009
Subdivision Ordinance
$20.00
$20.00
0.0%
2009
Zoning Manual
$20.00
$20.00
0.0%
2009
Zoning/Shoreland/Subdivision Manual
$40.00
$40.00
0.0%
2009
Joint Planning Area Zoning Manual
$20.00
$20.00
0.0%
2009
Subdivision Agreement
$1.00 /page
$1.00 /page
0.0%
2009
8 1/2" X 11"- Black & White print
$0.25 /page
$0.25 /page
0.0%
2009
8 1/2" X 11"- Color print
$1.50 /page
$1.50 /page
0.0%
2009
Legal or Tabloid Size - Black & White print
$1.00 /page
$1.00 /page
0.0%
2009
Legal or Tabloid Size - Color print
$3.00 /page
$3.00 /page
0.0%
2009
18" X 24" - Black & White print
$1.50 /page
$1.50 /page
0.0%
2009
18" X 24" - Color print
$4.50 /page
$4.50 /page
0.0%
2009
24" X 36" - Black & White print
$3.00 /page
$3.00 /page
0.0%
2009
24" X 36" - Color print
$9.00 /page
Small city zoning map
$9.00 /page
0.0%
2009
36" X 36" - Black & White print
$4.50 /page
$4.50 /page
0.0%
2009
36" X 36" - Color print
$14.00 /page
$14.00 /page
0.0%
2009
36" X 48" - Black & White print
$6.00 /page
$6.00 /page
0.0%
2009
36" X 48" - Color print
$18.00 /page
$18.00 /page
0.0%
2009
Roll Paper Printing
$1.50 /sq.ft.
$1.50 /sq.ft.
0.0%
2009
Specialty Map preparation
$27.50 /hr Map printing at charges noted above; one hour minimum,
1/4 hour increments thereafter; must be approved by
the City IT Director
$27.50 /hr
0.0%
2009
81/2"X11"
$5.00
Color orthophoto prints
$5.00
0.0%
2009
Legal or Tabloid
$9.00
Color orthophoto prints
$9.00
0.0%
2009
18" X 24"
$20.00
Color orthophoto prints
$20.00
0.0%
2009
24" X 36"
$30.00
Color orthophoto prints
$30.00
0.0%
2009
36" X 36"
$40.00
Color orthophoto prints
$40.00
0.0%
2009
36" X 48"
$50.00
lColor orthophoto prints
$50.00
0.0%
2009
Digital Data Orthophoto
$550 /sq.mile
Minimum charge of $550.00
$550 /sq.mile
0.0%
2009
Digital Data Contours
$550 /sq.mile
Minimum charge of $550.00
$550 /sq.mile
0.0%
2009
Digital Data Planimetrics
$250 /sq.mile
Minimum charge of $250.00
$250 /sq.mile
0.0%
2009
Purchase a combination of all three data sets for $1,350 /sq.mile not to exceed a maximum charge of $18,100
Special mapping requests = Data Price + $50 /hr
All data is provided in Arcview Shape File format on a CD
An additional $50 charge will be applied to digital data converted to a .dxf format for CAD systems
The City reserves the right to waive fees by Council direction for other governmental organizations. Commercial -type printing of private,
non -city materials (i.e. building plans, site drawings, etc) or map preparation for private use is not allowed.
I:\Finance\FEE SCHEDULES\2017 Fee Schedule\2017 Fee Schedule - PRELIMINARY Page 10 of 21 12/1/2016
City of Hutchinson
2017 Fee Schedule
Fee Type
2017 Fees
Notes
2016 Fees
%
Last
Chane
Change
Parks, Recreation & Community Education
Youth Sports/Activities:
Adaptive Recreation
$5.00 /session
per session
$4.00 /session
25.0%
2009
T -Ball / Baseball (K - Grade 2)
$40.00
14 sessions
$40.00
0.0%
2013
Girls Softball (Grades 1 - 4)
$40.00
14 sessions
$40.00
0.0%
2013
Baseball (Grades 2 - 5)
Fee to Association
14 sessions - Association determines the fee
$40.00
2013
Basketball: Preschool
Fee to Association
7 sessions - Association determines the fee
$20.00
2011
K - Grade 2
Fee to Association
7 sessions - Association determines the fee
$30.00
2011
Grades 3 - 4
Fee to Association
14 sessions - Association determines the fee
$40.00
2013
Grades 5 - 6
Fee to Association
24 sessions - Association determines the fee
$70.00
2013
Football: Flag
$30.00
7 sessions
$30.00
0.0%
2013
Tackle
$50.00
14 sessions
$50.00
0.0%
2013
Soccer: Indoor
$25.00
6 sessions
$25.00
0.0%
2013
Outdoor: Grades K-3
$35.00
6 sessions
$35.00
0.0%
2011
Outdoor: Grades 4-6
$40.00
12 sessions
$40.00
0.0%
2013
Figure Skating: Tots -Delta
$57.00
14 sessions
$57.00
0.0%
2013
Sunday Practice
$67.00
14 sessions
$67.00
0.0%
2013
Open Skating Pass: Students/Seniors
$45.00
$45.00
0.0%
2011
Adults
$55.00
$55.00
0.0%
2011
Families
$75.00
$75.00
0.0%
2011
Open Skating: Sunday
$2.00 /day
per youth per day
$2.00 /day
0.0%
2001
Non -School Days
$3.00 /day
per adult per day
$3.00 /day
0.0%
2001
School Days
$2.00 /day
per adult per day
$2.00 /day
0.0%
2001
School Days
$3.00 /day
per family per day
$3.00 /day
0.0%
2001
Family Hour
$3.00 /day
per adults
$3.00 /day
0.0%
2001
Family Hour
$5.00 /day
per family
$5.00 /day
0.0%
2001
Swimming Lessons
$45.00
10lessons
$38.00
18.4%
2011
Open Swim
TBD -New Waterpark
per person per day
$3.00 /day
2001
TBD -New Waterpark
per family (Family Hour)
$6.00 /day
2001
Swim Package
TBD -New Waterpark
10 swims
$25.00
2001
TBD -New Waterpark
senior citizen
$30.00
2001
Household Swim Package:
1 member
TBD -New Waterpark
$50.00
2011
2 members
TBD -New Waterpark
$60.00
2011
3 members
TBD -New Waterpark
$70.00
2011
4 members
TBD -New Waterpark
$80.00
2011
5 members
TBD -New Waterpark
$90.00
2011
6 members
TBD -New Waterpark
$100.00
2011
7 members
TBD -New Waterpark
$110.00
2011
Adult Sports:
Men's Basketball
$12.00
per game per team
$12.00
0.0%
2013
Slowpitch Softball (Umpired Leagues)
$12.00
per game per team
$12.00
0.0%
2013
I:\Finance\FEE SCHEDULES\2017 Fee Schedule\2017 Fee Schedule - PRELIMINARY Page 11 of 21 12/1/2016
City of Hutchinson
2017 Fee Schedule
Fee Type
2017 Fees
Notes
2016 Fees
%
Last
I
Chane
Change
Volleyball: Co-Rec
$12.00
per match per team
$12.00
0.0%
2013
Men's
$12.00
per match per team
$12.00
0.0%
2013
Sand
$50.00
per team 10 matches
$50.00
0.0%
2013
Women's
$12.00
per match per team
$12.00
0.0%
2013
Open Basketball
$2.00
1per person
1 $2.00
1 0.0%
1 2001
Open Hockey
$5.00 /day
1per person per day
1$5.00 /day
0.0%
1 2001
Other Fees:
West River Park Camping:
Electric Hook -Up
$25.00
$20.00
25.0%
2014
Water, Sewer, Electric
$30.00
$25.00
20.0%
2014
Field Rental
$15.00
1 1/2 hours
$15.00
0.0%
2014
VMF Field: Day Game
$45.00
$40.00
12.5%
2014
Night Game
$90.00
$80.00
12.5%
2014
Shelter reservation
$20.00
per day
$20.00
0.0%
2007
$40.00
or or
$40.00
0.0%
2014
Depot building rental - 25 Adams St SE
$10.00 /hr
4 hour minimum
$10.00
0.0%
2016
Church rental - 105 2nd Ave SE
$50.00 /hr
2 hour minimum
$50.00
0.0%
2016
Bleachers
$20.00
per 3 rows
$20.00
0.0%
2007
Picnic Tables
$15.00
With three-day rental, will move tables; four table minimum
$15.00
0.0%
2016
Garden Plot
$35.00
10' x 20'
$35.00
0.0%
2009
Open Gym Daily
$3.00
per person
$3.00
0.0%
2014
Open Gym Pass
$45.00
per person
$45.00
0.0%
2014
Indoor Playground: Child
$2.00
per child
$2.00
0.0%
2009
Family
$3.00
per family
$3.00
0.0%
2009
Family Playground Pass
$45.00
$45.00
0.0%
2014
Rec Center and Civic Arena (dry floor):
First Full Day
$600.00
per day
$600.00
0.0%
2001
Half Day
$350.00
1/2 day
$350.00
0.0%
2010
Additional Day
$300.00
each additional day
$300.00
0.0%
2001
Youth
$40.00 /hr
per hour
$40.00 /hr
0.0%
2013
Rec Center: Basketball Rental
$20.00
per court per hour
$20.00
0.0%
2013
Volleyball Rental
$17.50
per court per hour
$17.50
0.0%
2009
Swimming Pool
$60.00
per hour
$60.00
0.0%
2009
Lobby
$15.00
per hour
$15.00
0.0%
2009
Civic Arena: Ice Time
$160.00 /hr
per hour
$150.00 /hr
6.7%
2013
Summer Ice
$160.00 /hr
per hour
$150.00 /hr
6.7%
2013
Roberts Park Tournament Fee
$45.00
per field per day
$45.00
0.0%
2013
Transfers
$4.00
per person per class
$4.00
0.0%
2010
Cancellations
$4.00
deducted from refund
$4.00
0.0%
2010
***Team Fees Are Non -Refundable'
I:\Finance\FEE SCHEDULES\2017 Fee Schedule\2017 Fee Schedule - PRELIMINARY Page 12 of 21 12/1/2016
City of Hutchinson
2017 Fee Schedule
Fee Type
2017 Fees
Notes
2016 Fees
%
Last
I
Chane
Change
Plan Review
Plan Review is 65% of the building permit fee
Plan Review Fee for similar plans is 25% of Building Permit Fee (per MN Rule 1300.0160)
All other non-specified valuations to be determined by Building Official.
State Surcharge Fee:
Permits with Fixed Fees
$5.00
Surcharge for mobile home, demolition, moving, excavation,
$5.00
0.0%
2011
$1.00 after 6/30/2015
residential reroof, residential reside, residential window or
door replacement, and utility sheds over 200 sq.ft.
Valuation up to $1,000,000
Mil (.0005) X
Mil (.0005) X Valuations up to $1,000,000
Mil (.0005) X
2011
Valuations
Valuations
$1,000,000 to $2,000,000
Valuation -
Valuation - $1,000,000 X.0004 + $500.00
Valuation -
2011
$1,000,000 X.0004
$1,000,000 X.0004
+$500.00
+$500.00
$2,000,000 to $3,000,000
Valuation -
Valuation - $2,000,000 X.0003 + $900.00
Valuation -
2011
$2,000,000 X.0003
$2,000,000 X.0003
+$900.00
+$900.00
$3,000,000 to $4,000,000
Valuation -
Valuation - $3,000,000 X.0002 + $1,200.00
Valuation -
2011
$3,000,000 X.0002
$3,000,000 X.0002
+$1,200.00
+$1,200.00
$4,000,000 to $5,000,000
Valuation -
Valuation - $4,000,000 X.0001 + $1,400.00
Valuation -
2011
$4,000,000 X.0001
$4,000,000 X.0001
+$1,400.00
+$1,400.00
$5,000,000 and over
Valuation -
Valuation - $5,000,000 X .00005 + $1,500.00
Valuation -
2011
$5,000,000 X.00005
$5,000,000 X.00005
+$1,500.00
+$1,500.00
Planning and Land Use
Variances
$350.00
Includes recording fees
$300.00
16.7%
2011
Conditional Use Permits
$350.00
Includes recording fees
$300.00
16.7%
2011
Rezoning
$425.00
Includes recording fees
$375.00
13.3%
2011
Vacation of street, alley, or easement
$375.00
Includes recording fees
$375.00
0.0%
2011
Lot Splits (Single and Two Family)
$225.00
Includes recording fees
$175.00
28.6%
2011
Lot Splits (Multiple Family, Commercial, Industrial)
$300.00
Includes recording fees
$250.00
20.0%
2011
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
$350.00
$300.00
16.7%
2011
Planned Unit Development
$600.00
Includes recording fees
$500.00
20.0%
2011
Platting: Preliminary Plat
$450.00
Plus recording and legal fees
$400.00
12.5%
2011
+ $10 per lot
+ $10 per lot
Final Plat
$250.00
Plus recording and legal fees
$200.00
25.0%
2011
+ $10 per lot
+ $10 per lot
Site Plan
$400.00
$250.00
60.0%
2011
I:\Finance\FEE SCHEDULES\2017 Fee Schedule\2017 Fee Schedule - PRELIMINARY Page 13 of 21 12/1/2016
I:\Finance\FEE SCHEDULES\2017 Fee Schedule\2017 Fee Schedule - PRELIMINARY Page 14 of 21 12/1/2016
City of Hutchinson
2017 Fee Schedule
Fee Type
2017 Fees Notes
2016 Fees
%
Chane
Last
Change
Annexation
$450.00 Includes annexation fee to be paid to State
+ $5 per acre
$450.00
+ $5 per acre
0.0%
2011
Sign Permit
$1.00 /sq.ft. Per square foot with a minimum fee of $60.00
$60.00 minimum
$1.00 /sq.ft.
$60.00 minimum
0.0%
2011
Sandwich Board Sign Permit
$60.00 Per year
$60.00
0.0%
2011
Portable/Temporary Sign Permit
$60.00 Per permit, three permits per calendar year
$60.00
0.0%
2011
Fence Permit
$50.00
$50.00
0.0%
2011
After the Fact
Double permit fee
Double permit fee
Special Meeting
Double permit fee Includes $30 payment to Planning Commissioners
in attendance
Double permit fee
Zoning Letters
$30.00 Per property address
$30.00
0.0%
2011
Flood Zoning Letters
$30.00 Per property address
$30.00
0.0%
2011
Trees
$300.00 Per tree
$300.00
0.0%
2012
Residential Curb Cut, Driveway Apron, and Hard
Surfacing Driveway Permit
$50.00
$50.00
0.0%
2011
Commercial Parking Lot
$150.00 Overlay
$300.00 Reconstruction
$150.00
$300.00
0.0%
0.0%
2016
2016
NOTE: Application fees include public hearing publication, preparation of maps, public notice mailings, agenda preparation, meetings, site visits,
filing fees for the County, administrative expenses, etc.
Police Department
Animal License Tag (Dog/Cat)
$10.00
$10.00
0.0%
2007
Dangerous Dog Designation Registration
$50.00
$50.00
0.0%
2009
Animal Impound
$50.00
$50.00
0.0%
2007
Animal Maintenance/Kennel Fee:
Initial kennel fee - first day
Dogs - kennel fee after first day
Cats - kennel fee after first day
Vaccination fee
Testing fee
$35.00
$16.00 /day
$11.00 /day
$5.00
$25.00
applies to both cats and dogs
per day following the initial kennel fee
per day following the initial kennel fee
applies to both cats and dogs
applies to cats only
$35.00
$16.00 /day
$11.00 /day
$5.00
$25.00
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
Vehicle Impound Storage
$10.00 /day
Per day
$10.00 /day
0.0%
2007
Court Ordered Breath Tests
$25.00 /week
Per week
$25.00 /week
0.0%
2007
Finger Printing
$20.00
$20.00
0.0%
2007
Police Report Copies:
Walk In
Mail or Fax
$0.25 /page
$5.00
Per page
$0.25 /page
$5.00
0.0%
0.0%
2007
2007
Police Service of Papers
$45.00
$45.00
0.0%
2015
Photographs
$2.00 /page
Per page
$2.00 /page
0.0%
2007
Audio/Video Magnetic Media
$30.00 /item
Per item
$30.00 /item
0.0%
2007
Bicycle Licenses
$5.00
$5.00
0.0%
2007
Automated Pawn Services
$1.50
$1.50
0.0%
2007
Citizen Weapon Storage
$1.00 /day
New state law allows citizens to bring personal weapons into
the Police Department for safekeeping.
$1.00 /day
0.0%
2015
I:\Finance\FEE SCHEDULES\2017 Fee Schedule\2017 Fee Schedule - PRELIMINARY Page 14 of 21 12/1/2016
I:\Finance\FEE SCHEDULES\2017 Fee Schedule\2017 Fee Schedule - PRELIMINARY Page 15 of 21 12/1/2016
City of Hutchinson
2017 Fee Schedule
Fee Type
2017 Fees
Notes
2016 Fees
%
Chane
Last
Change
The following are court assessed fees for violation of specific ordinances.
ATV Traffic Control Regulations
$125.00
73.15
$125.00
0.0%
2012
City Parking Lots & Rams
$25.00
72.08
$25.00
0.0%
2012
Dog at Large
$50.00
Ordinance No. 93.18
$50.00
0.0%
2012
Dog Without License
$25.00
93.18
$25.00
0.0%
2012
Drive through private property to avoid traffic control device
$85.00
71.08
$85.00
0.0%
2012
Emergency Parking Prohibition
$100.00
72.05
$100.00
0.0%
2012
Equipment Requirements/Muffler
$50.00
73.03
$50.00
0.0%
2012
Excessive Vehicle Noise Prohibited
$85.00
71.11
$85.00
0.0%
2012
Fail to Remove Animal Waste
$30.00
93.01
$30.00
0.0%
2012
Fire Lanes; Rush Hour Traffic
$50.00
72.13
$50.00
0.0%
2012
Loading Zone
$25.00
72.09
$25.00
0.0%
2012
Moto r-home/Trai le r/Rec vehicle park restriction
$25.00
72.07
$25.00
0.0%
2012
Motorized Scooters
$85.00
73.17
$85.00
0.0%
2012
No Burning Permit in Possession
$100.00
92.62
$100.00
0.0%
2012
No Parkin
$25.00
Ordinance No. 72.04 (b) 3
$25.00
0.0%
2012
No Parking -Bike Lane
$25.00
70.05
$25.00
0.0%
2012
No Parking -Snow Emergency
$50.00
72.15
$50.00
0.0%
2012
Nuisance Parkin
$25.00
Ordinance No. 92.19
$25.00
0.0%
2012
Parallel Parking
$25.00
72.02
$25.00
0.0%
2012
Parking for Advertising or Sale Prohibited
$50.00
72.11
$50.00
0.0%
2012
Parking/Standing/Stopping Prohibited
$25.00
72.01
$25.00
0.0%
2012
Physically Handicapped Parkin
$200.00
72.12
$200.00
0.0%
2012
Possession of uncased loaded firearm
$125.00
130.05
$125.00
0.0%
2012
Residential zoning district violation
$40.00
154.056
$40.00
0.0%
2012
Traffic Congestion Street/Restriction/Exemption
$25.00
71.06
$25.00
0.0%
2012
Truck Parking Restricted
$25.00
72.06
$25.00
0.0%
2012
Use of Bike/Skateboards/Rollerskates/Like
$25.00
73.31
$25.00
0.0%
2012
U -Turns Restriction
$25.00
71.04
$25.00
0.0%
2012
Vehicle repair on street/public parking lot restriction
$85.00
72.1
$85.00
0.0%
2012
Violate Angle Parking Ordinance
$25.00
72.03
$25.00
0.0%
2012
Violate motorized golf cart ordinance
$50.00
173.16
$50.00
1 0.0%
1 2012
Violation of Time Limit Parking
$25.00
172.04
$25.00
1 0.0%
1 2012
Water Shortages/Rest Use/Hours
$100.00
jordinance No. 52.06
$100.00
1 0.0%
1 2012
I:\Finance\FEE SCHEDULES\2017 Fee Schedule\2017 Fee Schedule - PRELIMINARY Page 15 of 21 12/1/2016
City of Hutchinson
2017 Fee Schedule
Fee Type
2017 Fees
Notes
2016 Fees
%
Last
Chane
Change
Public Works
Engineering:
" Design Review
3.00%
Review of site and grading plans and/or plans and
3.00%
0.0%
2002
specifications prepared by developer, or preliminary
engineering of reconstruction plans.
Final Design
6.00%
Preparation of project plans and specifications in-house.
6.00%
0.0%
2002
Construction Review and Staking
6.00%
Includes on-site and off-site construction services. Private
6.00%
0.0%
2002
developers must provide survey control and may complete
this work with a consultant approved by the City and pay
these costs directly.
" Preliminary Development
1.00%
Plan review, City approval process, and preparation of
1.00%
0.0%
2002
developer, subdivision and/or development agreements.
Contact Administration
2.00%
Assessment roll preparation, MN Statute 429 review, and
2.00%
0.0%
2002
contract administration and review.
" Comprehensive Planning
2.00%
Comprehensive/infrastructure/system planning and
2.00%
0.0%
2014
improvement project studies/reports.
Topographic Mapping
1.00%
GIS system and topographic mapping administration.
1.00%
0.0%
2014
" Housing needs fund
1.00%
Funding for HRA program supporting housing needs within
1.00%
0.0%
2002
the community. The HRA Board may waive this fee on
projects meeting HRA Housing goals. Not applied to
reconstruction or trunk utility improvements.
Standard City Rate:
Redevelopment/Newly Annexed
21.00%
Redevelopment and newly annexed (does not include
21.00%
0.0%
2014
"Housing Needs Fund")
New Development
22.00%
New development (includes "Housing Needs Fund"). The
22.00%
0.0%
2014
City retains the right to approve which projects will be
completed utilizing municipal financing based on guidelines
approved by the City Council.
Developer Designed & Financed Rate
7.00%
Minimum rate, including all items noted with asterisk (').
7.00%
0.0%
2014
Private development projects utilizing more City services will
be charged based on rates noted above.
Hutchinson HRA may waive the 1 % Housing Needs Fund fee
based on low-income housing being included in the project.
Engineering: Plans & Specs (paper)
$80.00
Per set fee
$80.00
0.0%
2002
Engineering: Plans & Specs (download set)
$20.00
Per set fee
$20.00
0.0%
2002
The City retains the right to engage a consultant to complete a portion of the Engineering and Project Administration. The developer shall have the
preliminary and final plat approved prior to work commencing on final design. Financial assurance/bonding may be required for improvement being
completed by private developers. The developer shall meet all design standards and financial surety requirements of the City.
I:\Finance\FEE SCHEDULES\2017 Fee Schedule\2017 Fee Schedule - PRELIMINARY Page 16 of 21 12/1/2016
City of Hutchinson
2017 Fee Schedule
Fee Type
2017 Fees
Notes
2016 Fees
%
Chane
Last
Change
Typical Residential Improvement Assessment Rates:
Total street reconstruction $80.00 Per adjusted front foot $80.00 0.0% 2010
Partial street reconstruction $65.00 Per adjusted front foot $65.00 0.0% 2013
Street rehabilitation $52.50 Per adjusted front foot $52.50 0.0% 2013
Mill/overlay of street $30.00 Per adjusted front foot $30.00 0.0% 2010
Water service lateral $3,000.00 or based on actual construction costs $3,000.00 0.0% 2010
Sewer service lateral $3,000.00 or based on actual construction costs $3,000.00 0.0% 2010
SAC (Sewer Availability Charge) $2,300.00 Residential per MCES criteria & Commercial/Industrial per $2,300.00 0.0% 2011
MCES with initial unit + 50% of additional units
WAC (Water Availability Charge) $1,750.00 Residential per MCES criteria & Commercial/Industrial per $1,750.00 0.0% 2011
MCES with initial unit + 50% of additional units
Assessment Search $30.00 $30.00 0.0% 2011
Water Rates:
Base charge
$7.35
Per water meter
$7.35
0.0%
2011
Usage (Residential, Retail, Commercial, Industrial)
To 150,000 gallons per month
151,000 to 3,000,000 gallons per month
Over 3,000,000 gallons per month
$4.34
$3.18
$2.36
$4.34
$3.18
$2.36
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2011
2011
2011
Water Service Repair
$0.50
Per water meter per month
$0.50
0.0%
2011
Bulk water
$45.00
Deposit for key rental
$45.00
0.0%
2011
Key rental fee (Month or partial month)
$45.00
Month or partial month
$45.00
0.0%
2011
Lost key
$585.00
$585.00
0.0%
2011
Set up fee
$25.00
Set up fee for putting a metered valve onto a hydrant for bulk
water loading / use
$25.00
0.0%
2016
Per load
$20.00
South Park loaded by City staff
$20.00
0.0%
2011
Per load
$20.00
2 load/day, hydrant fills
$20.00
0.0%
2011
Load Charge
$8.00
per 1,000 gallon (rounded to nearest 1,000 ga.)
$20 minimum
$8.00
0.0%
2015
Disconnect/Reconnecting Accounts
Leaving for Winter, or foreclosures (scheduled)
Delinquent Accounts
Reconnect after hours, weekends, holiday
$30.00
$40.00
$100.00
$30 for disconnect; $30 for reconnect
$40 for disconnect; $40 for reconnect
$30.00
$40.00
$100.00
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2011
2011
2011
Water Meter Fees:
3/4" X 5/8" $265.00 Connections and flanges included $265.00 0.0% 2016
1" $360.00 ' meter pricing includes water meter transmitter $360.00 0.0% 2016
1.5' Turbo $1,075.00 $1,075.00 0.0% 2016
1.5' Compound $1,510.00 $1,510.00 0.0% 2016
2" Compound $1,730.00 $1,730.00 0.0% 2016
2" Turbo $1,250.00 $1,250.00 0.0% 2016
3" Compound $2,150.00 Water department staff will approve/disapprove or $2,150.00 0.0% 2011
3" Turbo $1,540.00 require application of turbo or compound meters. $1,540.00 0.0% 2016
4" Compound $3,550.00 $3,550.00 0.0% 2016
I:\Finance\FEE SCHEDULES\2017 Fee Schedule\2017 Fee Schedule - PRELIMINARY Page 17 of 21 12/1/2016
I:\Finance\FEE SCHEDULES\2017 Fee Schedule\2017 Fee Schedule - PRELIMINARY Page 18 of 21 12/1/2016
City of Hutchinson
2017 Fee Schedule
Fee Type
2017 Fees
Notes
2016 Fees
%
Chane
Last
I Change
4" Turbo
$2,775.00
Water department staff will approve/disapprove or
require application of turbo or compound meters.
$2,775.00
0.0%
2016
6" Compound $6,000.00
$6,000.00 0.0°k
2016
6" Turbo $4,890.00
$4,890.00 0.0%
2016
Water meter testing fee
$50.00
Plus all direct costs for testing by others
$50.00
0.0%
2012
Water meter transmitter
1$125.00
jAs needed, determined by the Water Dept.
$125.00
1 0.0%
1 2015
Telecommunications Application Fee:
Single User per frequency pair
$0 - Eliminated
$336.00
-100.0%
2012
Telecommunication permit application
$775.00
$775.00
0.0%
2012
Multi-user ESMR
$0 - Eliminated
$1,059.00
-100.0%
2012
Lease rates
Negotiated
Negotiated
Sewer Rates:
Base charge (CATEGORY A)
$6.41
Per connection
$6.41
0.0%
2011
Usage (CATEGORY A)
$6.42
Based upon January/February 30 day avg water usage
$6.42
0.0%
2011
Base charge (CATEGORY B)
$6.41
Per connection
$6.41
0.0%
2011
Usage (CATEGORY B)
$5.75
Based upon January/February 30 day avg water usage
$5.75
0.0%
2011
Load charges:
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
Total Kjedahl Nitrogen (TKN)
Suspended Solids
Phosphorous (P)
$0.43
$1.16
$0.40
$5.82
Greater than 140 mg/I
Greater than 50 mg/I
Greater than 310 mg/I
Greater than 6 mg/I
$0.43
$1.16
$0.40
$5.82
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2010
2010
2010
2010
Industrial Pretreatment Program Fees:
New permit application fee
Sewer users < 25,000 gals/day and Haulers
Sewer users > 25,000 gals/day
$100.00
$400.00
Permit application fee
Permit application fee
$100.00
$400.00
0.0%
0.0%
2006
2006
Annual Permit Fee
Haulers
Sewer Users < 25,000 gals/day
Sewer Users 25,000 to 100,000 gals/day
Sewer Users > 100,000 gals/day
Annual site inspection fee
$100.00
$700.00
$1,400.00
$2,100.00
$100.00
per year
per year
per year
per year
$100.00
$700.00
$1,400.00
$2,100.00
$100.00
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
Sampling and Lab costs
at Cost
at Cost
2006
State and Legal Costs
at Cost
at Cost
2006
Limits Exceedance Fees
$150.00
per pollutant per sampling period
$150.00
0.0%
2006
Hauling Waste Fees
Portable Toilets Waste
Truck tipping fee
$6.00
per 100 gallons
$6.00
0.0%
2006
Municipal WWTP Sludge
Truck tipping fee
Sludge volume fee
$50.00
$325.00
per truck load
per dry ton
$50.00
$325.00
0.0%
0.0%
2006
2006
I:\Finance\FEE SCHEDULES\2017 Fee Schedule\2017 Fee Schedule - PRELIMINARY Page 18 of 21 12/1/2016
City of Hutchinson
2017 Fee Schedule
Fee Type
2017 Fees
Notes
2016 Fees
%
Chane
Last
Change
Storm Water Utility:
Golf Course, Park, Open Space $5.42 $5.24 3.4% 2016
Single & Two -Family Residential $4.17 $4.03 3.5% 2016
Public/Private School & Institutional $21.03 $20.36 3.3% 2016
Multi -Family Residential & Church $29.90 $28.94 3.3% 2016
Commercial & Industrial $53.49 $51.78 3.3% 2016
Lots 1 to 2 acres $7.24 $7.01 3.3% 2016
Lots 2 to 3 acres $12.63 $12.23 3.3% 2016
Lots 3 to 4 acres $18.01 $17.43 3.3% 2016
Lots 4 to 5 acres $23.41 $22.66 3.3% 2016
Lots over 5 acres See Resolution No. 11637
Drainage/Erosion Control permit $35.00 Drainage connection $35.00 0.0% 2012
$35.00 < 5,000 ft 2 disturbed $35.00 0.0% 2012
$100.00 5,000 ft2 - 1 acre disturbed $100.00 0.0% 2012
$200.00 1 to 5 acres disturbed $200.00 0.0% 2012
$300.00 IMore than 5 acres disturbed $300.00 0.0% 2012
Garbage Rates:
Standard weekly service
30 -gallon container
60 -gallon container
90 -gallon container
$20.12
$29.02
$39.92
per month charge
per month charge
per month charge
$20.12
$29.02
$39.92
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2008
2008
2008
Standard bi-weekly service
30 -gallon container
60 -gallon container
90 -gallon container
$14.16
N/A
N/A
per month charge
not available
not available
$14.16
N/A
N/A
0.0%
2008
Weekly valet service
30 -gallon container
60 -gallon container
90 -gallon container
$28.46
$37.36
$48.26
per month charge
per month charge
per month charge
$28.46
$37.36
$48.26
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2008
2008
2008
Senior Citizens/Low Income Rate
Bi -weekly standard service
Bi -weekly valet service (low income)
Senior citizen reduced rate (low income)
Senior citizen reduced valet
Senior citizen reduced bi-weekly valet
$14.16
$19.79
$2.50
$10.84
$6.67
30 -gallon container; per month charge
30 -gallon container, per month charge
per month charge
per month charge
per month charge
$14.16
$19.79
$2.50
$10.84
$6.67
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
Cart delivery fee
$10.00
$10.00
0.0%
2007
Stickers for extra garbage bag service
$2.00
stickers available at City Center Administration window
$2.00
0.0%
2007
Compost Carts
First 95 gallon cart
Second 95 gallon cart (optional)
$0.00
1$100.00
free service
jannual billing - not to be prorated if cancelled within year
$0.00
$100.00
0.0%
1 0.0%
2007
2016
I:\Finance\FEE SCHEDULES\2017 Fee Schedule\2017 Fee Schedule - PRELIMINARY Page 19 of 21 12/1/2016
City of Hutchinson
2017 Fee Schedule
Fee Type
2017 Fees
Notes
2016 Fees
%
Chane
Last
Change
Cemetery:
Flush marker grave space
$790.00
$750.00
5.3%
2012
Upright memorial grave space
$1,030.00
$980.00
5.1%
2012
Second right of interment
$430.00
$410.00
4.9%
2012
Baby section grave space
$140.00
$135.00
3.7%
2012
Flush marker cremation grave space
$430.00
$410.00
4.9%
2012
Upright memorial cremation grave space
$1,030.00
$980.00
5.1%
2012
Cremation grave space
$430.00
$410.00
4.9%
2012
Columbarium Niches Upper 3 rows
Lower 2 rows
Columbarium Shelter - all units
$1,730.00
$1,350.00
$1,950.00
$1,650.00
$1,295.00
$1,950.00
4.8%
4.2%
0.0%
2012
2012
2015
Replacement Bronze Plaque
$380.00
$360.00
5.6%
2012
Weekday interment
$790.00
$750.00
5.3%
2012
Weekend/Holiday interment
$1,030.00
$980.00
5.1%
2012
Winter weekday interment
$925.00
$880.00
5.1%
2012
Winter weekend/holiday interment
$1,140.00
$1,085.00
5.1%
2012
Weekday Baby interment
$300.00
$285.00
5.3%
2012
Weekend/Holiday Baby interment
$540.00
$515.00
4.9%
2012
Winter weekday Baby interment
$600.00
$570.00
5.3%
2012
Winter weekend/holiday Baby interment
$650.00
$620.00
4.8%
2012
Weekday cremation in -ground inurnment
$415.00
$395.00
5.1%
2015
Weekend/Holiday cremation in -ground inurnment
$655.00
$625.00
4.8%
2015
Winter weekday cremation in -ground inurnment
$535.00
$510.00
4.9%
2015
Winter weekend/holiday cremation in -ground inurnment
$770.00
$735.00
4.8%
2015
Vaulted cremains (additional charge)
$240.00
$230.00
4.3%
2012
Inurnment - Columbaria: Weekday
Weekend/Holiday
Winter weekday
Winter weekend/holiday
$360.00
$570.00
$465.00
$670.00
$360.00
$570.00
$465.00
$670.00
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2015
2015
2015
2015
Late charges (funerals arrive after 4pm)
$215.00
$205.00
4.9%
2012
Disinterment
$1,650.00
$1,550.00
6.5%
2012
Holding vault fee
$135.00
$130.00
3.8%
2012
Stone setting permit
$80.00
$80.00
0.0%
2012
Cemetery deed transfer
$15.00
Rate set by Statute
$15.00
0.0%
2008
Chapel rental
$275.00
Per 1/2 day
$260.00
5.8%
2012
Memorial Bench Program
Single bronze plaque
Double bronze plaque
Engraved name/date per space
$550.00
$760.00
$275.00
$520.00
$725.00
$260.00
5.8%
4.8%
5.8%
2012
2012
2012
Commemorative Bench Program
No memorial on bench; placed by Cemetery
Recording fee
$2,500.00
$80.00
$2,375.00
$80.00
5.3%
0.0%
2012
2012
Affidavit of Ownership
$80.00
Claim of ownership by decent of title
$80.00
0.0%
2012
I:\Finance\FEE SCHEDULES\2017 Fee Schedule\2017 Fee Schedule - PRELIMINARY Page 20 of 21 12/1/2016
I:\Finance\FEE SCHEDULES\2017 Fee Schedule\2017 Fee Schedule - PRELIMINARY Page 21 of 21 12/1/2016
City of Hutchinson
2017 Fee Schedule
Fee Type
2017 Fees
Notes
2016 Fees
%
Chane
Last
Change
H.A.T.S. Facility:
Fuel Charges
1$0.12
J$0.05 fuel system; $0.02 fuel treatment; $0.05 equip wash
$0.12
1 0.0%
2009
Airport:
City -owned hangars:
Hangars #1 /9-1/18
Hangars #2/1-2/8
Hangars #3/2-3/4; 3/6-3/8
Hangars #3/1 & 3/5
Hangars #4/1-4/8
$40.00
$85.00
$120.00
$210.00
$110.00
Per month.
Per month.
Per month.
Per month.
Per month.
$40.00
$85.00
$120.00
$210.00
$110.00
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2014
2015
2014
2014
2015
City -owned storage spaces - Hangar #4
$40.00
Per month.
$40.00
0.0%
2014
Privately -owned hangar spaces:
General Aviation
Commercial
$0.0380
$0.1260
per sq. ft. every other year (next adjustment in 2018)
per sq. ft. every other year (next adjustment in 2018)
$0.0380
$0.1260
0.0%
0.0%
2016
2016
Operations & Maintenance:
Labor rate
$50.00 /hr Add $20/hr for premium/overtime pay
$50.00 /hr
0.0%
2012
Administrative fee
$50.00
$50.00
0.0%
2010
Mailbox reimbursement
$250.00
Reimbursement to property owners for damaged mailbox not
$250.00
0.0%
2016
Asphalt patching material
$270.00 /ton
Per ton
$270.00 /ton
0.0%
2016
Other materials
Quoted
Quoted
Equipment rental rates
See most recent FEMA reimbursement rates + 20%
+ Operator cost + Fuel surcharge
I:\Finance\FEE SCHEDULES\2017 Fee Schedule\2017 Fee Schedule - PRELIMINARY Page 21 of 21 12/1/2016
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL ci=v-f�
Request for Board Action 7AL =-WZ
Agenda Item: Resolution 14651 Transferring Funds to the 2014 Construction Fund
Department: Finance
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 12/27/2016
Application Complete N/A
Contact: Andy Reid
Agenda Item Type:
Presenter:
Reviewed by Staff ❑
Consent Agenda
Time Requested (Minutes):
License Contingency N/A
Attachments: Yes
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OFAGENDA ITEM:
The 2014 Construction fund currently reflects a negative fund balance of $81,788.19 due to cost overruns in the 2014
Pavement Management Program. The 2014 construction projects are complete and the final portion of Municipal
State Aid was recorded in 2016. The fund will be closed as of 12/31/2016, however the deficit must be resolved prior
to the closing.
I am recommending the transfer of funds from the Capital Projects fund into the 2014 Construction fund to resolve the
deficit. The funds would actually come out of the Miscellaneous Infrastructure Plan dollars that are set aside within
the Capital Projects fund. As you may recall, we annually set aside $250,000 of LGA to address infrastructure
maintenance needs. The current fund balance for this plan is approximately $140K as of 11/30/2016 with another
$250,000 of LGA to be added in 2017.
The aquatic center project is currently consuming a good portion of unreserved funds within the Capital Projects and
Community Improvement funds leaving our options somewhat limited for funding this deficit. We may have
opportunities in the future to replenish the Miscellaneous Infrastructure dollars.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve the fund transfer per Resolution 14651.
Fiscal Impact: $ 81,788.19 Funding Source: Capital Projects - Misc. Infrastructure Plan
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. 14651
TRANSFERRING FROM THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
TO THE 2014 IMPROVEMENT BOND CONSTRUCTION FUND
TO FUND THE CASH DEFICIT DUE TO COST OVERRUNS
IN THE 2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA
THAT, $81,788.19 is hereby transferred from the Capital Projects Fund to the
2014 Construction Fund.
THAT, said transfer is hereby effective and applies to the 2016 fiscal year.
Adopted by the City Council this 13th day of December 2016.
ATTESTED:
Matthew Jaunich
City Administrator
Gary T. Forcier
Mayor
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL ci=qf�
Request for Board Action 7AL =-ft
Agenda Item: Short-Term Gambling License
Department: Administration
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 12/13/2016
Application Complete Yes
Contact: Matt Jaunich
Agenda Item Type:
Presenter: Matt Jaunich
Reviewed by Staff ✓❑
Consent Agenda
Time Requested (Minutes):
License Contingency N/A
Attachments: Yes
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OF AGENDA ITEM:
The Upper Midwest Allis Chalmers Club has submitted a short-term gambling license application into administration
for review and processing. The application is for an event the organization is holding July 21-23, 2017, at the McLeod
County Fairgrounds. The applicant has completed the appropriate application in full and all pertinent information has
been received.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve issuing short-term gambling license to Upper Midwest Allis Chalmers Club on July 21-23, 2017.
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:
C)qW°f
1 i 1 Hassan Street Southeast
Hutchinson, MN 55350
(320) 587-5151 Fax: (320) 234-4240
City of Hutchinson
APPLICATION FOR GAMBLING DEVICES LICENSE
In provisions of the City of Hutchinson Ordinance No. 655
and Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349
All applications must be received at least 30 days before event in order to be considered
A lication T e
❑ short Term Date(s) - -kj7— Fee:
$30.00
MonthlDay/Year - MonthJDaylYear
o�
Organization Information
_
io W e -6- h
-jfP--35>7
Name
Phone Number
Address where regular meeting are held City
State Zip
Federal or State ID:N L-1 PRI JC
Day and time of meetings? 04 krq n ' L u r► I
`� 1 d -.
Is this organization organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota? ® yes
❑ no
How long has the organization been in existence? How may members in the organization? 4�
What is the purpose of the organization?
In whose custody will organization records be kept?
Name
Phone Number
jI��ts -?V- A k' -AS' 67'91f i- le A.P
_ M 133
.S,0
Addressr r336' city
state Zi
Duly Authorized Officer of the Organization Information
6/-7 ---25r-d- 3-55F %
True Name Phone Number
Residence Address City State Zip
Date of Birth: C4, 1 / q I f 47A7�r Place of Birth: J -
Monthldaylyear City State
Have you ever been convicted of any crime other than a traffic
offense? 0 yes 99 no
If yes, explain:
City of Hutchinson
Application for Gambling Devices License
Page 2 of 3
under Minnesota Statute
Q L ky,S (� AD---2-jVO- 33Ir"7
Prase Name Phone Number
Residence Address City State Zip
Date of Birth: 1 I f 1 1 91/3'— Place of Birth: Oe 5 A: 41AI
Monthlday/year City State
Have you ever been convicted of any crime other than a traffic offense? ❑ yes �Pno
If yes, explain:
How long have you been a member of the organization?
Game Information
Location #I
Name of loc-atioAlwhere game will be played
Phone Number
OLIC,' Cer�T�s,�
Address of location here game will be played City
State Zip
Date(s) and/or day(s) gambling devices will be used: 4� -ok 1
through -7 -cU3 2212
AM
Hours of the day gambling devices will be used: From Oej pM To �U
Maximum number of player:
Will prizes be paid in money or merchandise? money Umerchandise
Will refreshments be served during the time the gambling devices will be used?
21yes ❑ no
If yes, will a charge be made for such refreshments? lS yes ❑ no
Game Information
Location 42
Name of location where game will be played
Phone Number
Address of location where game will be played city
State zip
Date(s) and/or day(s) gambling devices will be used:
through
AM AM
Hours of the day gambling devices will be used: From pM
To PM
Maximum number of player:
Will prizes be paid in money or merchandise? ❑ money ❑ merchandise
Will refreshments be served during the time the gambling devices will be used?
❑ yes ❑ no
If yes, will a charge be made for such refreshments? ❑ yes ❑ no
City of llutchinson
Application for Gambling Devices License
Page 3 of 3
Officers of the Organization (i f necessary, list additional names on separate sheet)
Name
19S 77 Ammer Aur
Residence Address
•7 Name
T A I
Residence Address
Name
-73-3 %a- 5-'r-
Residence
rResidence Address
'trC"st.•e,
Title
S i I U Pr I', ive. ro q
City
State
Zip
S�cre�z�
y
.._—.......
Tit—,.
le
State
]� k ve,—
rng
SS SW
City
State
Zip
City
State
Zip
Title
Title
Residence Address
City
State
Zip
Officers or Other Persons Paid for Services Information (ifnecessary,
list additional names on separate sheet)
Name
Title
Residence Address
City
State
Zip
Name
Title
Residence Address
City
State
Zip
Name
Title
Residence Address
city
State
zip
Have you (Gambling Manager and Authorized Officer) read, and do you thoroughly understand the provisions of all
laws, ordinances, and regulations governing the operation and use of gambling devices (as outlined in City of
Hutchinson Ordinance 114.20 and Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349)? 4
Gambling Manager �es Ll no 6 Authorized Officer yes ❑ no r91
nidal � Initial
I declare that the information I have provided on this application is truthful, and I authorize the City of Hutchinson
to investigate the information submitted. Also, I have received from the City of Hutchinson a copy of the City
Ol0inaRce No. 114.20 relatingjo gambling and 1 will familiarize myself with the contents thereof.
Signature of auth9fized ogcer of organization
Signature of gdmbling manager of organization
Internal Use Only
City Council 0 approved ❑ denied Notes:
Date
Date
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL ci=v-f�
Request for Board Action 7AL =-XZ
Agenda Item: REQUEST FOR OUT OF STATE TRAVEL FOR MILES SEPPELT TO ATTEND
Department: EDA
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 12/13/2016
Application Complete N/A
Contact: Miles R. Seppelt
Agenda Item Type:
Presenter: none
Reviewed by Staff ❑
Consent Agenda
Time Requested (Minutes): 0
License Contingency N/A
Attachments: Yes
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OFAGENDA ITEM:
I am requesting City Council permission for out-of-state travel on January 9/10 2017 to attend the "Cardinal
Manufacturing" workshop at Eleva-Strum High School in Wisconsin. This is to gain information and insights for our
Skilled Workforce Development Initiative.
School Superintendent Daron Vanderheiden, two of our tech-ed teachers and myself are going to learn all about how
Cardinal Manufacturing works, as it will help us with the implementation of Tiger Manufacturing here in Hutchinson.
Workshop fee and travel expenses are covered by the by the EDA's travel/school/conference budget line item.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please give me a call anytime at 234-4223.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Approval for out-of-state travel
Fiscal Impact: $ 0.00 Funding Source: N/A
FTE Impact: 0.00 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 7AL =-WZ
Agenda Item: Joint Power Agreement
Department: Police
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 12/13/2016
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 N/A
Attachments: No
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OFAGENDA ITEM:
Requesting authorization to resign the joint powers agreement with the Southwest Metro Drug Task force.
The Hutchinson Police Department has been directly with the SWMDTF for the past 2 decades, which as resulted in
10's of thousands of dollars worth of drugs removed from our communities along with hundreds of arrests and
convictions.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Request Authorization to resign the SWMDTF joint powers agreement.
Fiscal Impact: Funding Source: Police Budget
FTE Impact: 1.00 Budget Change: No
Included in current budget: No
PROJECT SECTION:
Total Project Cost:
Total City Cost: Funding Source:
Remaining Cost: $ 0.00 Funding Source:
SOUTHWEST METRO DRUG TASK
FORCE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
The parties to this Agreement are governmental units of the State of Minnesota. This
Agreement is made and entered into pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59.
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between Carver County
Sheriffs Office, Brownton Police Department, McLeod County Sheriffs Office, Winsted
Police Department, Scott County Sheriffs Office, Lester Prairie Police Department,
Hutchinson Police Department, South Lake Minnetonka Police Department, Shakopee
Police Department, Prior Lake Police Department, Belle Plaine Police Department, New
Prague Police Department and Jordan Police Department all organized under the laws of
the state of Minnesota;
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59 provides that two or more
governmental units may by Agreement jointly exercise any power common to the
contracting Parties;
NOW, THEREFORE, Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 471.59 and in consideration of
the mutual covenants and promises hereinafter contained, it is agreed by and between the
City and the County as follows:
SECTION I
GENERAL PURPOSE
1.1 The general purpose of this Agreement is to provide for an organization through which
the parties may jointly and cooperatively provide for the establishment and operation of a multi -
jurisdictional drug task force which will aid in reducing felony level drug trafficking within the
parties' jurisdictions.
SECTION II
DEFINITION OF
TERMS
2.1 For purposes of this Agreement, the terms defined in this Section shall have the meanings
given them.
2.2 "Southwest Metro Drug Task Force" means the organization created pursuant to
this Agreement, which organization is hereinafter referred to as the "Task Force."
2.3 "Governing Board" means the Governing Board of Directors of the Task
Force, consisting of one director from each governmental unit which is a member of the Task
Force.
2.4 "Governmental Unit" means any county, city, village, borough, town or other
political subdivision of the State of Minnesota or any joint powers organization in the State of
Minnesota.
342158v2 SJS SH1SS-23 1
2.5 "Member" means a governmental unit or joint powers organization which enters into
this Agreement and is, at the time involved, a party in good standing.
2.5.1 Voting Members:
Carver County Sheriff's Office, McLeod County Sheriff's Office, Scott County
Sheriff's Office, Hutchinson Police Department, South Lake Minnetonka Police
Department, Shakopee Police Department, Prior Lake Police Department, Belle
Plaine Police Department, New Prague Police Department and Jordan Police
Department, Lester Prairie Police Department.
2.5.2 Partner Against Drugs:
Brownton Police Department, Winsted Police Department.
SECTION III
MEMBERSHIP
3.1 Any Governmental Unit that has a law enforcement agency and is located in Hennepin,
Carver, Scott or McLeod County is eligible to be a Member of the Task Force.
3.2 A Governmental Unit desiring to be a Member shall execute a copy of this Agreement
and shall pay the established membership charges.
3.3 The initial Members shall be those Members who joined the Task Force as voting
Members on or prior to January 1, 2011.
3.4 Governmental Units joining the Task Force after January 1, 2011, shall be admitted only
upon the favorable vote of two-thirds of the Governing Board of directors. The Governing
Board may impose conditions upon the admission of Members other than initial Members.
SECTION IV
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
4.1 Governing Board of Directors. The governing body of the Task Force shall be its board of
directors. The board of directors of the Task Force shall consist of the following: the chief law
enforcement officer of each Member or his or her designee ("Governing Board").
A. Governing Board directors shall be full-time peace officers employed by the
appointing Member.
B. Governing Board directors shall not be deemed to be employees of the Task Force
and shall not be compensated by the Task Force.
342158v2 SJS SH155-23 2
4.2 Duties of the Governing Board
A. Governing Board shall be responsible for the overall management and budget of
the Task Force.
B. The Governing Board shall coordinate information between the Members, the
Partners Against Drugs and the Task Force.
4.3 Powers of the Governing Board.
A. The Governing Board may adopt bylaws to govern its operation. Such bylaws
must be consistent with this Agreement and all applicable laws and regulations.
B. The Governing Board may enter into any contract necessary or proper for the
exercise of its powers or the fulfillment to its duties and enforce such contracts to
the extent available in equity or at law, except that the Governing Board shall not
enter into any contract in which the term exceeds one year.
C. The Governing Board may contract with any Member to act as its fiscal agent and
provide budgeting and accounting services necessary or convenient for the
Governing Board, including maintaining the Task Force's financial records. Such
services may include, but are not limited to: management of Task Force accounts
and funds, payment for contracted services and other purchases, and bookkeeping
and recordkeeping services.
D. The Governing Board shall disburse funds in a manner which is consistent with
this Agreement and, if applicable, with the method provided by law for the
disbursement of funds by the Member under contract to provide budgeting and
accounting services.
E. The Governing Board may apply for and accept gifts, grants or loans of money or
other property (excluding real property) or assistance from the United States
government, the State of Minnesota, law enforcement agencies, corporations, non-
profit corporations or any person, association, or agency for any of its purposes;
enter into any agreement in connection therewith; and hold, use and dispose of
such money or other property and assistance in accordance with the terms of the
gift, grant or loan relating thereto.
F. The Governing Board must obtain and maintain liability insurance in amounts not
less than the statutory liability limits established under Minnesota Statutes
Chapter 466. The Governing Board may obtain other insurance it deems
necessary to insure the Task Force, the Governing Board, the Members, the
Partners Against Drugs and employees of the Members for actions arising out of
this Agreement. The costs of liability insurance shall be payable from Task Force
funds. The Task Force shall not take any actions under this Agreement until such
liability insurance is in effect.
342158v2 SJS SH155-23 3
G. All powers granted herein shall be exercised by the Governing Board in a fiscally
responsible manner and in accordance with the requirements of law.
H. The Governing Board may cooperate with other federal, state and local law
enforcement agencies to accomplish the purpose for which the Task Force is
organized.
4.4 Terms. Appointees to the Governing Board shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing
Member, and may be removed only by the appointing Member.
4.5 Meetings. The Governing Board shall have regular monthly meetings. Special meetings
may be held by giving reasonable notice to all Members. At the meetings, the Governing Board
will establish and set policies and procedures for the Task Force, review the Task Force's
operational activities and expenditures and discuss other items related to the Task Force's
operations. The presence of a simple majority of the Governing Board directors shall constitute
a quorum. In the event that a director is unable to attend a meeting, the Member's chief law
enforcement officer may assign an alternate to attend and vote in his or her place.
4.6 Voting. Each Voting Member shall have one vote at any meeting of the Governing
Board. Proxy votes are not permitted. The Governing Board shall function by a majority vote of
directors or alternate directors present, provided that a quorum is present.
4.7 Records. The Executive Director shall be responsible for maintaining all minutes,
records, books and reports of the Task Force. The books and records of the Task Force, including
the minutes and the fully executed original of this Agreement, shall be kept at the office of the
Task Force Commander.
4.8 Organizational Structure.
A. The Task Force is a multi jurisdictional tactical unit consisting of Member
agencies. The Governing Board shall supervise the operations of the Task Force.
B. The Governing Board shall elect a Governing Board director to serve as the
Executive Director of the Task Force on an annual basis. The Executive Director
shall be responsible for presiding over Governing Board meetings, taking meeting
minutes and maintaining frequent communication with the members of the
Governing Board and the Task Force Commander.
C. The Governing Board shall appoint a Task Force Commander. The Task Force
Commander reports to the Executive Director. The Task Force Commander shall
be responsible for working with the appointed fiscal agent of the Task Force,
managing operational disbursements and applying for and managing any grants
that are received by the Task Force. The Task Force Commander has the
authority and responsibility of directing all Task Force investigator activities,
including, but n o t limited t o , assigning work, transferring investigators,
342158v2 SJS SH155-23 4
developing best practices and policies for the Task Force, writing letters of
commendation for investigators, suspending investigators from Task Force duties
and ordering them back to their agency, recommending investigator assignment
cancellations to the Governing Board and evaluating the performance of the
investigators. The Task Force Commander must report on his or her activities at
least quarterly to the Governing Board.
SECTIONV
PARTNERS AGAINST DRUGS
5.1 It is contemplated that certain Governmental Units may desire to follow closely the
activities of the Task Force, to receive detailed information about Task Force operations and
receive the Task Force services, but do not have the capacity to provide officers to serve on the
Task Force. Such Governmental Unit may affiliate with the Task Force as a "Partner Against
Drugs."
5.2 A Governmental Unit desiring to become a Partner Against Drugs may do so in the same
manner as is applicable to becoming a Member of the Task Force, except as otherwise provided
in this Section.
5.3 At the time of joining the Task Force as a Partner Against Drugs, the Governmental Unit
shall indicate to the Task Force in writing that it is not requesting to join as a Member but as a
Partner Against Drugs.
5.4 A Partner Against Drugs may appoint a representative and an alternative representative to
attend the meetings of the Governing Board but such representative (or alternate) shall be
without voting power shall not be eligible to serve as the Executive Director or Task Force
Commander and shall not be counted for quorum purposes.
5.5 The Governing Board may establish the charges to be paid by Partners Against Drugs and
for that purpose it may classify Partners Against Drugs in accordance with their varying
circumstances.
5.6 Change in Status. A Partner Against Drugs may apply for membership status and
become a regular Member of the Task Force.
5.7 Withdrawal. A Partner Against Drugs may discontinue its association with the Task
Force at any time by giving written notice of withdrawal to the Executive Director of the Task
Force. No refund will be made by the Task Force of the annual contribution paid by the
withdrawing Partner Against Drugs.
SECTION VI
BUDGET AND FINANCE
6.1 Financial Records. The Task Force Commander must work with the Governing Board's
fiscal agent to maintain the Task Force's financial records. The financial records must detail the
342158v2 SJS SH155-23 5
Task Force's income and expenditures. They must be available for review at any time by the
Task Force Members.
6.2 Budget. By December 15th of each year, the Task Force Commander shall prepare a
budget for the following calendar year to be adopted by the Governing Board. The Governing
Board may amend the budget from time to time. Each Member shall have a line item in its own
budget dedicated to the Task Force.
6.3 Funding. The Members intend to fund the Task Force through federal and state grants
that are administered by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety and annual contributions
paid by each Member and the Partners Against Drugs. Assets seized and forfeited through lawful
channels by the Task Force shall become Task Force assets and may be used as supplemental
funding for Task Force operations and expenses. The Governing Board shall establish the
contribution amount for each Member and Partner Against Drugs. In the event that the Governing
Board is going to change a contribution amount for a particular Member or Partner Against
Drugs, it shall provide that Member or Partner Against Drugs with notice in a sufficient
amount of time so that the Member or Partner Against Drugs' council or board is able to include
the change in its Task Force contribution amount in its budget for the next year.
6.4 Accounting. All Task Force funds shall be accounted for according to generally accepted
accounting principles. A report on all receipts and disbursements shall be forwarded by the Task
Force Commander to the Governing Board monthly and on an annual basis. All expenditures of
the Task Force'must be approved by the Governing Board.
6.5 Grant Requirements. The Task Force shall comply with all reporting requirements that
are required for any grants that it receives.
SECTION VII
OPERATIONS
7.1 Task Force Investigators. The Task Force shall be composed of the Task Force
Commander and a certain number of Task Force investigators, who are licensed peace officers
which are employed and compensated by the Members' law enforcement agencies but shall devote
100 percent of their time to Task Force operations. The Task Force investigators shall work on
behalf of the Task Force by gathering and acting on information and investigating specific cases
related to felony level drug distribution in the Task Force Members' and Partners Against Drugs'
jurisdictions. The Task Force Commander and Task Force investigators also may assist
Members and Partners Against Drugs' law enforcement agencies in investigations, provide
Members and Partners Against Drugs' law enforcement agencies with technical advice and
support, and provide needed equipment to Members and Partners Against Drugs, if available.
The number of Task Force investigators shall be determined from time to time by the Governing
Board. Task Force investigators shall have discretionary powers of arrest in all Members and
Partners Against Drugs' jurisdictions, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59, subdivision
12.
342158v2 SJS SH155-23 6
7.2 Reimbursement for Assignment of Task Force Personnel. The Task Force
Commander and the Task Force personnel shall be employed and compensated by the Members'
law enforcement agencies. The Task Force shall reimburse Members who assign their personnel
to the Task Force a certain rate as set by the Governing Board from time to time.
7.3 Assignment of a Task Force Investigator. A Task Force investigator's assignment to
the Task Force shall be considered a privilege. If any investigator is not performing at an
acceptable level, or violates the Task Force's policies or procedures, the Task Force Commander
shall have the authority to send the investigator back to his or her agency for the remainder of his
or her shift. The Task Force Commander must then contact the investigator's supervisor or chief
law enforcement officer regarding the issue. The Task Force Member, as the investigator's
employer is responsible for taking any disciplinary action or making any change in assignment
that it decides is appropriate. Any change to an investigator's assignment to the Task Force must
be approved by the Governing Board.
7.4 Location of the Task Force. Task Force investigators shall be located at the Task
Force Facility. The Task Force investigators' daily Task Force activities will be supervised and
coordinated by the Task Force Commander. All Task Force equipment, information and records
shall be stored at the Task Force Facility.
7.5 Information and Records. The Task Force Commander shall be responsible for
maintaining an intelligence database for the Task Force. This database should contain
information relevant to a suspect's personal information and any alleged criminal activity. Task
Force investigators shall be responsible for promptly entering relevant intelligence information
into the Task Force intelligence database. Task Force investigators shall also be responsible for
maintaining their own informant usage and reliability records at the direction of the Task Force
Commander. The Task Force Commander shall also maintain a statistical recordkeeping system
that contains information relevant to all Task Force arrests, property seizures, controlled
substance seizures and forfeitures. Task Force investigators must timely file all required Task
Force reports, documents and other administrative and case work with the Task Force
Commander.
7.6 Task Force Investigator Training. Task Force investigators assigned to investigate
narcotics violations are encouraged to obtain training in the following areas prior to assignment
or as soon as reasonably practical thereafter: i) search warrants/entries/raid planning and
execution; ii) civil process/forfeiture procedures; iii) evidence
collection/testing/handling/packaging/documentation; iv) surveillance techniques/counter
surveillance awareness; v) electronic surveillance device usage/capabilities/limitations; vi)
formal complaints/charging; vii) covert operations/plainclothes/undercover operations; viii)
interview/interrogation/statements; ix) crime scene management; and x) investigative strategies.
SECTION VIII
EQUIPMENT AND PROPERTY
342158v2 SJS SH155-23 7
8.1 Property. All individually owned propeliy brought by a Member or Partner Against
Drugs into the Task Force shall remain the property of that entity. Any property purchased by
the Task Force shall remain the property of the Task Force. In the event the Task Force is
disbanded, the remaining property owned by Task Force shall be distributed equally to the
current Members of the Task Force.
8.2 Equipment Damage. Each Member or Partner Against Drugs shall be responsible for
damage to or loss of its own equipment occurring during Task Force operations. Each Member
or Partner Against Drugs waives the right to sue the Task Force and any other member or Partner
Against Drugs for any damages to or loss of its equipment, even if the damages or losses were
caused wholly or partially by the negligence of any other Member or Partner Against Drugs or
their officers, employees or agents.
8.3 Vehicles and Equipment. Members shall provide employees that are assigned to the
Task Force with a weapon and a cell phone. The Task Force may issue additional equipment to
its personnel as necessary. The Task Force shall provide all assigned employees with a Task
Force -owned vehicle, which will be maintained and insured by the Task Force. Members shall
be responsible for providing fuel for the vehicles.
8.4 Forfeitures. Assets seized and forfeited through lawful channels by the Task Force will
be Task Force assets and will be used as supplemental funding for Task Force operations.
Forfeited funds, once cleared by the district court will be distributed by the Task Force according
to Minnesota Statutes. The Task Force's portion of these funds will be used by the Task Force to
offset any of the matching funds budgeted items. These funds will also be used by the Task
Force in conjunction with local match dollars to continue Task Force operations should the grant
amount be reduced or the grant is denied. The Task Force Commander, in conjunction with the
Task Force fiscal agent, is responsible for keeping all financial records relating to the
disbursement of forfeitures. Forfeited items such as jewelry, vehicles, or real estate may be sold
or disposed of by the Task Force in a manner permitted by law. All firearms seized by the Task
Force must be first offered to Members for law enforcement use. The remaining firearms will be
destroyed if they are deemed unusable by the Task Force.
SECTION IX
EMPLOYEES
9.1 Workers' Compensation. Each Member and Partner Against Drugs shall be responsible
for injuries to or death of its own employees in conjunction with services provided pursuant to
the Agreement. Each Member shall maintain workers' compensation coverage or self-insurance
coverage, covering its own personnel while they are assigned to the Task Force. Each Member
waives the right to sue any other party for any workers' compensation benefits paid to its own
employee or their dependents, even if the injuries were caused wholly or partially by the
negligence of any other Member or Partner Against Drugs or its officers, employees or agents.
9.2 Governing Board directors, the Executive Director, the Task Force Commander and all
Task Force investigators a n d s t a f f shall remain employees of the Member that has
assigned them to the Task Force and shall be compensated by that Member, not the Task Force.
Appointments of the Executive Director and the Task Force Commander shall require the
concurrence of the employing Member's chief law enforcement officer.
342158v2 SJS SH155-23 9
SECTION X
INDEMNIFICATION
10.1 The Task Force shall be considered a separate and distinct public entity to which the
Members and the Partners Against Drugs have transferred all responsibility and control for
actions taken pursuant to this Agreement. To the fullest extent permitted by law, actions by the
members and Partners Against Drugs pursuant to this Agreement are intended to be and shall be
construed as a "cooperative activity" and it is the intent of the Members and the Partners Against
Drugs that they shall be deemed a "single governmental unit" for the purposes of liability, as set
forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59, subdivision la (a); provided further that for purposes
of that statute, each Member and Partner Against Drugs expressly declines responsibility for the
acts or omissions of the other party. The Members and Partners Against Drugs are not liable for
the acts or omissions of the other Members and Partners Against Drugs except to the extent to
which they have agreed in writing to be responsible.
10.2 The Task Force shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Members and Partners
Against Drugs against all claims, losses, liabilities, suits, judgments, costs and expenses arising
out of action or inaction of the Governing Board, its directors, the Executive Director, the Task
Force Commander and other employees or agents of the Task Force pursuant to this Agreement.
The Task Force shall defend and indemnify the employees of any Member acting pursuant to the
Agreement except for any act or omission for which the Member's employee is guilty of
malfeasance, willful neglect of duty or bad faith. This Agreement to defend and indemnify does
not constitute a waiver by the Task Force or any Member or Partner Against Drugs of the
limitations on liability provided by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466.
SECTION XI
DURATION, DISSOLUTION OF THE AGREEMENT
11.1 Dissolution. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect unless a majority of the
Members' governing bodies vote in favor of dissolution, if dissolution is necessitated by
operation of law as a result of a decision by a court of competent jurisdiction, or when a majority
of remaining Members agree to terminate the Agreement upon a date certain.
11.2 Withdrawal. Any Member may terminate its participation in this Agreement upon 30
days' written notice to the Governing Board. No refund will be made by the Task Force of the
annual contribution paid by the withdrawing Member. All rights to Task Force funds and assets
are relinquished by the Member upon withdrawal. Withdrawal by any Member shall not
terminate this Agreement with respect to any parties who have not withdrawn. Withdrawal shall
not discharge any liability incurred by any Member prior to withdrawal. Such liability shall
continue until discharged by law or agreement.
342158v2 SJS SH155-23 9
11.3 Effect of Termination. Termination of this Agreement shall not discharge any liability
incurred by the Task Force or by the Members during the term of this Agreement. Upon
termination of this Agreement and after payment of all outstanding obligations, property,
equipment or surplus money held by the Task Force shall be disbursed as follows:
A. All individually -owned property and equipment brought into the Task Force by a
Member remains the property of that Member, even if the Member is no longer a
Member of the Task Force; and
B. Any remaining property, equipment and any surplus money owned by the Task
Force shall be distributed equally to the current Members.
SECTION XII
AMENDMENT
12.1 Modification. This Agreement sets forth all understandings of the Members and
Partners Against Drugs. All prior agreements, understandings, representations whether consistent
or inconsistent, verbal or written, concerning this Agreement, are merged into and superseded
by this written Agreement. No modification or amendment to the Agreement shall be binding
on any Member or Partner Against Drugs unless each Member and Partner Against Drugs
agrees in writing to the proposed change or amendment.
12.2 Submittal. Any Member or Partner Against Drugs wishing to submit an amendment to
this Agreement shall do so by submitting a written proposal to the Governing Board at a
regularly scheduled or special meeting. The Governing Board shall forward the proposed
amendment, with a recommendation, to each Member and Partners Against Drugs within 90
days of receipt of the proposed amendment.
12.3 Response to Proposed Amendment. Each Member and Partner Against Drugs shall
respond to a proposed amendment within 60 days of receipt from the Governing Board. If no
response is received from any member, the amendment is deemed to be rejected.
SECTION XIII
MISCELLANEOUS
13.1 Data Practices. The Members and Partners Against Drugs agree to comply with the
Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, as it applies to all
data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained or disseminated by the Task Force. If
a Member or a Partner Against Drugs receives a request to release the data referred to in this
section, it must immediately notify the Task Force Commander. The Task Force Commander
will give the Member or Partner Against Drugs who has received the data request instructions
concerning the release of the data to the requester before the data is released.
13.2 Audit. The books, records and documents relevant to this Agreement are subject to audit
by the Members, the Partners Against Drugs and the State of Minnesota at reasonable times upon
written notice.
342158v2 SJS SH155-23 10
SOUTHWEST METRO DRUG TASK FORCE
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
January 1, 2017- December 31, 2017
SIGNATURE PAGE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Governmental Unit has caused this Agreement to
be signed and delivered on its behalf.
.0
Its:
M.
Its:
Date:
(Name of Government Unit)
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL ci=v-f�
Request for Board Action 7AL =-ft
Agenda Item: Approval of Improvement Project Change Orders
Department: PW/Eng
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 12/13/2016
Application Complete N/A
Contact: Kent Exner
Agenda Item Type:
Presenter: Kent Exner
Reviewed by Staff
Consent Agenda
Time Requested (Minutes): 0
License Contingency
Attachments: Yes
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OFAGENDA ITEM:
As construction has proceeded on the below listed projects there has been additional work, project scope revisions,
and/or construction completion date changes. The items specified below have been identified and deemed necessary
to satisfactorily complete the projects per the intent of the original construction contract. The following Change Orders
and/or Supplemental Agreements are proposed as noted:
o Change Order No. 3 — Letting No. 4/Project No. 16-04 — Golf Course Road Water Tower
This Change Order addresses the deletion of One (1) Logo/Text as discussed and agreed upon by City and
Contractor. This work does not affect the interim or final completion dates. This Change Order results in a decrease
to the contract in the amount of $5,000.00.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Approval of Change Orders
Fiscal Impact: Funding Source:
FTE Impact: Budget Change: No
Included in current budget: Yes
PROJECT SECTION:
Total Project Cost: $ 0.00
Total City Cost: $ 0.00 Funding Source:
Remaining Cost: $ 0.00 Funding Source:
L4P16-04 12/05/2016 Page 1 of 1
City of Ya�'
�lv
7
City of Hutchinson MN
CITY OF HUTCHINSON, 111 HASSAN ST SE, HUTCHINSON MN 55350
CHANGE ORDER
Change Order No. 3
FEDERAL PROJECT NO.
NA
STATE PROJECT NO.
NA
LOCAL PROJECT NO.
L4P16-04
CONTRACT NO.
L4P16-04
CONTRACTOR NAME AND ADDRESS
LOCATION OF WORK
Osseo Construction Co., LLC
Attn: Timothy J. Popple
Water Tower - Golf Course Road
TOTAL CHANGE ORDER AMOUNT
13812 12th St
-$5,000.00
Osseo WI 54758
In accordance with the terms of this Contract, you are hereby authorized and instructed to perform the work as altered by the following provisions.
This Change Order addresses the deletion of One (1) Logo/Text as discussed and agreed upon by City and Contractor.
This additional Change Order does not affect the Substantial Completion Date or the Final Completion Date.
This Change Order results in an increase/ ecrease to he Contract in the amount of $5,000.00.
COST BREAKDOWN
Item No. Item Unit Unit Price Quantity Amount
DEDUCT ITEMS:
37 EXTERIOR WATER TOWER LOGO/TEXT EA $5,000.00 -1 -$5,000.00
Change Order No. 3 Total: -$5,000 '
* Funding category is required for federal projects.
CHANGE IN CONTRACTTIME (check one)
Due to this change the Contract Time:
a. [ ] Is Increased by Working Days b. [ X ] Is Not Changed
[ ] Is Decreased by Working Days
[ ] Is Increased by Calendar Days c. [ ] Maybe revised if work affected the controlling operation.
[ ] Is Decreased by Calendar Days
,pproved by City Engineer: Kent Exner Approved by Contractor: Osseo Construction Co., LLC
igned Signed
late: 12/13/2016 Phone: 320-234-4209 Date: Phone:
,pproved by Hutchinson City Council 12/13/2016.
igned Signed
Mayor, Gary Forcier City Administrator, MattJaunich
late: 12/13/2016 Date: 12/13/2016
Orig. Contract Amt $515,300.00 Change Orders 1-2-3: $1,800.00 Completion Date: 10/07/2016
CHECK REGISTER FOR CITY OF HUTCHINSON
CHECK DATE FROM 11/23/2016
- 12/13/2016
Check Date
--------------------
11/28/2016
Check
--------------
194099
Vendor Name
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARTISAN BEER COMPANY
Description
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NOV PURCH
Amount
--------------------
1,016.75
11/28/2016
194100
BRAUN INTERTEC CORP
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION -PROF SERVICES TH
7,553.75
12/13/2016
194104
AARP
NOVEMBER AARP
535.00
12/13/2016
194105
ACE HARDWARE
SWISS CHAINSAW FILES, 14" 50 DRIVES SAFE
606.65
12/13/2016
194106
ADVANCED HEALTH SAFETY & SECURITY
WASH, CLEAN & PAINT CREEKSIDE TIPPING BLDG
18,300.00
12/13/2016
194107
ALBERTS, LESLIE
HOLIDAY ICE SHOW SUPPLIES
86.19
12/13/2016
194108
ALLIED PRODUCTS
NYLON FLAG
150.40
12/13/2016
194109
ALPHATRAINING & TACTICS LLC
CONCEALABLE BODY ARMOR W/EXTRA CARRIER,
3,123.06
12/13/2016
194110
ALPHA WIRELESS
MAINT ON POLICE TRANSMITTERS
1,330.19
12/13/2016
194111
AMERICAN BOTTLING CO
NOV PURCH
278.48
12/13/2016
194112
AMERICAN TESTCENTER
LADDER 1 TEST & INSP ON REPORT -ANNUAL S
575.00
12/13/2016
194113
AMERIPRIDE SERVICES
TOWEL BAR WHITE, MOPS
195.76
12/13/2016
194114
AR ENGH HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING
FIRE STATION- FALL PREVENTIVE MAINT
624.85
12/13/2016
194115
ARCTIC GLACIER USA INC.
ICE
284.00
12/13/2016
194116
ARNESON DISTRIBUTING CO
NOV PURCH
851.00
12/13/2016
194117
ARTISAN BEER COMPANY
NOV PURCH
1,650.10
12/13/2016
194118
ASHWILL INDUSTRIES INC
CUT PARTS FOR WAYFINDING SIGN BASE COVERS
185.90
12/13/2016
194119
ASSURANT EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
DENTAL INS FOR NOV
9,674.60
12/13/2016
194120
AUTO VALUE - GLENCOE
O-RING, FLOOR DRY GOOD, CLEAR ADVANTAGE
497.03
12/13/2016
194121
AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS CO
CONTROLOGIX PROCESSOR BATTERY
313.77
12/13/2016
194122
B & L UTILITY MAINTENANCE
SANBLAST & REPAINT REC CENTER FRONT ENTRANCE
7,250.00
12/13/2016
194123
BACHMAN'S
GIRLSCOUT WAYFINDING SIGN- NORTHWIND, JU
1,163.99
12/13/2016
194124
BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY
RIVER STUDY- PROF SERVICES 10/1-10/28
1,719.00
12/13/2016
194125
BEACON ATHLETICS
VMF-CUSTOM PADDING
60.00
12/13/2016
194126
BELLBOY CORP
ROSES LIME JUICE LITERS
1,472.47
12/13/2016
194127
BEN MEADOWS
COMM GRADE HEAD PROT
60.33
12/13/2016
194128
BERNICK'S
MISC BEVERAGES
339.05
12/13/2016
194129
BRAUN INTERTEC CORP
DENVER AVE SE EXTENSION
1,815.75
12/13/2016
194130
BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE
NOV PURCH
11,009.88
12/13/2016
194131
BUSINESSWARE SOLUTIONS
NOVEMBER Cost per Print
1,562.44
12/13/2016
194132
C & L DISTRIBUTING
NOV PURCH
55,035.81
12/13/2016
194133
CARS ON PATROL SHOP LLC
TOW #3901- 2003 TAN DODGE CARAVAN
250.00
12/13/2016
194134
CDW GOVERNMENT INC
CISCO ASA 5525-X PER QUOTE
4,497.51
12/13/2016
194135
CENTRAL HYDRAULICS
CAP 8-X, PLUG -SIGNS
301.88
12/13/2016
194136
CENTRAL LANDSCAPE SUPPLY
WAYFINDING SIGNAGE PAVER CUTTING BLADE -D
133.65
12/13/2016
194137
CHEMISOLV CORP
CUSTOM DEWATERING FLOCCULENT
612.00
12/13/2016
194138
CMKSERVICES LLC
LAWN MOWING 735 FRANKLIN ST SW
160.00
12/13/2016
194139
COALITION OF GREATER MN CITIES
2016 CGMC FALL CONF IN ALEX 11/17/16. J.
200.00
12/13/2016
194140
COATES, J USTI N
REFUNDABLE DAMAGE DEPOSIT 10/01/16
300.00
12/13/2016
194141
COLD SPRING GRANITE CO
NS -3 COMP NICHE PLAQUE- RODNEY E NODRLIN
230.00
12/13/2016
194142
COM DATA CORPORATION
MISC PURCH
668.96
12/13/2016
194143
COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATIONS SYSTEMS I
TROUBLESHOT VALVE INDICATOR ON HANSEN CO
2,526.44
12/13/2016
194144
CRAIG, MIKE
ST CLOUD- MN STATE CHIEFS CONFERENCE
128.70
12/13/2016
194145
CREEKSIDE SOILS
HARWOOD MULCH SCREENED- GIRLSCOUT
225.48
12/13/2016
194146
CROW RIVER AUTO & TRUCK REPAIR
OIL CHANGE 2014 CHEV CAPRICE
139.21
12/13/2016
194147
CROW RIVER GOLF CLUB
BANQUET OPE FOOD, CURRENT YEAR RENTAL
536.88
12/13/2016
194148
DALE A. ZORMAN TRUCKING SERVICE INC
SOIL MATERIALS
2,515.00
12/13/2016
194149
DANIELS SHARPSMART INC
BIOHAZARD WASTE PICKUP
171.48
12/13/2016
194150
DAVE'S PALLET SERVICE
#2 4 WAY PALLET
2,940.00
12/13/2016
194151
DR VINYL OF CENTRAL MN LLC
RESCUE 5- PAINT PASS DOOR UPPER BLD REPA
300.00
12/13/2016
194152
DRAEGER, REUBEN
REPURCHASE OF ONE UPRIGHTTWO GRAVE-CEME
980.00
12/13/2016
194153
DROP -N -GO SHIPPING INC
CELL 3- SOIL LABS
925.11
12/13/2016
194154
DUKE'S ROOT CONTROL, INC
VARIOUS SEWER REPAIRS TO PREVENT SEWER B
6,449.09
12/13/2016
194155
E.G. RUD & SONS INC.
FIELD LOCATE EXISTING BUILDING- RE -STAKE
364.00
12/13/2016
194156
E2 ELECTRICAL SERVICES INC
BUILDING 30 MBR FLOAT
3,148.85
12/13/2016
194157
EARTHLY DELIGHTS LTD
NOV TIF TAX SETTLEMENT 2016
10,555.53
12/13/2016
194158
EAST SIDE OIL COMPANIES
BULK -DIESEL FUEL#2 DYED LOADER ATCOMPO
101.74
12/13/2016
194159
EDUCATION & TRAINING SERVICES
E. MOORE- LEADERSHIP TRAINING 12/12-12/1
499.00
12/13/2016
194160
EDUCATION & TRAINING SERVICES
D. SCHUETTE- MANAGEMENT & SUP LEADERSHIP
499.00
12/13/2016
194161
ELECTION SYSTEMS & SOFTWARE
VC CARDBOARD PRIVACY SCREEN VOTER'S
412.49
12/13/2016
194162
ELECTRIC PUMP
MBR -ML FOAM BASIN MIXER (SEWER FUND)
10,110.00
12/13/2016
1194163
1 ELECTRO WATCHMAN
FIRE & SECURITY 9/1-12/31/16
270.00
CHECK REGISTER FOR CITY OF HUTCHINSON
CHECK DATE FROM 11/23/2016
- 12/13/2016
Check Date
--------------------
12/13/2016
Check
--------------
194164
Vendor Name
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERLANDSON, ANDREW
Description
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
MEALATTRAINING-ST PAUL
Amount
--------------------
38.63
12/13/2016
194165
EVENTSOFTWARE
FASTBOOK 5.5 ANNUAL MAINT
986.00
12/13/2016
194166
FARM -RITE EQUIPMENT
SNOWBLOWER- EDGE
841.28
12/13/2016
194167
FASTENAL COMPANY
BANNERS -SNAP CLIP STAINLESS
53.37
12/13/2016
194168
FIL-TREK
PN MPS-PO-10-52-BN-MERA PLEAT SILVER (WATER)
5,122.55
12/13/2016
194169
FIRE SAFETY USA INC
ENGINE 2- GATED WYE 2.5
1,765.00
12/13/2016
194170
FIRST ADVANTAGE LNS OCC HEALTH SOLU
ANNUAL ENROLLMENT, COLLECTION SURCHARGE,
626.20
12/13/2016
194171
G & K SERVICES
MATS & TOWELS
304.71
12/13/2016
194172
GALCO INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS
FLIRONE-ANDROID-KIT-FLIR, THERMAL IMAGIN
268.76
12/13/2016
194173
GAVIN WINTERS TWISS THIEMANN & LONG
FLAT FEE AGREEMENT -OCT
3,200.00
12/13/2016
194174
GEMPLER'S INC
BLADE, REPL PART
755.95
12/13/2016
194175
GENERAL REPAIR SERVICE
KIT, SHAFT SEAL- LABOR & MILEAGE
1,314.53
12/13/2016
194176
GLOBAL SPECIALTY CONTRACTORS, INC
AQUATIC CENTER PAYMENT#6
412,171.14
12/13/2016
194177
GOPHER STATE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.
ANNUAL INSPECTION & CERTIFICATION OF 10#
281.25
12/13/2016
194178
GRAINGER
GRIFFIN BEAKER STARTER PACK
2,159.34
12/13/2016
194179
HAGER JEWELRY INC.
NAME TAG-J.FORCIER
18.68
12/13/2016
194180
HANSEN TRUCK SERVICE
ENGINE #7 INSTALL AIR FILTER BLEED LINE
1,036.40
12/13/2016
194181
HASSLEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC
AQUATIC CENTER PAYMENT #6
176,944.15
12/13/2016
194182
HAWKINS INC
AZONE 15
2,644.84
12/13/2016
194183
HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD
OMNI 3" MTR-1000 GAL METER -AQUATIC CENTE
4,198.56
12/13/2016
194184
HEIMAN FIRE EQUIPMENT
TANKER 6- SMART LED 600 SERIES RED/BLUE/
321.72
12/13/2016
194185
HERGENRADER, LISA
OFFICE SUPPLIES- FINGER COTS
5.87
12/13/2016
194186
HILLYARD/ HUTCHINSON
TISSUE ROLL, LINER 7-10GAL
268.53
12/13/2016
194187
HJERPE CONTRACTING
REPAIR SINK HOLE IN BASEBALL FIELD NORTH
7,072.25
12/13/2016
194188
HOHENSTEINS INC
NOV PURCH
456.50
12/13/2016
194189
HOLDEN ELECTRIC CO INC
AIRPORT RUNWAY LIGHTING
559.36
12/13/2016
194190
HOLTTOUR AND CHARTER INC.
WELLS FARGO MUSEUM, WESTIN HOTEL, FEDRAL
640.00
12/13/2016
194191
HP INC
T. HAND- HP PRO DISPLAY
147.51
12/13/2016
194192
HUTCH CAFE
EDA MEETINGS 9/21 & 10/19
207.26
12/13/2016
194193
HUTCHINSON CO-OP
#2 DYED BIO DIESEL
12,533.19
12/13/2016
194194
HUTCHINSON CONVENTION & VISITORS BU
OCT 2016 LODGING TAX
8,668.22
12/13/2016
194195
HUTCHINSON DOWNTOWN ASSOC.
HDA MEMBERSHIP
200.00
12/13/2016
194196
HUTCHINSON FIGURE SKATING ASSOC
PROF SERVICES OCT- DEC 2016
2,908.00
12/13/2016
194197
HUTCHINSON HEALTH
EMPLOYEE TESTING
1,107.80
12/13/2016
194198
HUTCHINSON HEALTH CARE
DEC CAM & SA
1,043.92
12/13/2016
194199
HUTCHINSON LEADER
ADVERTISING / PUBLICATIONS
4,849.20
12/13/2016
194200
HUTCHINSON SENIOR ADVISORY BOARD
TOUR REIMBURSEMENT- 12/9 CHRISTMAS FESTI
940.00
12/13/2016
194201
HUTCHINSON WHOLESALE
U -BOLT
305.29
12/13/2016
194202
HUTCHINSON YOUTH BASKETBALL ASSN
COMPOST BAG DELIVERY
500.00
12/13/2016
194203
HUTCHINSON, CITY OF
WATER & SEWER SERVICE 10-1/16-10/31/16
1,024.65
12/13/2016
194204
HUTCHINSON, CITY OF
REPLENISH ATM
4,000.00
12/13/2016
194205
IDEALSERVICE INC
YASKAWA P1000 125 HP 156AVFD-OVER PO, H
9,610.00
12/13/2016
194206
IDENTISYS
ADHESIVE CLEANING SLEEVE KIT, RIBBON
247.95
12/13/2016
194207
INDIAN ISLAND WINERY
NOV PURCH
111.84
12/13/2016
194208
INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL INC
REGION III SESSION
690.00
12/13/2016
194209
INTERSTATE POWER COMPANIES INC
MODEL 381 STYLE A
1,127.67
12/13/2016
194210
INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM MINNEAPOL
DRY0196
330.84
12/13/2016
194211
JEFF MEEHAN SALES INC.
NOV COMMISSIONS
1,599.83
12/13/2016
194212
JEFFERSON FIRE & SAFETY INC
ENGINE 7- FSP FIREADE 2000 A/B FOAM
1,176.00
12/13/2016
194213
JJ TAYLOR DIST OF MN
NOV PURCH
8,946.30
12/13/2016
194214
JOES SPORT SHOP
T SHIRTS FOR RECREATION PROGRAMS
1,250.00
12/13/2016
194215
JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO.
NOV PURCH
26,527.60
12/13/2016
194216
JORDAHL,JIM
ADAPTIVE REC DANCE 11/15/16
200.00
12/13/2016
194217
J U U L CONTRACTING CO
REPAIR SPRINKLER SYSTEM- WATER PLANT
1,061.00
12/13/2016
194218
KAHNKE BROTHERS NURSERY
ODD FELLOWS-SPIREA, DAYLILY, SAGE
229.29
12/13/2016
194219
KDUZ KARP RADIO
ADVERTISING - LIQUOR STORE
542.50
12/13/2016
194220
KERI'SCLEANING
CLEANING 11/16-11/30
3,344.00
12/13/2016
194221
KGB CORNERSTONE COMMONS LLC
NOV TIF TAX SETTLEMENT 2016
17,689.49
12/13/2016
194222
KRANZ LAWN & POWER
BLADES- GRASSHOPPER #626
138.69
12/13/2016
194223
LAW OFFICE OF JOE PEZZUTO
WAGE GARNISHMENT
102.70
12/13/2016
194224
LEIDER, THERESA
TRAINING IN ST PAUL
40.99
12/13/2016
1194225
1 LIEN, MIKE
SAFETY BOOTS
144.99
CHECK REGISTER FOR CITY OF HUTCHINSON
CHECK DATE FROM 11/23/2016
- 12/13/2016
Check Date
--------------------
12/13/2016
Check
--------------
194226
Vendor Name
---------------------------------------------------------------
LITTLE FALLS MACHINE INC
Description
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
LOADER WING QUICK DISCONNECT
Amount
--------------------
601.01
12/13/2016
194227
LOCHER BROTHERS INC
NOV PURCH
47,353.20
12/13/2016
194228
LOGIS
NETWORKTHRU 10/08/16 - CREDIT CARD PROC
7,009.50
12/13/2016
194229
LTP ENTERPRISES
SEAL 2 WELLS @ HTI- CITY ACTED AS FISCAL AGENT
10,000.00
12/13/2016
194230
LUEDTKE CONTRACTING LLC
2.5 LOADS OF BOULDERS
1,250.00
12/13/2016
194231
M -R SIGN
SNS -DF -HI -GRN, SIGNS
69.71
12/13/2016
194232
MACQUEEN EQUIP INC
MASTER SWITCH
28.60
12/13/2016
194233
MAIN STREET SPORTS BAR
LUNCH FOR STAFF CONDUCTING FIRE PREVENTION
136.58
12/13/2016
194234
MARK BETKER CONSTRUCTION LLC
INSTALLATION OF STEEL SIDING ON CONTROL
3,400.00
12/13/2016
194235
MARSHALL CONCRETE PRODUCTS
PAVE EDGING - WAYFINDING SIGN PROJECT
2,044.65
12/13/2016
194236
MATHESON TRI -GAS INC
ACETYLENE
16.95
12/13/2016
194237
MCLEOD COUNTY COURT ADMINISTRATOR
BAIL- C.SHOWALTER
300.00
12/13/2016
194238
MCLEOD COUNTY FIRE CHIEFS ASSN
ANNUAL DUES FOR FIRE DEPT, ACTIVE 911 SU
345.00
12/13/2016
194239
MCLEOD COUNTY HHW
FLUORESCENT TUBES
24.00
12/13/2016
194240
MCLEOD COUNTY RECORDER
1110 HWY 7,1109 LEWIS, 1164 BENJAMIN
138.00
12/13/2016
194241
MCRAITH, JOHN
LUNCH DURING MAXGALAXY TRAINING FOR STAFF
63.09
12/13/2016
194242
MEDICA
MEDICAL INSURANCE FOR DEC
125,524.62
12/13/2016
194243
MENARDS HUTCHINSON
VARIOUS SUPPLIES FOR OPERATIONS
2,236.97
12/13/2016
194244
VOID
0.00
12/13/2016
194245
MES-MIDAM
FIREFIGHTER BOOTS
1,301.63
12/13/2016
194246
MESSAGE MEDIA
MONTHLY ACCESS FEE - DEC
30.00
12/13/2016
194247
MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY
A-ULTX-SENS SENSOR
524.33
12/13/2016
194248
MINI BIFF
RENT REG TAN- ECF BLDG
339.46
12/13/2016
194249
MINNEAPOLIS, CITY OF
APS TRANSACTION FEES- OCT SECURITY COIN
79.20
12/13/2016
194250
MINNESOTA CHIEFS OF POLICE
MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL- BOARD MEMBERS
290.00
12/13/2016
194251
MINNESOTA DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
2017 FERTILER REGISTRATION
100.00
12/13/2016
194252
MINNESOTA DEPT OF HEALTH
WATER -STATE TESTING FEE
7,597.00
12/13/2016
194253
MINNESOTA DEPT OF MOTOR VEHICLE
TITLE APPLICATION FOR 2017 FORD F-550 SU
2,229.76
12/13/2016
194254
MINNESOTA PETROLEUM SERVICE
AIRPORT FUEL-FGS-0-409 FACET 1" AVIATION
106.00
12/13/2016
194255
MINNESOTA RECREATION & PARK ASSN
MRPA ANNUAL CONFERENCE
340.00
12/13/2016
194256
M I N N ESOTA VALLEY TESTI NG LAB
CO LI FO RM- BACTE RIA TEST 0 N GO LF CO U RSE T
1,792.55
12/13/2016
194257
MODERN TOWING
06 JEEP GR CHEROKEE
75.00
12/13/2016
194258
MOORE, ERIC
WATER EXAM & PREP CLASS, WATER LIS CERT
188.24
12/13/2016
194259
MORGAN CREEK VINEYARDS
NOV PURCH
215.28
12/13/2016
194260
MOTION INDUSTRIES INC
BAGGING LINE R&M SUPPLIES-CREEKSIDE
194.01
12/13/2016
194261
MPCA
VIC REIMB- MPCA FEES- HOTEL SITE
3,675.00
12/13/2016
194262
MPPOA
LEGAL DEFENSE- 6 MEMBERS
288.00
12/13/2016
194263
NERO ENGINEERING
LIFT STATION STUDY, HEADWORKS GRIT STUDY
2,170.00
12/13/2016
194264
NORTHERN SAFETY & INDUSTRIAL
RUF-FLEX THERMO GLV
92.89
12/13/2016
194265
NORTHERN STATES SUPPLY INC
NC 2H HVY NUT PK, PLOWBOLT#8
34.15
12/13/2016
194266
NUSS TRUCK & EQUIPMENT
REPAIR WATER SHUT OFF VALVE, REPAIR BRAK
838.39
12/13/2016
194267
O'REILLYAUTO PARTS
CHIP GUARD -SNOW PLOWS
55.98
12/13/2016
194268
OEM
GRINDER- REMOVE & REPLACE 1/4"X28" X69"
964.17
12/13/2016
194269
OFFICE DEPOT
FOLDER, MANILA JKT
80.96
12/13/2016
194270
OFFICE OF MN IT SERVICES
OCTSERVICES
110.81
12/13/2016
194271
OLD DOMINION BRUSH
MEDIUM DUTY HOSE
1,500.00
12/13/2016
194272
OSSEO CONSTRUCTION CO, LLC
L4P16-04 #2
115,584.50
12/13/2016
194273
PAUSTIS WINE COMPANY
NOV PURCH
4,251.93
12/13/2016
194274
PHILIPS HEALTHCARE
HS1 BATTERY PACK
106.60
12/13/2016
194275
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS
NOV PURCH
54,953.73
12/13/2016
194276
POSITIVE ID INC
ID CARD
19.40
12/13/2016
194277
POSTMASTER
PERMIT #115- 2016
215.00
12/13/2016
194278
PRO AUTO MN INC.
2014 FORT F150 PICKUP -OIL CHANGE
31.09
12/13/2016
194279
PTM DOCUMENTSYSTEMS
W -2'S
213.55
12/13/2016
194280
QUILLCORP
HOLOGRAPHIC YR LBL, 2016 VIOLET
209.91
12/13/2016
194281
R & R EXCAVATING
L1P17-01 #2- DENVER AVE SE EXTENSION
82,772.62
12/13/2016
194282
R J L TRANSFER
FREIGHT 10/18-10/26
761.30
12/13/2016
194283
RATH RACING
ENGINE 2- E2 LABOR & INSTALL OF SHELVING
3,062.50
12/13/2016
194284
REINER ENTERPRISES INC
ST CLOUD HAULING 11/14-11/18
13,939.28
12/13/2016
194285
RITE INC
REPLACEMENT CREDIT CARD TERMINAL FOR REG
960.75
12/13/2016
194286
ROLLING GREENS GAZEBO
UB refund for account: 3-840-0160-8-00
269.00
12/13/2016
1194287
1 ROSENBAUER MN LLC
ENGINE 2 -PLATE HAVIS
45.06
CHECK REGISTER FOR CITY OF HUTCHINSON
CHECK DATE FROM 11/23/2016
- 12/13/2016
Check Date
--------------------
12/13/2016
Check
--------------
194288
Vendor Name
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROYALTIRE
Description
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BD EST CAP
Amount
--------------------
499.89
12/13/2016
194289
RUNKE-SCHMIDT, SHANNON
DAMAGE DEPOSIT 9/10/16
300.00
12/13/2016
194290
RUNNING'S SUPPLY
E7, E2-TOOL BAG, WIRING, CABINET LIGHTS
468.24
12/13/2016
194291
SCHERMANN, SHANNON
WORK SHOES
75.00
12/13/2016
194292
SCHIMMELPFENNIG-OPSAHL, CHEYANN
DAMAGE DEPOSIT- 10/08/16
300.00
12/13/2016
194293
SCHUETTE, DONOVAN
HEARING PROTECTION
116.70
12/13/2016
194294
SCHWARTZ, ANDREA
2016 MBPTA FALL SEMINAR
48.60
12/13/2016
194295
SEBORA, MARC
COURT EXPENSES
59.55
12/13/2016
194296
SEH
HUTCH TEMP STAFF SUPPORT
1,200.00
12/13/2016
194297
SHAW, KAREN
PILATES, YOGA
180.00
12/13/2016
194298
SIGNATURE AQUATICS
HUTCHINSON AQUATIC CENTER
20,786.75
12/13/2016
194299
SILBRICO CORPORATION
COARSE KRUM, PALLETS, FREIGHT
7,015.32
12/13/2016
194300
SORENSEN'S SALES & RENTALS
41 CHAIN, 41 CONN
22.55
12/13/2016
194301
SOUTH DAKOTA DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
TONNAGE 2016
120.91
12/13/2016
194302
SOUTHERN WINE & SPIRITS OF MN
NOV PURCH
19,236.04
12/13/2016
194303
SPARTAN STAFFING
WK ENDING 11/13/16
6,639.02
12/13/2016
194304
ST PAUL STAMP WORKS
ATTACHLINKS, ANIMAL TAGS
228.57
12/13/2016
194305
STAPLES ADVANTAGE
2017 AAG YRLY ERAS WALL, TAPE STGE W/DIS
661.82
12/13/2016
194306
STATE OF MICHIGAN
2017 LICENSE - CREEKSIDE SALES
225.00
12/13/2016
194307
STRATEGIC EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLY
MISC- OPERATING SUPPLIES
299.90
12/13/2016
194308
STREICH TRUCKING
HAUL 11/14- LUTHENS TO CREEKSIDE
712.50
12/13/2016
194309
SUNCOASTGARDEN PRODUCTS INC.
2CF TIGER HAMMOCK CYPRESS BLEND
5,336.00
12/13/2016
194310
TASC
January 2017 Flex Adm. Fees
1,651.60
12/13/2016
194311
TEK MECHANICAL
WATER SAMPLE
25.00
12/13/2016
194312
TESSMAN COMPANY
FREIGHT CHARGES ON 5233242 & 5233241
47.00
12/13/2016
194313
THOMSON REUTERS-WEST
DISCOUNT PLAN CHARGES
1,232.60
12/13/2016
194314
TITAN MACHINERY
WHEEL LOADER SERVICING- CREEKSIDE
1,649.31
12/13/2016
194315
TOWMASTER INC.
FALLS SPINNER
498.76
12/13/2016
194316
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
REG & ANNUAL DUES- K. EXNER
365.00
12/13/2016
194317
UPS/UPS SCS CHICAGO
SHIPPING CHARGE FOR REPLACEMENT OF O-RIN
27.20
12/13/2016
194318
US BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE
CONTRACT ALLOWANCE 11/20-12/20/16
398.19
12/13/2016
194319
USA BLUE BOOK
PART D 4" NPT COUPLER
132.47
12/13/2016
194320
USAQUATICS
HUTCHINSON AQUATIC CENTER
9,500.00
12/13/2016
194321
VERIZON WIRELESS
OCT03-NOV02'16 USAGE
3,022.48
12/13/2016
194322
VERTECH SOLUTIONS & SERVICES
RENTAL AC-A4#12053 DISHMACHINE
69.95
12/13/2016
194323
VIKING BEER
NOV PURCH
23,155.86
12/13/2016
194324
VIKING COCA COLA
MISC BEVERAGES
668.20
12/13/2016
194325
VIKING SIGN & GRAPHICS INC
6"X12" SCOTCHLITE VINYL FOR PLATES
250.00
12/13/2016
194326
VINOCOPIA INC
NOV PURCH
4,640.81
12/13/2016
194327
WAL-MART COMMUNITY
ZIP CAR WASH
55.54
12/13/2016
194328
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN
11/1-11/15/16 DISPOSAL FEES
5,639.17
12/13/2016
194329
WASTEWATER SERVICES, INC
16' SLUDGESTICK
270.00
12/13/2016
194330
WELCOME NEIGHBOR
HUTCHINSON NEW RESIDENT VISITS- NOV
60.00
12/13/2016
194331
WELLS FARGO
ANNUAL CEMETERY SECURITY 2016-2017
164.89
12/13/2016
194332
WEST CENTRAL SANITATION INC.
1400 ADAMS-OCT
383.46
12/13/2016
194333
WESTMOR INDUSTRIES
INSTALLED NEW SUMP PUMP HEATER
2,532.20
12/13/2016
194334
WINE COMPANY, THE
NOV PURCH
113.65
12/13/2016
194335
WINE MERCHANTS INC
OCT PURCH
153.00
12/13/2016
194336
WM MUELLER & SONS
RETAINAGE BALANCE DUE- ORIGINAL INVOICE
4,233.10
12/13/2016
194337
ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS INC
TENET SWEEPER- PANEL FILTER
278.00
GRAND TOTAL
1
1,546,976.20
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL ci=v-f�
Request for Board Action 7AL =-WZ
Agenda Item: Resolution No. 14656 - Vacating Public Right Of Way
Department: Legal
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 12/13/2016
Application Complete N/A
Contact: Marc A. Sebora
Agenda Item Type:
Presenter: Marc A. Sebora
Reviewed by Staff ❑
Public Hearing
Time Requested (Minutes): 5
License Contingency N/A
Attachments: Yes
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OFAGENDA ITEM:
At the last Council meeting, the Council approved the first reading of an ordinance to convey a 1 1/2 foot strip of land
to Cheryl Dooley's business, Dames Dig's LLC, so that the Hometown Realty building can be entirely out of the city
right-of-way. To make the transfer of this property complete, the City also has to vacate that portion of the right-of-way
that will be going to Dames Dig's LLC. As part of that process, a public hearing is required under the City Charter and
thus that is why a hearing is being held in this matter.
Following the public hearing, if the Council is so inclined, I would ask that you approve Resolution No. 14656
approving the vacating of the public right-of-way near the Hometown Realty building.
Should you have further questions concerning this, I would be happy to address them at the Council meeting.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve Resolution No. 14656
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:
Resolution No. 14656
A Resolution Vacating Public Right Of Way
Whereas, 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 vacate public right of way located on Jefferson Street near 130
Washington Avenue; and
Whereas, the right of way area to be vacated is described as follows:
That part of Jefferson Street described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of
Block 7, TOWNSITE OF HUTCHINSON SOUTH HALF: Thence easterly, along the
easterly prolongation of the north line of said Block 7, a distance of 4-60 1.40 feet; thence
southerly, parallel with the east line of said Block 7, a distance of 28.50 29.00 feet;
thence westerly, parallel with said easterly prolongation of the north line, a distance of
1.60 feet to said east line; thence northerly, along said east line, a distance of 28.50 feet to
the point of beginning.
Whereas, this Resolution shall take effect upon adoption,
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by the City Council of the City of Hutchinson that
the above-described property is hereby vacated.
Adopted by the City Council this 13`" day of December, 2016.
ATTEST:
Gary 'T. Forcier, Mayor Matthew Jaunich, City Administrator
Resolution No. 14656
A Resolution Vacating Public Right Of Way
Whereas, 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 vacate public right of way located on Jefferson Street near 130
Washington Avenue; and
Whereas, the right of way area to be vacated is described as follows:
That part of Jefferson Street described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of
Block 7, TOWNSITE OF HUTCHINSON SOUTH HALF: Thence easterly, along the
easterly prolongation of the north line of said Block 7, a distance of 1.60 feet; thence
southerly, parallel with the east line of said Block 7, a distance of 28.50 feet; thence
westerly, parallel with said easterly prolongation of the north line, a distance of 1.60 feet
to said east line; thence northerly, along said east line, a distance of 28.50 feet to the point
of beginning.
Whereas, this Resolution shall take effect upon adoption,
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by the City Council of the City of Hutchinson that
the above-described property is hereby vacated.
Adopted by the City Council this 13th day of December, 2016.
ATTEST:
Gary T. Forcier, Mayor Matthew Jaunich, City Administrator
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL ci=v-f�
Request for Board Action 7AL =-WZ
Agenda Item: Ordinance No. 16-0766 - Authorizing Land Sale to Dame's Digs, LLC
Department: Legal
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 12/13/2016
Application Complete N/A
Contact: Marc A. Sebora
Agenda Item Type:
Presenter: Marc A. Sebora
Reviewed by Staff ❑
Public Hearing
Time Requested (Minutes): 5
License Contingency N/A
Attachments: Yes
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OFAGENDA ITEM:
The first reading of this ordinance was held at the November 22, 2016, City Council meeting. The ordinance is to
authorize the sale of a 1 1/2 foot strip of land to Dame's Digs, LLC (Hometown Realty). No revisions have been made
to the ordinance. Below is the prior information relating to this matter that was presented at the last Council meeting.
As you may recall at the July 12, 2016, City Council meeting, the City Council considered renewing a franchise to
Dame's Digs, LLC (Hometown Realty - Cheryl Dooley) to utilize a portion of the right-of-way on the Jefferson Street
side of their building. The City granted a franchise to Cheryl Dooley in the 1990s after it was discovered that the then
new Hometown Realty building was built over the lot line approximately 1 1/2 feet into the city right-of-way.
At the July 12 meeting, I mentioned to the Council that it may be better for all parties concerned if the 1 1/2 foot strip
of land was simply conveyed to Dame's Digs, LLC in order to avoid the parties having to periodically renew the
franchise agreement and also to help ensure the marketability of the Hometown Realty building. The matter was
tabled at the July 12 meeting so that the feasibility of a conveyance was explored.
I have spoken with Kent Exner and Ms. Dooley about this and at this time we would recommend that the City simply
convey the property to Ms. Dooley rather than entering into a series of future franchise agreements. Ms. Dooley has
agreed to pay $460.00 (approximately $10.00 per square foot) for the strip of land.
Attached for your consideration then is the first reading of an ordinance which would allow the conveyance of the
property to Dame's Digs, LLC.
Should the ordinance be approved there will then be a public hearing at the December 13, 2016, Council meeting
which is required under the Hutchinson City Charter anytime a portion of the city right-of-way is vacated. I
recommend that you approve this ordinance.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve first reading and set second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 16-0766 for December 13, 2016.
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:
ORDINANCE NO. 16-766
PUBLICATION NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA, AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF
MUNICIPALLY OWNED REAL PROPERTY
THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON ORDAINS:
Section 1. That the municipally owned real property legally described as follows:
That part of Jefferson Street described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of Block 7,
TOWNSITE OF HUTCHINSON SOUTH HALF: Thence easterly, along the easterly
prolongation of the north line of said Block 7, a distance of 4-." 1.40 feet; thence southerly,
parallel with the east line of said Block 7, a distance of 28.50 29.00 feet; thence westerly, parallel
with said easterly prolongation of the north line, a distance of 1.60 feet to said east line; thence
northerly, along said east line, a distance of 28.50 feet to the point of beginning.
for good and valuable consideration is hereby transferred and conveyed to Dame's Digs, LLC.
Section 2. The City Administrator, Matthew Jaunich, or his designee is authorized to sign any
and all documents on behalf of the City to effectuate the closing of this transaction.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect upon its adoption and publication.
Adopted by the City Council this 13'x' day of December, 2016.
Gary T. Forcier
Mayor
ATTEST:
Matthew Jaunich
City Administrator
ORDINANCE NO. 16-766
PUBLICATION NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA, AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF
MUNICIPALLY OWNED REAL PROPERTY
THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON ORDAINS:
Section 1. That the municipally owned real property legally described as follows:
That part of Jefferson Street described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of Block 7,
TOWNSITE OF HUTCHINSON SOUTH HALF: Thence easterly, along the easterly
prolongation of the north line of said Block 7, a distance of 1.60 feet; thence southerly, parallel
with the east line of said Block 7, a distance of 28.50 feet; thence westerly, parallel with said
easterly prolongation of the north line, a distance of 1.60 feet to said east line; thence northerly,
along said east line, a distance of 28.50 feet to the point of beginning.
for good and valuable consideration is hereby transferred and conveyed to Dame's Digs, LLC.
Section 2. The City Administrator, Matthew Jaunich, or his designee is authorized to sign any
and all documents on behalf of the City to effectuate the closing of this transaction.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect upon its adoption and publication.
Adopted by the City Council this 13"' day of December, 2016.
Gary T. Forcier
Mayor
ATTEST:
Matthew Jaunich
City Administrator
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL ci=v-f�
Request for Board Action 7AL =-WZ
Agenda Item: Public Hearing and Tabling 2nd Reading of Telecommunications Ordinance RevI6
Department: PW/Eng
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 12/13/2016
Application Complete N/A
Contact: Kent Exner/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 OFAGENDA ITEM:
City staff has been administering an effort to revise the City's Telecommunications Ordinance, Chapter 154.119,
relating to the use of small cell technologies.
City staff has received some comments from interested parties about the proposed changes to the ordinance.
Additional time is needed to review and consider the comments that have been received. If additional comments are
received at the Public Hearing they will be included in the City staff review of all comments. Once comments are
reviewed City staff will respond to those comments and meet with interested parties as necessary.
If necessary, another Public Hearing can be set at a later date to hear comments on additional changes to the
proposed ordinance if it is determined revisions are needed.
City staff will be available to answer any questions.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Public Hearing and tabling the 2nd reading of Ordinance 16-0764, an ordinance amending Chapters 154.119.
Fiscal Impact: Funding Source:
FTE Impact: Budget Change: No
Included in current budget: Yes
PROJECT SECTION:
Total Project Cost: $ 0.00
Total City Cost: $ 0.00 Funding Source:
Remaining Cost: $ 0.00 Funding Source:
Ordinance 16-0764 (Draft 11/14)
Telecommunications
Page 1
Ordinance No. 16-0764
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 154 (ZONING) OF THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON CODE
OF ORDINANCES ADDING LANGUAGE IN SECTION 154.119 (TELECOMMUNICATIONS);
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 Telecommunications Ordinance to add language in Section 154.119 of the City Code as follows:
§ 154.119 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCE
(A) Purpose and intent. In order to accommodate the communication needs of the residents,
business and industry while protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the City, the following
regulations are imposed in order to:
(1) Facilitate the use of wireless communication services, television and radio antennas, for
residents, business and industry of the City;
(2) Minimize adverse effects of towers through careful design and site standards;
(3) Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower or antenna failure through
structural standards and setback requirements; and
(4) Maximize the use of existing and approved towers and buildings to accommodate new
wireless telecommunication antennas in order to reduce the number of towers needed to serve the
community; and
(5) To regulate access to and ongoing use of public rights-of-way and facilities, such as
water tanks, building roof tops, lighting masts and other structures by telecommunications providers
for their telecommunications facilities.
(B) Definitions
(1) "Accessory Equipment" are the wires, cables, generators, air conditioning units, and
other equipment or facilities that are used with Antennas.
(2) "Aesthetics" (also known as "Conceal" or "Concealment" or "Stealth Design") refers to
state-of-the-art design techniques used to blend the object into the surrounding environment and to
minimize the negative aesthetic impacts (to be further defined in the review process). Examples of
aesthetic design techniques include architecturally screening roof mounted antennas and accessory
Equipment; integrating Telecommunications Facilities into architectural elements; nestling
Telecommunications Facilities into the surrounding landscape so that the topography or vegetation
reduces their view; using the location that would result in the least amount of visibility to the public,
Ordinance 16-0764 (Draft 11/14)
Telecommunications
Page 2
minimizing the size and appearance of the Telecommunications Facilities; and designing Towers to
appear other than as Towers, such as light poles, power poles, flag poles, and trees..
(3) "Applicant" is any person or entity who files an application for any permit or is party
to any lease agreement required by this Ordinance for the construction, replacement, installation, or
alteration of wireless communication facility or any component thereof.
(4) "Antenna" is any exterior transmitting or receiving device mounted on a Tower,
Monopole, building, or other structure and used in communications that radiate or capture
electromagnetic waves, digital signals, analog signals, radio frequencies(excluding radar signals),
wireless telecommunications signals or other communications signals. "Antenna" does not include a
lightning rod.
(5) "Antenna Support Structure" is any new or existing Tower, building, water tower, or
electric transmission tower carrying over 200 kilo volts of electricity that can be used for the location
of Antennas without increasing the height or mass of the existing structure.
(6) "Applicant" shall mean and refer to the person(s), party or entity, owning and/or
operating the transmission equipment proposed in an application.
(7) "City" shall mean and refer to the City of Hutchinson or the authorized agent as
designated by the City Council of the City of Hutchinson.
(8) "Co -location" is the sharing of structures by two or more wireless service providers on
a single support structure or otherwise sharing a common location.
(9) "Easement" is a legal interest in real property that transfers a partial property right to
the holder of the easement authorizing a person or party to use the land or property of another for a
particular purpose.
(10) "Engineer" refers to but is not limited to a radio, electrical, structural, or mechanical
engineer, licensed by the State of Minnesota.
(11) "Equipment Lease Area" is an specified area at the at the base of or near a
Telecommunication Facility, Tower, or Antenna that can contain an enclosed structure or open
platform within which are housed, among other things, batteries, generators, air conditioning units,
wireless communications or electrical equipment, or other Accessory Equipment, which may be
connected to the Telecommunications Facility, Tower or Antenna by cable.
(12) "Inventory of Small Cell Sites" refers to an accurate and current inventory of all Small
Cell Sites approved by Lessor pursuant to this Lease Agreement, including sites that become inactive
for any reason.
(13) "Landline Broadband Backhaul Transport Service" refers to a fiber or other high-
speed landline communications transport service contracted by Lessee from a third -party provider that
Ordinance 16-0764 (Draft 11/14)
Telecommunications
Page 3
interconnects with the Base Station Equipment at the Point -of -Demarcation and provides transport
service back to Lessee's network.
(14) "Lessee" is the party who rents land or property from a lessor. The lessee is also known
as the "tenant", and must uphold specific obligations as defined in the lease agreement and by law.
(15) "Lessor" is the owner of an asset that is leased under an agreement to the lessee. The
lessee makes one-time or periodic payments to the lessor in return for the use of the asset. The lease
agreement is binding on both the lessor and the lessee, and spells out the rights and obligations of both
parties.
(16) "Monopole" is a structure composed of a single spire used to support
telecommunications equipment having no guy wires or ground anchors.
(17) "Permit Holder" a person or entity who holds a permit issued pursuant to this
Ordinance for a Telecommunications Facility.
(18) "Point of Demarcation" is the point of where the Transmission Media of Small Cell
Equipment terminates and interconnects with broadband backhaul transmission facilities, whether
provided by landline or wireless communications infrastructure.
(19) "Public Utility Structure" is a structure which is owned by a governmental agency or
utility company and which may be/can be used to support illumination devices or lines and other
equipment carrying electricity or communications.
(20) "Radio Propagation Study" the propagation of radio waves is described through the
modeling of the different physical mechanisms (free -space attenuation, atmospheric attenuation,
vegetation and hydrometer attenuation, attenuation by diffraction, building penetration loss, etc). This
modeling is necessary for the conception of telecommunications systems and, once they have been
designed, for their actual field deployment. Propagation models are implemented in engineering tools
for the prediction different parameters useful for the field deployment of systems, for the study of the
radio coverage (selection of the emission sites, frequency allocation, powers evaluation, antenna gains,
polarization) and for the definition of the interferences occurring between distant transmitters.
(21) "Residential Accessory Communication Devices" are any satellite dishes, television
Antennas, radio Antennas, amateur radio Antennas, and similar communication transmission/reception
devices and associated Accessory Equipment that are a permitted accessory use within a residential
district.
(22) "Right -of -Way (ROW)" is the actual physical land area within a route that is acquired
for a specific purpose, such as a transmission line or roadway.
(23) "Rooftop Mounted Wireless Telecommunications Facility means a wireless
telecommunication facility with antennas located on the roof of a building or on top of a structure and
Ordinance 16-0764 (Draft 11/14)
Telecommunications
Page 4
consisting of antennas, support structures and accessory equipment, but are adequately screened so as
not to appear as stand-alone devices above the top of the roof line.
(24) "Small Cell Equipment" refers to Wireless Facilities and Transmission Media
attached, mounted, or installed on a proprietary or leased utility pole, street light, building or other
structure and used to provide Personal Communications Service.
(25) "Small Cell Site" is defined as a low-power radio access facility, together with
associated antennas, mounting and mechanical equipment, which provides and extends wireless
communications systems' service coverage and increases network capacity.
(26) "Street Light" is defined as a raised source of light usually mounted on a pole and
constituting one of a series spaced at intervals along a public street or highway used to illuminate a
public area, usually urban. Also referred to as a streetlamp.
(27) "Telecommunications Equipment" refers to Antennas, Accessory Equipment, or
Towers.
(28) "Telecommunications Facilities" are the structures and equipment which make up a
telecommunications network. Telecommunications facilities are defined by Federal Standard 1037C as
the following:
a) A fixed, mobile, or transportable structure, including (1) all installed electrical and
electronic wiring, cabling, and equipment and (2) all supporting structures, such as
utility, ground network, and electrical supporting structures.
b) A network provided service to users or the network operating administration.
c) A transmission pathway and associated equipment.
d) In a protocol applicable to a data unit, such as a block or frame, an additional item of
information or a constraint encoded within the protocol to provide the required control.
e) A real property entity consisting of one or more of the following: a building, a structure,
a utility system, pavement, and underlying land.
(29) "Tower" is any of the following: a ground or roof mounted pole; spire; free standing,
self-supporting lattice or monopole structure; or combination thereof taller than fifteen (15) feet,
including but not limited to supporting lines, cables, wires, braces, and masts, intended primarily for
the purpose of mounting an Antenna, meteorological device, or similar apparatus above grade (except
amateur radio Antennas).
(30) "Traffic Light/Traffic Signal System" are electrically operated colored signaling
devices positioned at road intersections, pedestrian crossings, and other locations to control conflicting
flows of traffic.
(31) "Transmission Media" is all of the Lessee's radios, antennas, transmitters, wires, fiber
optic cables, and other wireless transmission devices that are part of the Small Cell Equipment.
Ordinance 16-0764 (Draft 11/14)
Telecommunications
Page 5
(32) "Wireless Communications" refers to any personal wireless services as defined in the
Federal Communications Act of 1996, including FCC licensed commercial wireless
Telecommunications services such as cellular, personal communication services (PCS), specialized
mobile radio (SMR), enhanced specialized mobile radio (ESMR), global system of mobile
communication (GSM), paging and similar services that currently exist or may be developed.
(33) "Utility Pole" is a structure that is: (1) owned or operated by: (a) a public utility; (b) a
communications service provider; (c) a municipality; (d) an electric membership corporation; or (e) a
rural electric cooperative; and (2) designed and used to: (a) carry lines, cables, or wires for telephone,
cable television, or electricity; or (b) provide lighting.
(C) Permit required
(1) Permit required. Prior to any construction of installation activities, a
telecommunications provider planning to install, construct or operate telecommunications facilities in
the City shall apply for a telecommunications application and obtain a building permit and, if required,
a conditional use permit pursuant to this Ordinance as applicable.
(2) Building and Design Standards and Allowed Locations for Telecommunications
Facilities. All Telecommunications Facilities shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with
the following standards:
A. Existing Telecommunication Facilities:
1.Existing Telecommunications Facilities located on or attached to existing
structures, prior to the adoption of this Ordinance, are regulated by the
provisions of the zoning district for each such parcel. Once the leases for
existing Telecommunication Facilities expire or are otherwise terminated, the
owner of the Telecommunication Facilities shall apply for a permit under this
Ordinance and those existing Telecommunications Facilities shall be required
to conform to all requirements of this Ordinance for new Telecommunication
Facilities. The City may, among other remedies, require relocation of
equipment, at the Telecommunication Facilities expense, to permitted areas
under this Ordinance.
B. New Telecommunications Facilities:
1.New Telecommunications Towers shall be located only on parcels owned and
controlled by the City without a conditional use permit, with the exact location
on such parcels determined at the sole discretion of the City.
2.Antennas shall be located on a new or replacement Tower at the locations
permitted for Telecommunications Facilities only if the Applicant complies
with the following requirements, in addition to the other requirements of this
Ordinance:
a) Unless the Applicant is a provider of Wireless Communications, the
Applicant shall provide an analysis prepared by a radio or electrical
engineer demonstrating that the proposed location of the Antennas is
Ordinance 16-0764 (Draft 11/14)
Telecommunications
Page 6
necessary to meet the coverage and/or capacity needs of its system.
The Applicant shall provide a network map describing all of the
Applicant's Telecommunications Facilities that provide any coverage
within the City's limits. All Applicants shall provide documentation
prepared by a radio or electrical engineer to show the Antennas would
not cause interference with other existing or approved
Telecommunications Equipment. The Applicant shall also pay the
reasonable expenses of a radio or electrical engineer retained by the
City, at the City's option, to review this analysis;
b) The new or replacement Telecommunications Facilities shall use
Stealth Design techniques as approved by the City. Economic
considerations or hardships shall not be the sole justification for failing
to provide Stealth Design techniques.
c) The new or replacement Tower and Antenna, including attachments
other than lightning rods, shall not exceed 150 feet in height, measured
from grade. The City may, but shall not be required to, increase this
height up to 190 feet if the Entity finds the increase in height would not
have a significant visual impact, would not have a negative property
value impact on surrounding properties because of proximity,
topography or screening by trees or buildings or would accommodate
two or more users. The City may waive this height limitation for a
Tower and/or Antenna if used wholly or partially for essential public
services, such as public safety.
3.A new Antenna may be attached to an existing public utility structure, utility
pole or street light within a right-of-way if-
a)
£
a) The Antenna does not extend more than fifteen (15) feet above the top
of the existing utility structure.
b) The Antenna is no larger than three (3) cubic feet and has no individual
surface larger than four (4) feet.
c) The Antenna extends outward from the utility structure no more than
three (3) feet.
d) There is no ground mounted equipment.
e) There is no interference with public safety communications or with the
original use of the public utility structure.
f) The Applicant agrees that the Antenna must be removed and relocated,
at Applicant's expense, when the City or utility requires the removal
and relocation of the public utility structure.
g) The Telecommunications Permit Application and all necessary
agreements permitting the use of public property are approved.
h) Its inclusion/attachment does not exceed the facilities structural
capacity.
i) Note: no equipment will be allowed on fiberglass light poles.
Ordinance 16-0764 (Draft 11/14)
Telecommunications
Page 7
4."Construction Plan"
a) A new wireless support structure will require a written plan for
construction that demonstrates the use of aesthetics as defined in the
definitions and approved by the City; includes the total height and
width of the wireless facility and wireless support structure, including
cross section and elevation, footing, foundation and wind speed details;
a structural analysis indicating the capacity for future and existing
antennas, including a geotechnical report and calculations for the
foundations capacity; the identity and qualifications of each person
directly responsible for the design and construction; and signed and
sealed documentation from a professional engineer that shows the
proposed location of the wireless facility and wireless support structure
and all easements and existing structures within two hundred (200) feet
of such wireless facility or wireless support structure.
b) Substantial modification of an existing wireless facility or wireless
support structure requires the following:
1) An application with the name, business address, and point of
contact for the applicant;
2) The location of the proposed or affected wireless support
structure or wireless facility; and
3) A construction plan that describes the proposed modifications
to the wireless support structure and all equipment and network
components, including antennas, transmitters, receivers, base
stations, power supplies, cabling, and related equipment.
(3) Telecommunications Permit Application. Telecommunications providers shall apply for a
permit on an application form obtained from the City. A telecommunications provider shall file three
copies of the applications with the City. Applications shall be complete and include all information
required by this ordinance, including a route map showing the location of the provider's existing and
proposed facilities.
(4) Public Data. The contents of all telecommunications permit applications and any other
documents supporting the application may be classified as public data and as such may be released in
accordance with the Minnesota Data Practices Act or other applicable regulation or court order.
(5) Application Fee and Escrow. The application shall be accompanied by a one-time non-
refundable application fee in the amount identified on the application form. At the discretion of the
City, an escrow fee may be required for applications that require analysis by the City's
communications consultant, such as an interference analysis and intermodulation study. The
application fee and escrow amount are established in the City's fee schedule, set annually by the City
Council. The Applicant shall also pay the expenses of a third -party engineer's service or technical
study as required by the City.
Ordinance 16-0764 (Draft 11/14)
Telecommunications
Page 8
(6) Additional Information. The City may request an applicant to submit such additional
information as the City deems reasonably necessary or relevant. The applicant shall comply with all
such requests within reasonable deadlines for such additional information established by the City.
(D) Amateur radio antenna towers. The construction or erection of towers supporting amateur
radio antennas shall be a permitted use in all zoning districts, subject to the following requirements:
(1) This type of tower requires a building permit;
(2) This type of tower shall be allowed only in the rear yard of residentially zoned properties.
If there is insufficient space within the rear yard to erect the tower and any related guy wires, then the
property owner may apply for a conditional use permit to erect a tower in another yard (front or side);
(3) This type of tower shall not exceed 75 feet in height, except by conditional use permit;
(4) This type of tower shall conform to the accessory structure setback for the district in which
it is located:
(5) Amateur radio antenna towers shall be installed in accordance with the instructions
furnished by the manufacturer of the tower model. Antennas mounted on a tower may be modified and
changed at any time so long as the published allowable load on the tower is not exceeded and the
structure of the tower remains in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications; and
(6) This type of tower shall be exempt from the requirements of divisions (E) — (R) of this
section.
(E) Antennae Mounted on Roofs, Walls, and Existing Towers. The placement of wireless
telecommunication antennae on roofs, walls and existing towers must be approved by the City,
provided the antennae meet the requirements of this ordinance, and after submittal and approval of all
permits, applications, fees and information identified in Section B of this ordinance.
(F) Tower Locations. Antennas on a public structure or existing structures are allowed in all
districts by resolution approved by the City, without a conditional use permit. However, all antenna
installations must comply with the requirements of this ordinance. Towers not exceeding 75 feet in
height may be erected after the issuance of a building permit, without a conditional use permit.
However, all tower installations must comply with the requirements of this ordinance. All towers
shall be of a monopole construction and subject to the regulations listed in Chapter 151 of the City
Code, regarding airport zoning. Towers exceeding 75 feet in height shall be allowed only by
conditional use permit and shall only be allowed in the following zoning districts:
(1) C-1, neighborhood convenience commercial district;
(2) C-2, automotive service commercial district:
Ordinance 16-0764 (Draft 11/14)
Telecommunications
Page 9
(3) C-3, central commercial district;
(4) C-4, fringe commercial district;
(5) C-5, conditional commercial district;
(6) UC, industrial/commercial district;
(7) I-1, light industrial park district;
(8) I-2, heavy industrial district; and
(9) BP, business park district.
(G) Tower setbacks. The following setbacks shall apply in the listed districts.
(1) In C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, BP, UC, I-1 and I-2 districts, the setback of the tower shall beat
a ratio of one foot of setback for every two feet of height of tower (i.e., a 100 -foot tower would require
a 50 -foot setback from all property lines and the street right-of-way).
(2) In the event that any portion of the property directly abuts a district zoned R-1,
single-family residential; R-2, medium density residential; R-3, medium-high density residential; R-4,
high density residential; R-5, manufactured home park; any residential planned unit development; or
A-1, agricultural or R-1, rural residential in the Joint Planning Area; the setback to these districts shall
be at a ratio of one foot for every one foot of height of structure (i.e., a 100 -foot tower would require a
100 -foot setback from any property line which is residentially or agriculturally zoned).
(H) Co -location requirements. All commercial towers erected, constructed or located within the
City shall comply with the following requirements.
(1) A proposal for a new commercial tower shall not be approved unless the applicant has
provided proof that the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or
building within a one -mile search radius of the proposed tower due to one or more of the following
reasons:
A. The antenna would exceed the structural capacity of the existing or approved tower or
building, as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer, and the
existing or approved tower cannot be reinforced, modified or replaced to
accommodate planned or equivalent equipment at a reasonable cost;
B. The antenna would cause interference materially impacting the usability of other
existing or planned antenna at the tower or building as documented by a qualified and
licensed professional engineer, and the interference cannot be prevented at a
reasonable cost;
Ordinance 16-0764 (Draft 11/14)
Telecommunications
Page 10
C. Existing or approved towers and building within the search radius cannot
accommodate the planned antenna at a height necessary to function reasonably as
documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer; or
D. Other unforeseen reasons that make it unfeasible to locate the planned antenna
equipment upon an existing or approved tower or building.
(2) Any proposed commercial tower shall be designed, structurally, electronically and in all
respects, to accommodate both the applicant's antennas and comparable antennas for at least two
additional users if the tower is over 100 feet in height or, for at least one additional user, if the tower is
over 75 feet in height. Towers must be designed to allow for future rearrangement of antennas upon
the tower and to accept antennas mounted at varying heights.
(I) Structural and landscaping requirements. Proposed or modified towers and antennas shall
meet the following design requirements:
(1) Towers and antennas shall be designed to blend into the surrounding environment through
the use of color and camouflaging architectural treatment, except in instances where the color is dictated
by federal or state authorities, such as the Federal Aviation Administration:
(2) Commercial towers shall be of a monopole design unless the City determines that an
alternative design would better blend into the surrounding environment. Towers must be self-
supporting without the use of wires, cables, beams, or other means;
(3) Landscaping plans for the base of the tower must be submitted with the application of the
conditional use permit, or building permit, should a conditional use permit not be needed. These plans
must be compatible with the surrounding character of the area and must be approved either by the City
prior to the issuance of the conditional use permit or building permit; and
(4) Screening plans, as may be required by the City, and reviewed shall be inclusive of the
following:
A. When used, walls or fences must provide for full visual screening of accessory
buildings or storage areas, as viewed from residential areas and state and county
roads;
B. The materials used for constructing the wall or fence shall be specified in the site plan
and shall meet the requirements of this ordinance;
C. Berms, if used, shall be constructed with a slope not to exceed 3:1 and shall be
covered with sod or other landscape material sufficient to prevent erosion of the berm.
D. Trees, hedges or other vegetative materials, when used, must provide at 75 percent
(75%) screening capacity throughout the year. Such screening must also conform to
all vegetative setback requirements of the Hutchinson Zoning Ordinance.
Ordinance 16-0764 (Draft 11/14)
Telecommunications
Page 11
(J) Construction Requirements. Proposed or modified towers and antennas shall meet the
following construction requirements:
(1) All antennae, towers, and accessory structures shall comply with all applicable provisions
of this ordinance.
(2) Towers shall be certified by a qualified and licensed professional engineer to conform to the
current structural standards and wind loading requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code and
Electronics Industry Association.
(3) No part of any antenna or tower nor any lines, cable, equipment, wires, or braces in
connection with either shall at any time extend across or over any part of the right-of-way,
public street, highway, sidewalk, or property line.
(4) Towers and associated antennae shall be designed to conform to accepted electrical
engineering methods and practices and to comply with the provisions of the National Electrical Code.
(5) All signed and remote control conductors of low energy extending substantially
horizontally above the ground between a tower or antenna and a structure, or between towers, shall be
at least eight (8') above the ground at all points, unless buried underground.
(6) As applicable to its location, with final determination by the City, towers affixed to the
ground shall include security fencing to discourage access by unauthorized persons.
(7) Tower locations should provide the maximum amount of screening possible of off-site
views of the facility. Existing on-site vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent practicable.
The area around the base of the tower and any accessory structures shall be landscaped and/or
screened. The tenant must maintain, in good and healthy condition, at all times, all landscaping
attendant to the wireless telecommunications facility, including landscaping of the public right-of-way.
Any dead or dying landscaping must be promptly replaced or rehabilitated. See Section I of this
ordinance.
(K) Resolution of Interference. The installation and operation of new antennas, towers, and
associated facilities shall not cause harmful interference to pre-existing telecommunication system
broadcast or reception, whether they be commercial or residential. Telecommunications providers
shall, at their own expense, maintain any equipment in a safe condition, in good repair and in a manner
so as not to conflict with the use of the surrounding premises. If within 60 days from the initial
installation and operation of any new antenna system, the City receives notice of interference from an
adjacent property, additional study and remedy may be required. The applicant shall be responsible for
the expenses incurred in any independent validation of interference, provided, however, should the
independent analysis conclude that the interference objections were valid; the new antenna facility
owner shall be responsible for any independent validation fees. If new facilities are found to cause
impermissible interference, the new tenant shall take all measures reasonably necessary to correct and
Ordinance 16-0764 (Draft 11/14)
Telecommunications
Page 12
eliminate the interference. If the interference cannot be eliminated within 30 days, the new facility
owner shall immediately cease operating its facility until the interference has been eliminated.
(L) Tower Lighting. Towers shall be required to meet Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requirements and shall not be artificially lighted unless
required by the Federal Aviation Administration to do so. If the tower does require artificial lighting, a
letter stating this need and a description of the lighting shall be provided to the City prior to approval.
The lighting, unless required by the FAA to be otherwise, must be defused.
(M) Lights and Other Attachments. No antenna or tower shall have affixed or attached to it in any
way, except during time of repair or installation, any lights, reflectors, flashers, or other illuminating
device, except as required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), nor shall any tower have constructed on, or attached to, in any
platform, catwalk, crow's next, or like structure, except during periods of construction or repair.
(N) Accessory Utility Buildings. All utility buildings and structures accessory to a tower shall be
architecturally designed to blend in with the surrounding environment and shall meet the minimum
setback requirements of the zoning district in which the tower site is located. Ground mounted
equipment shall be screened from view by suitable vegetation, except where a design of non -vegetative
screening better reflects and complements the architectural character of the surrounding neighborhood.
(0) Maintenance Requirements.
(1) The yard area in front of the fences and walls shall be trimmed and maintained in a neat and
attractive manner.
(2) Repairs to damaged areas of walls or fences shall be made within thirty (30) days of
sustaining said damage.
(3) Areas left in a natural state and vegetative screening areas shall be properly maintained in a
well -kept condition.
(4) Diseased, dying, or dead vegetative screening elements shall be removed and then replaced,
at a minimum, with healthy plants of the same size required when first planted.
(P) Abandoned or Unused Towers and Antennas. Abandoned or unused towers or portions of
towers shall be removed as follows:
(1) All abandoned or unused towers and associated facilities shall be removed within six
months of cessation of operations at the site unless a time extension is approved by the Planning
Commission. In the event that a tower is not removed within six months of cessation of operations at a
site, the tower and associated facilities may be removed by the City, and the costs of removal assessed
against the property; or
Ordinance 16-0764 (Draft 11/14)
Telecommunications
Page 13
(2) Unused portions of towers above a manufactured connection shall be removed within six
months of the time of antenna location. The replacement of portions of a tower previously removed
requires the issuance of a new conditional use permit.
(Q) Public Safety Telecommunication Interference. Commercial wireless telecommunications
services shall not interfere with public safety telecommunications. Before the introduction of new
service or changes in existing services, telecommunication providers shall notify the City at least ten
days in advance of any changes and allow the City to monitor interference levels during the testing
process.
(R) Signs and Advertising. The use of any portion of a tower for signs, other than warning or
equipment information signs, is prohibited.
(S) Additional Submittal Requirements. In addition to information listed elsewhere in this section,
conditional use permit applications for towers shall include the following supplemental information:
(1) A report from a qualified and licensed professional engineer which:
A. Describes the general tower height and design including a cross-section and elevation;
B. Documents the height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co -located
antennas and the minimum separation distances between antennas. This information
can be general in scope, with specific documentation to be submitted with the
building permit application;
C. Describes the tower's capacity, including the number and type of antennas it can
accommodate;
D. Includes an engineer's stamp, registration number, and signature; and
E. Additional information necessary to evaluate the request.
(2) For all commercial towers, a letter of intent committing the tower owner and his or her
successors to allow the shared use of the tower if an additional user agrees in writing to meet
reasonable terms and conditions for shared use;
(3) If the tower exceeds 200 feet, a letter of approval from the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA);
(4) A letter from the FAA if artificial lighting is deemed necessary; and
(5) Recommendation for approval by the Municipal Airport Commission.
Ordinance 16-0764 (Draft 11/14)
Telecommunications
Page 14
(T) Satellite Dishes. Satellite dishes greater than one meter in diameter shall be allowed only by a
conditional use permit in all districts. Design plans shall include provisions for screening and shall be
submitted with the conditional use permit application.
(U) Small Cell Sites.
(1) Small Cell Site Plan.
A. Small Cell Submissions. The applicant shall submit a preliminary site plan to the
City, for review and approval. The applicant shall also submit an application which
shall include: (i) photographs or accurate renderings, including correct colors and
exact dimensions, of each type of proposed small wireless facility; (ii) a statement
signed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota stating that the
proposed facilities comply with all applicable Federal Communications Commission
regulations, including, without limitation, regulations pertaining to the emission of
radio frequency radiation; and (iii) such additional information as the planning
director may reasonably require in order to determine whether the requirements of
this section are met. The application and site plan for the communication small cell
shall be approved only if the following minimum standards are met:
1. The communication small cells may encompass multiple sites.
2. The communication small cells shall be substantially concealed from view by
means of painting, tinting, or use of camouflage or stealth materials to match the
surface of the building or other structure to which they are affixed or by other
suitable methods, such as by flush -mounting or integration into the design
elements of the building or structure.
3. Electrical power and battery backup cabinets shall, to the extent practicable, be
roof -mounted or otherwise located so as not to be visible from a public street or,
where not practicable as determined by the City, such equipment shall be
appropriately screened by landscaping or other means minimizing visibility
from a public street.
4. The placement of small cells may be approved by the City, provided the antenna
meets the requirements of this ordinance, and after submittal and approval of all
permits, applications, fees and information identified in Section B of this
ordinance. Small cell antennas on a public structure or existing structures are
allowed in all districts by resolution approved by the City, without a conditional
use permit. However, all antenna installations must comply with the
requirements of this ordinance.
5. At such time that the communication small cell ceases to be used for
communications purposes for three (3) consecutive months, the applicant shall
remove the communication small cell from the property. If the applicant fails to
remove the communication small cell within 30 days of written notice from the
zoning administrator, the director of development and permits or designee,
through his or her own agents or employees, shall be authorized to remove the
Ordinance 16-0764 (Draft 11/14)
Telecommunications
Page 15
communication small cell and assess all charges incurred in such removal on the
applicant.
6. Special requirements based on whether communication small cell is affixed to a
building or pole:
a) Building -mounted:
1). The communication small cell may be attached to any building
that is at least twenty (20) feet in height as measured from the
ground level;
2). When attached to such building, the communication small cell
shall be affixed at least eighteen (18) feet in height as measured
from the ground level.
b) Pole -mounted:
1). The communication small cell shall be mounted on a pole that
supports an athletic field or parking lot light, street light or utility
line. Such pole shall be at least fifteen (15) feet in height as
measured from the ground level. Note: fiberglass poles, poles for
traffic lights or traffic signal systems cannot be used and are
prohibited for the mounting of any antennas or
telecommunications equipment;
2). Height Restrictions. All Small Cell Equipment installations shall
be in compliance with height restrictions applicable to poles and
other structures in certain overlay zoning districts. In all other
zoning areas, Small Cell Equipment shall not be installed at a
height exceeding thirty (30) feet;
3). The communication small cell shall not protrude outward more
than two (2) feet from the pole on which it is mounted;
4). There shall be no more than one (1) communication small cell
per pole;
5). The antenna size does not exceed 18 inches diameter and radio
units do not exceed 3 square feet of surface area on a side. No
more than 2 radio heads are allowed per pole.the a;.,metet: �r
.;ath of the polo „ whieh it ; metinted.
6). Security - construction for small cell sites on existing utility poles
must be installed in a manner that will not allow the public to
come into physical contact with the equipment or create injury.
Equipment must be mounted securely and include electrical surge
protection, safety cable connector locks, no sharp edges, or any
other potential hazards.
(2) Placement of Small Cell Technology on City Property' : The following
Standards shall apply for the placement of Small Cell Technology ' , of eii
on City property.
Ordinance 16-0764 (Draft 11/14)
Telecommunications
Page 16
A. The City will determine whether the location (and any existing pole) identified by the
applicant as a Small Cell Site is within the City Right -of -Way. If it is *et, the request
would be denied. The use of public right-of-way for small cell equipment is not
allowed in accordance with Chapter 90.03, Uses of Rights -of -waw
Gell Site Appheafieff.
B. In determining whether to allow the installation of a Small Cell Technology Wireless
Support Structure on City propegy , the City shall consider
the following factors and make a determination if it is appropriate:
1. Demonstrated need for the Small Cell Technologies within the geographic area
requested by a radio propagation study, or other Citgpproved method, in order
to deliver adequate service;
2. Proof that all co -location sites in the area of need are/were pursued and have been
denied; or that there does not exist the ability to co -locate using existing
structures. The Applicant must demonstrate all actions taken to achieve
colocation.
3. The character of the area in which the Small Cell Technology Wireless Support
Structure is requested, including evidence of surrounding properties and uses;
4. Stealth Technology, if any, proposed to be utilized by the Applicant, or proof that
Stealth Technology is either: (a) unnecessary; or (b) cannot be used.
5. Proof that the proposed Small Cell Technology Wireless Support Structure is the
minimal physical installation that will achieve the Applicant's goals.
6. The safety and aesthetic impact of any proposed Small Cell Technology Wireless
Support Structure, related accessory equipment, and/or Equipment Compound.
(3) Ownership of the Pole. The Lessor will determine the ownership of the pole identified for
installation of Small Cell Equipment.
(4) Site Eligibility. Lessor shall determine whether a requested City stFee4 light pole or the
location for the installation for a new pole is eligible as a Small Cell Site based on space availability or
other considerations. In addition, Lessor must determine whether public safety considerations prevent
eligibility of a Ci1y stfeet light pole as a Small Cell Site. Concerning a request to install a new pole,
Lessor shall determine whether City policies and availability of City property_prevent
the pole installation at the requested location.
(5) Structural Capacity. For any proposed installation on an existing pole, the applicant must
provide evidence that the pole has adequate structural capacity to carry the additional loading from the
proposed installation. The City may retain the services of an independent technical expert at the
applicant's expense to review, evaluate, and provide an opinion regarding the applicant's structural
documentation.
(6) Historic Preservation. All Small Cell Site installations on an historic building, site, or
within an historic district shall be stealth installations subject to the review of the Minnesota State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in order to satisfy that the installations are compatible with the
regulations applicable to the historic building, site or district. Lessee shall implement design concepts,
and the use of camouflage or stealth materials, as necessary in order to achieve compliance with SHPO
Ordinance 16-0764 (Draft 11/14)
Telecommunications
Page 17
review, the City and other applicable regulations as amended. Further, Lessee acknowledges that under
City regulations, all installations on City property Publie Rights ef Way are subject to review by
SHPO. Prior to submitting a Small Cell Site Application, Lessee shall meet with SHPO to discuss any
potential design modifications appropriate for the installation.
(7) Review Criteria. All Small Cell Site Applications requesting access to a City stfeet light
pole must include a load bearing study to determine whether the attachment of Small Cell Equipment
may proceed without pole modification or whether the installation will require pole re -enforcement or
replacement. If pole re -enforcement or replacement is necessary, applicant shall provide engineering
design and specification drawings demonstrating the proposed alteration to the pole. Engineering
documents will be review to determine:
A. compliance with contractual requirements under this Lease Agreement;
B. no interference with City public safety radio system, traffic signal light system, or
other communications components;
C. inclusion of appropriate design of stealth components necessary to comply with
historic preservation requirements or aesthetic design elements for downtown
attachments; and
D. compliance with City pole attachment regulations for stfeet light poles, including
replacement of Utility electric meter with dual meters.
(8) Determine Compliance with any other Applicable Requirements. As appropriate, the City
or their designee shall require Lessee to make design modifications in order to comply with applicable
contractual, regulatory, or legal requirements. Failure to make the requested design modifications shall
result in an incomplete Small Cell Site Application, which may not be processed under this Lease
Agreement.
(9) Approval of Application. Upon finding that the Small Cell Site Application is complete and
in compliance with all applicable requirements as outlined above, the City shall consider such Small
Cell Site application. The approval of the Small Cell Site Application requesting to attach to a City
light pole, or to install a new pole, shall authorize Lessee to proceed to obtain an excavation Permit
from the City. Lessee shall comply with the requirements and pay all appropriate Minnesota standard
promulgated ROW Permit fees. Upon obtaining a ROW use agreementRe t, Lessee may proceed to
install the Small Cell Equipment in coordination with any affected City departments. Approval of a
Small Cell Site Application related to the use of a utility pole, or a pole owned by any other third -
party, shall authorize Lessee to proceed with attachment process applicable to the pole owner and in
accordance with the pole owner's regulations proceed to obtain a ROW use agreement. Again,
Lessee shall proceed with the Small Cell Equipment installation in coordination with any affected City
departments. Upon completion of the installation, Lessee shall notify the City, or their designee, in
writing and provide a picture of said installation to be included in the Small Cell Site Application
records.
(10) Repair of Public Right -of -Way. The tenant must repair, at its sole cost and expense, any
damage (including, but not limited to, subsidence, cracking, erosion, collapse, weakening, or loss of
lateral support) to City streets, sidewalks, walks, curbs, gutters, trees, parkways, street light poles,
utility lines and systems, underground utility lines and systems, or sewer lines and systems, that results
from any activity performed in connection with the permittee's installation, operation, or maintenance
of a wireless telecommunications facility. In the event the tenant fails to complete said repair within
Ordinance 16-0764 (Draft 11/14)
Telecommunications
Page 18
the number of days stated on a written notice from the City, the City may cause said repair to be
completed and invoice the tenant for all costs incurred by the City as a result of such repair. The tenant
must promptly pay any costs so invoiced.
(V) EFFECTIVE DATE AND APPLICABILITY TO EXISTING FACILITIES. All Wireless
Telecommunications Facilities existing on or before July 1, 2009, shall be allowed to continue as they
presently exist, as legally permitted non -conforming uses. Such facilities shall be used or repaired
without having to comply with the Ordinance. Any material modification, including changes that
could result in interference, additional structural loading, or aesthetics of an existing
Telecommunications Facility, will require review and permitting in compliance with this Ordinance.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE. This ordinance shall take effect upon its adoption and
publication.
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL ci=v-f�
Request for Board Action 7AL =-WZ
Agenda Item: Public Hearing and tabling 2nd Reading of Chapter 90.03 Uses of Rights-of-way
Department: PW/Eng
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 12/13/2016
Application Complete N/A
Contact: John Paulson/Kent Exner
Agenda Item Type:
Presenter: John Paulson
Reviewed by Staff ❑
Public Hearing
Time Requested (Minutes): 5
License Contingency N/A
Attachments: Yes
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OFAGENDA ITEM:
Ordinance No. 16-0764. An Ordinance Amending Chapters 90.03 Pertaining to Uses of Public Rights-of-Way.
City staff has received some comments from interested parties about the proposed changes to the ordinance.
Additional time is needed to review and consider the comments that have been received. If additional comments are
received at the Public Hearing they will be included in the City staff review of all comments. Once comments are
reviewed City staff will respond to those comments and meet with interested parties as necessary.
If necessary, another Public Hearing can be set at a later date to hear comments on additional changes to the
proposed ordinance if it is determined revisions are needed.
City staff will be available to answer any questions.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Public Hearing and tabling the 2nd reading of Ordinance 16-0765, an ordinance amending Chapters 90.03
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:
Ordinance 16-0765 (Draft 11/14)
Streets and Sidewalks
Page 1
Ordinance No. 16-0765
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 90 (STREETS AND SIDEWALKS) OF THE CITY OF
HUTCHINSON CODE OF ORDINANCES AMENDING LANGUAGE IN SECTION 90.03
(OBSTRUCTIONS IN STREETS);
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 Streets and Sidewalks Ordinance to add language in Section 90.03 of the City
Code as follows:
CHAPTER 90: STREETS AND SIDEWALKS
Section
90.03 Obstructions in streets
§ 90.03 OBSTRUCTIONS IN STREETS.
(A) Obstructions. It is a misdemeanor for any person to place, deposit, display or offer for
sale, any fence, goods or other obstructions upon, over, across or under any street without first
having obtained a written permit from the Council, and then only in compliance in all respects
with the terms and conditions of that permit, and taking precautionary measures for the
protection of the public. An electrical cord or device of any kind is hereby included, but not by
way of limitation, within the definition of an obstruction.
(B) Fires. It is a misdemeanor for any person to build or maintain a fire upon a street.
(C) Dumping in streets. It is a misdemeanor for any person to throw or deposit in any street
any nails, dirt, glass or glassware, cans, discarded cloth or clothing, metal scraps, garbage,
leaves, grass or tree limbs, paper or paper products, shreds or rubbish, oil, grease or other
petroleum products, or to empty any water containing salt or other injurious chemical thereon,
except for leaves raked into the gutter line specifically for and in compliance with a municipal
leaf pick up program. It is a violation of this section to haul any material of this type,
inadequately enclosed or covered, thereby permitting the same to fall upon streets. It is also a
violation of this section to place or store any building materials or waste resulting from building
construction or demolition on any street without first having obtained a written permit from the
Council.
(D) Signs and other structures. It is a misdemeanor for any person to place or maintain a
sign, advertisement or other structure in any street without first having obtained a written permit
from the Council. In a district zoned for commercial or industrial enterprises, special permission
allowing an applicant to erect and maintain signs overhanging the street may be granted upon
Ordinance 16-0765 (Draft 11/14)
Streets and Sidewalks
Page 2
terms and conditions as may be set forth in the zoning or construction provisions in Title XV of
this code of ordinances.
(E) Placing snow or ice in a roadway or on a sidewalk.
(1) It is a misdemeanor for any person not acting under a specific contract with the city, or
without special permission from the City Administrator, to remove snow or ice from private
property and place the same in any roadway. Snow or ice on driveways, sidewalks and the like
shall not be pushed across traveled portions of roadways and may only be stored on private
property or on rights -of- way adjacent to the private property. The city may assess the cost of
removal of snow or ice against the affected property owner pursuant to the provisions of §
90.01(C) of this code.
(2) Where permission is granted by the City Administrator, the person to whom that
permission is granted shall be initially responsible for payment of all direct or indirect costs of
removing the snow or ice from the street or sidewalk. If not paid, collection shall be by civil
action or assessment against the benefitted property as any other special assessment.
(F) Uses of rights-of-way. Purpose: Rights-of-way provide many public benefits, including
providing for placement of utilities, roadway safety and maintenance, and access to and
protection of private property. Therefore, the City of Hutchinson regulates utilization of rights-
of-way to retain these and other public benefits of rights-of-way.
(1) Permanent and semi-permanent fixtures in rights-of-way require a franchise from the
City. Franchise agreements for permanent or semi-permanent fixtures must be approved
by the City Council. Other uses of rights-of-way may be regulated by permit or
ordinance as the Council sees fit.
(2) Permanent and semi-permanent fixtures shall include, but are not limited to, the
following:
a. Fixtures that are affixed to the ground by posts or foundations.
b. Fixtures not affixed to the ground, but of size, mass, and/or dimension that may
adversely affect the public function of the right-of-way.
c. Fixtures specifically exempt from the definition of permanent or semi-permanent
fixtures include:
i. Traffic control devices placed by a road authority, as defined by
Minnesota Statutue 160.02.
ii. Boulevard trees and landscaping features approved by a road authority.
iii. Fixtures required to provide municipal utilities.
Ordinance 16-0765 (Draft 11/14)
Streets and Sidewalks
Page 3
(3) Permanent and semi-permanent fixtures shall conform to the following requirements:
a. After placement of a fixture, there shall remain at least six (6) feet of
unobstructed sidewalk in commercial districts and four (4) feet of unobstructed
sidewalk in residential and industrial districts where sidewalk exists. In all cases
where trails exist, ten (10) feet of unobstructed trail shall remain.
b. Fixtures shall not block any traffic control device and shall not exceed thirty (30)
inches in height within the sight triangle area, defined as: that triangular area
formed by the hypotenuse of measurements twenty-five (25) feet each direction
from the intersection of corner property lines. A greater distance may be
required as determined by the City.
c. Fixtures shall not pose unreasonable safety hazards because of the type of
materials, objects or property placed within rights-of-way.
d. Fixtures shall not unreasonably restrict other necessary or beneficial uses of
rights-of-way.
e. Nothing herein shall prohibit:
i. The repair of fixtures and related appurtenances placed within rights-of-
way by existing franchisees, a road authority, or municipal utilities.
ii. The placement of mailboxes approved by the United States Postal
Service.
iii. The placement of driveways and accesses to private property otherwise
permitted.
(4) Maintenance of rights-of-way.
a. Work to maintain properties within rights-of-way is allowed by the City and
franchisees, as governed by Code Section 90.04.
b. Materials, objects or property may be placed in rights-of-way by the City or
under permit from the City in association with community and special events.
c. Landscape restoration by the City and franchisees shall consist of restoring
disturbed areas within rights-of-way with turf grasses
(5) Other uses of rights-of-way.
a. No use of rights-of-way shall cause a nuisance, hazard, danger, or sight
obstruction for any traffic, vehicles, pedestrians, or bicyclists using the right-of-
Ordinance 16-0765 (Draft 11/14)
Streets and Sidewalks
Page 4
way. The City may at its discretion remove, or order to be removed, at the
owners expense, any property causing such nuisance, hazard, danger or sign
obstruction and/or require appropriate warnings be placed.
b. The owner of property placed within rights-of-way shall be liable for any
damage, theft, vandalism, etc. of any fixture, item, object or property placed
within rights-of-way or any damage caused thereby. The owner of any such
property so placed shall hold the City harmless in any claims therefor.
(6) Small cell and telecommunications equipment prohibited
a. Public rights-of-way shall not be used for the purpose of small cell and
telecommunications equipment installations. The use of public rights-of-way for
this purpose is limited to access of communications or power utilities that are
authorized to exist in public right-of-way through agreement with the City.
(G) Continuing violation. Each day that any person continues in violation of this section shall
be a separate offense and punishable as such.
(H) Condition. Before granting any permit under any of the provisions of this section, the
Council may impose insurance or bonding conditions thereon as it, considering the projected
danger to public or private property or to persons, deems proper for safeguarding those persons
and property. The insurance or bond shall also protect the city from any suit, action or cause of
action arising by reason of the obstruction.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE. This ordinance shall take effect upon its adoption and
publication.
KAM
1111��111 I
t
December 6, 2016
City Council
City of Hutchinson
111 Hassan Street SE
Hutchinson, MN 55350
Re: Proposed Amendments to City Code Related to Small Cell Installations
Sections 90.03 (Uses of Rights-of-way) and 154.119 (Telecommunications)
To the Members of the City Council:
Our law firm has been retained by Verizon Wireless to represent it in its wireless network
development in Minnesota. As part of that work, we were notified that the City of Hutchinson is
considering amending its current public right-of-way and telecommunications ordinances.
As currently drafted, the proposed amendments violate Minnesota law by prohibiting
telecommunications facilities in the public right-of-way. Therefore, Verizon Wireless respectfully
requests that the City table these items so that the ordinances can be revised to meet the City's
goals and comply with Minnesota law. Please include this letter as part of the record of the
December 13, 2016, public hearing regarding these proposed amendments.
No Minnesota City can legally ban telecommunications facilities from public rights-
of-way. The state of Minnesota has specific statutes and regulations regarding local authority
to regulate telecommunications right-of-way users like Verizon Wireless. Most importantly, a
"telecommunications right-of-way user authorized to do business under the laws of this state or
by license of the Federal Communications Commission may construct, maintain, and operate
conduit, cable, switches, and related appurtenances and facilities along, across, upon, above,
and under any public right-of-way (emphasis added)." See Minn. Stat. § 237.163, subd. 2(a)
(2015). Thus, a telecommunications right-of-way user like Verizon Wireless, which holds
numerous FCC licenses to provide wireless telecommunication service throughout Minnesota,
(including the City of Hutchinson) has the right to construct wireless facilities within any
municipal public right-of-way.
To ensure the safe and convenient use of public rights-of-way in the state by companies like
Verizon Wireless, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission ("PUC') was charged with
developing uniform statewide standards. See Minnesota Rules Chapter 7819. These
regulations provide that "A local government unit shall not unreasonably prohibit the placement
of a facility in the nontraveled portion of the right-of-way." Minn. R. 7819.5100. A local unit of
government may not adopt an ordinance or other regulation that conflicts with these
150 South Fifth Street I Suite 1200 i Minneapolis, MN 55402
P:612-877-5000 F:612-877-5999 W:LawMoss.com
0
City Council
City of Hutchinson
December 6, 2016
Page 2
regulations, and the PUC is authorized to review, upon complaint by an aggrieved
telecommunications right-of-way user, a decision or regulation by a local government unit that
is alleged to violate a statewide standard. See Minn. Stat. § 237.163, subd. 8 (2015).
Although local governments like the City of Hutchinson may not prohibit the placement of
telecommunications facilities in the public right-of-way, local governments may, but are not
required to, manage the use of local public rights-of-way by telecommunications rights-of-way
users and to receive management costs for their efforts. See Minn. Stat. § 237.163, subd. 6.
Local governments may enact ordinances that require telecommunications right-of-way users to
obtain and comply with right-of-way permits; to register with the local government unit; and
submit construction and maintenance plans. See Minn. Stat. § 237.163, subd. 2. However,
Minnesota law provides that "[i]n no event may a local government unit unreasonably withhold
approval of an application for a right-of-way permit ...." Minn. Stat. § 237.163, subd. 4.
As written, the proposed City code amendments would violate Minn. Stat. § 237.163 and the
PUC standards because they prohibit telecommunications equipment from being installed in the
public right-of-way. Specifically, the proposed amendment to the City's right-of-way ordinance
(Ordinance No. 16-0765) provides as follows:
(6) Small cell and telecommunications equipment prohibited.
a. Public rights-of-way shall not be used for the purpose of small cell and
telecommunications equipment installations.
(Underlining as shown in amendment.) Instead, only regulated utilities are allowed to use the
public rights-of-way. As mentioned above, pursuant to Minnesota law, the City cannot prohibit
wireless providers like Verizon Wireless from installing its facilities in the public rights-of-way.
Likewise, the proposed revised telecommunications ordinance (Ordinance 16-0764) violates
Minnesota law by also prohibiting installations in the right of way by reference to the following,
proposed amendment to the right-of-way ordinance:
The City will determine whether the location (and any existing pole) identified by
the applicant as a Small Cell Site is within the City Right -of -Way. If it is, the
request would be denied. The use of public right-of-way for small cell equipment
is not allowed in accordance with Chapter 90.03: Uses of Rights-of-way."
(Underlining as shown in amendment.)
In fact, an ordinance that only permits installations on City -owned poles pursuant to a lease or
use agreement with the City would also violate Minn. Stat. § 237.163 and the PUC standards by
unreasonably prohibiting the placement of a facility in the nontraveled portion of the right-of-
way. Again, the City may manage its public rights-of-way, but in "managing the public rights-
of-way and in imposing fees under this section, no local government unit may ... require a
telecommunications right-of-way user to obtain a franchise or pay a fee for the use of the right-
of-way (emphasis added)." Minn. Stat. § 237.163, subd. 7(a)(4). Moreover, the PUC
regulations have detailed restrictions on the conditions for issuing a public right-of-way permit,
City Council
City of Hutchinson
December 6, 2016
Page 3
such as the scope of indemnification (Minn. R. 7819.1250), restoration (Minn. R. 7819.1100)
and relocation (Minn. R. 7819.3100).
By allowing use of public rights of way, the City of Hutchinson can enable new
wireless technologies to be deployed, which benefits residents, businesses and
visitors to the City. When the Minnesota state legislature enacted Minn. Stat. §§ 237.162
and 163, it found and established the principle that, it is in the state's interest that the use and
regulation of public rights-of-way be carried on in a fair, efficient, competitively neutral, and
substantially uniform manner, while recognizing the distinct technical and public safety
requirements for such use. Cellphones have become so commonplace that it is crucial for cities
like Hutchinson to adopt ordinances that encourage well-developed networks, so that these
devices will work properly when they are needed most. After all, nearly 50% of adults in the
United States have only a wireless telephone, with no traditional landline telephone service at
all:
Wireless -Only Households, 2003-20151
figure. Percentages of adults and ehlk ren living in households with only wireless telephone
service: United States, 2003-2015
That percentage will only rise as the next generation moves into adulthood, since nearly 60% of
children live in households that have a wireless telephone as the only telephone. Here in the
Midwest, 51.4% of adults live in households with no wired phone.2 Of course, almost everyone
has a cellphone, smartphone or tablet device that we rely on every day, even if we have a
wired phone, too. With these trends at work, wireless telephone users everywhere — including
those in Hutchinson — require more cell sites to support the voice and data capabilities of their
devices.
1 See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Wireless
Substitution: Early Release of Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, July —December 2015 (May 2016)
at p. 1 available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless2016O5.pdf.
2 Id. at Table 2, p.7.
City Council
City of Hutchinson
December 6, 2016
Page 4
Deploying small cell facilities in the public right-of-way is critical to providing adequate network
capacity and fixing coverage gaps created by topography or structures. Only by providing small
cell facilities in relatively close proximity to its customers can Verizon Wireless resolve these
issues. The antennas need to be wherever the people are, and the City's ordinances should be
drafted to make this possible.
Public rights-of-way have been used by telecommunication providers in Minnesota for decades,
and by adopting reasonable ordinances, cities like Hutchinson can ensure lawful and responsible
management of its local public rights-of-way for all users. Of course, responsible management
of the City's local public rights-of-way may include the City's interest in minimizing the size of
wireless installations in the public right-of-way, and the proposed size limitations for pole -
mounted installations that City staff worked out with Verizon Wireless's consultant in City Code
§ 154.119(U)(1)(A)(6)(b) are certainly reasonable.
Conclusion. As currently drafted, the proposed amendments violate Minnesota law by
prohibiting telecommunications facilities in the public right-of-way. The League of Minnesota
Cities recently published an Information Memo on this topic, entitled "Cell Towers, Small Cell
Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems," (a vai/ab/e athttP:Hlmc.org/media/document/l/
celltowerssmallcelltechanddas.pdRinline=true). In addition to a discussion of federal law
related to this topic, page 4 of that Information Memo explains these issues as follows:
In addition to mirroring the federal law limitations above, state law also
specifically prohibits a city from denying a permit to a telecommunications right-
of-way user for failure to include a project in a submitted plan, when the
telecommunications right-of-way user has used commercially reasonable efforts
to anticipate and plan for the project. Also, in no event may a city unreasonably
withhold approval of an application for a right-of-way permit, or unreasonably
revoke a permit from a telecommunications right-of-way user. Finally, although a
city may recover its right-of-way management costs through fees, including
permit fees, it may not require a telecommunications right-of-way user to obtain
a franchise or pay for the use of the right-of-way.
Id. at p. 4. It is our hope that the City of Hutchinson will heed the advice of the League, and
refuse to ban small cell installations from the public rights of way.
Verizon Wireless respectfully requests that the City table these items so that the ordinances can
be revised to (1) allow telecommunications right-of-way users access to the public right-of-way
consistent with Minn. Stat. §§ 237.162 and 163 and the PUC regulations; and (2) consider only
those reasonable right-of-way permit conditions that take into account the low visual impact
and space requirements of these installations, so that wireless service can be improved in the
City.
City Council
City of Hutchinson
December 6, 2016
Page 5
We will be in attendance at the City Council meeting on December 13, 2016, to answer
questions related to the comments made in this correspondence. If any reader of this letter has
questions in the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Respectfully Submitted,
7aymes D. Littlejohn
Attorney at Law
P: (612) 877-5274 F: (612) 877-5047
Jay. Littlejohn@lawmoss.com
JDL/AAD/KDP
cc: Mary Julius
Jared Andrews
Amy Dresch
3430663v3
December 8, 2016
Marc A. Sebora, City, Attorney
Officiol'thc 0tvAtiornvv
I I I llassan Street SE
James D. Littlejohn VIA EMAIL
Attorney at Law
Moss &" Barnett
150 South Fifth Street
Suite 1200
Minneapolis, 110N 55402
Hutchinwn. N4N' 33330-2322
,;10-234�;68'il'hotie.',-20-234-4201;F,i\
RC: Proposed Amendments it) City Code Related to Small Cell Installations
Sections 90.03 (Uses of Rights -of- way) and 154.119 (Telecommunications)
Dcar Mr. Littlejohn:
Thank you I*Or your letter of December 6, 2016, which was directed to the City oft lutchinson's
Fnvirotimental Permitting Specialist, John Paulson, and to the City's Planning Director, Dan
Jochum.
As you noted in your letter, the City of Hutchinson is considering arnendinents to its right -of-
way and telecommunication ordinances at its December 13. 2016, meeting. I have spoken with
Matt Jaunich, the I lutchinson City Administrator, and he is forwarding your correspondence to
the each of the I lutchinson City Council Members so they are aNvare of your concerns and your
position as they relate to the ordinances that the City or I lutchinson is considering amending.
Obviously before beginning such an undertaking, the City has conducted research into the matter
and has consulted with the League of Minnesota Cities. the City's telecommunication attorneys
at the firm of Kennedy and Graven, and me.
Contrary to the assertions in your letter, it does not appear that either through federal regulation,
state statute and regulation as enacted, or through the legislative intent in their promulgation, that
companies such as Verizon are entitled to access to a city's right-of-way as a matter of right. To
the contrary, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission has consistently upheld the authority of
cities to manage city right-of-way in relation to wireless companies and just recently did so again
in ,in order issued two weeks ago regarding Mobiliiie Management, LLC which I am sure you
are aware of.
I lutchinson is a very progressive community. The City generates its own electricity. The City
has its own natural gas utility and owns a 97-n-iile long natural gas pipeline to serve the City's gas
customers, which is the only municipally -owned natural gas pipeline in the state. The City has
its own compost ['acility, 6eekside Soils, which sells millions of bags of organic materials
throus.djout the midwest each year. Again, the only facility of its kind in the State. The City has
the state's only brownfietd solar power electricity generating facility which completely powers
our wastewater treatment facility. In that same vein, and out of concerns for the safety of the
community and community aesthetics. the City undertook a prograrn in the 1980s to convert all
utilities - public and private - to underground facilities at a cost of millions of dollars, The City
of I lutchinson has no above -ground utilities, transmission I ines, cable television lines, phone
line!, etc, of Deny kind. It is out of the same concerns that the City is considering these ordinanccs.
In addition to your written concerns which will be forwarded to the City Councilyou are
cellainly, welcome to attend the hearing on "ruesday, December 13, 2016, at 6:00 PM at the
I tutchinson City Center to provide additional input if youwish.
It will be the recommendation ofthe city administrator at the close of the public hearing to table
the second reading and adoption of these ordinances until the Council's December 27, 2016,
meeting so that the Council Members may fairly evaluate input given to them prior to and at the
I
Public licaflng.
In the meantime, should you have questions concerning this, please 1eel free to contact me.
Sincerely.
Marc A. Sebora
City Attornev
BEFORE THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Beverly Jones Heydinger
Nancy Lange
Dan Lipschultz
Matthew Schuerger
John A. Tuma
In the Matter of the Application of
Mobilitie Management, LLC for a Certificate
of Authority to Provide Local Niche Service
Chair
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
ISSUE DATE: November 28, 2016
DOCKET NO. P-6966/NA-16-607
ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATE OF
AUTHORITY WITH CONDITIONS
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 22, 2016, Mobilitie Management, LLC (the Applicant) filed a request for a certificate of
authority to provide local niche service in Minnesota.
The Applicant is an affiliate of Mobilitie, LLC, which currently holds a certificate of authority to
provide local niche services in Minnesota. I
On September 20, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) filed a letter
recommending approval of the Applicant's request for a certificate of authority to provide local
niche service.
On September 23, 2016, the Suburban Rate Authority filed comments voicing concerns about
possible confusion between the actions of Mobilitie LLC and the Applicant.
On November 3, 2016, the Commission met to consider the matter.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. Positions of the Parties
The Department recently received a number of communications from Minnesota municipalities.
The municipalities claimed that representatives of Mobilitie, LLC (an affiliate of Applicant) were
asserting that Mobilitie, LLC is not subject to right-of-way regulation by the municipalities,
because it holds a certificate of authority from the Commission. On August 4, 2016, the
1 Docket No. P-6636/NA-07-470.
Department sent a letter to Mobilitie, LLC. The letter stated that, despite its certification as a local
niche carrier, Mobilitie, LLC is not exempt from municipal ordinances and requirements
concerning rights-of-way.
On August 16, 2016, the Department and Commission staff met with representatives of
Mobilitie, LLC to discuss the company's compliance with municipal rights-of-way.
On September 20, 2016, the Department filed its recommendation to grant a certificate of authority
to Applicant for local niche service. The Department carefully analyzed the application and
concluded that Applicant met the requirements of Minnesota laws and the Commission's rules.
In its September 23 comments, the Suburban Rate Authority stated it supports the Department's
position that Mobilitie, LLC has no exemption fiom municipal authority to manage rights-of-way.
The Suburban Rate Authority also stated that it is aware of no federal preemption under the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 or Minnesota law that would preclude local right-of-way
management. The Suburban Rate Authority acknowledged that Mobilitie LLC is not the Applicant
here, but voiced its concern over possible overlap of intended local niche business and
right-of-way access by Mobilitie, LLC and the Applicant.
At the Commission meeting, counsel for Applicant addressed the concerns raised by the
Suburban Rate Authority. The Applicant stated that no facilities have been built in Minnesota
without a local permit, and acknowledged that Applicant is subject to the permitting authority of
local units of government with respect to facilities to be placed within local rights-of-way.
II. Commission Action
The Commission agrees with and adopts the Department's recommendation to grant Applicant's
request for a certificate of authority to provide local niche authority to Applicant.
The Commission is also aware of the uncertainty caused by the actions of some representatives of
Mobilitie, LLC. To alleviate these concerns and satisfy itself that Applicant will follow the state
and local law regarding access to rights-of-way governed by local permitting authorities, the
Commission will impose certain conditions on Applicant's authority, as set forth in Ordering
Paragraph 2, below.
ORDER
The Commission grants Mobilitie Management, LLC's request for a Certificate of
Authority to provide local niche sei vice.
Mobilitie Management, LLC shall be subject to the following conditions:
A. Mobilitie Management, LLC shall file a detailed statement of its company policy
regarding access to local government rights-of-way; and
PA
B. Mobilitie Management, LLC shall acknowledge that facilities placed in local rights-of-
way are subject to local authority.
This order shall become effective immediately.
BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
Daniel P. Wolf
Executive Secretary
This document can be made available in alternative formats (e.g., large print or audio) by calling
651.296.0406 (voice). Persons with hearing loss or speech disabilities may call us through their
preferred Telecommunications Relay Service.
`�-� INFORMATION MEMO
LSA OF Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies
MINNESOTA
CITIES & Distributed Antenna Systems
Learn about large and small cell tower deployment and siting requests for small cell and distributed
antenna systems ("DAS') technology. Better understand the trend of the addition of DAS or small cell
equipment on existing utility equipment. Be aware of common gaps in city zoning, impact of federal
law, and some best practices for dealing with large and small cell towers, as well as with DAS.
RELEVANT LINKS:
471J.S.C. § 253 (commonly
known as Section 253 of
Telecommunications Act).
471J.S.(:;. §332 (commonly
known as Section 332 of
Telecommunications Act).
rCC website.
47 U.S.C. § 253 (commonly
known as Section 253 of
Telecommunications Act).
47 U.S.C. §332 (commonly
known as Section 332 of
Telecommunications Act).
FCC website interpreting
Telecommunications Act of
1996.
Deployment of large cell towers or antennas
A cell site or cell tower creates a "cell" in a cellular network and typically
supports antennae plus other equipment, such as one or more sets of
transceivers, digital signal processors, control electronics, GPS equipment,
primary and backup electrical power and sheltering. Only a fmite number of
calls or data can go through these facilities at once and the working range of
the cell site varies based on any number of factors, including height of the
antenna. The FCC has stated that cellular or personal communications
services (PCS) towers typically range anywhere from 50 to 200 feet high.
The emergence of personal communications services, the increased number
of cell providers and the growing demand for better coverage have spurred
requests for new cell towers and small cell equipment nationwide. As a
result, some cellular carriers, telecommunications wholesalers or tower
companies, have attempted to quickly deploy telecommunications systems
or personal wireless service facilities, and, in doing so, often claim federal
law requires cities to allow construction or placement of towers, equipment
or antennas in rights-of-way. Such claims generally have no basis. Although
not completely unfettered, cities can feel assured that, in general, federal law
preserves local zoning and land use authority.
A. The Telecommunications Act and the FCC
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA) represented America's first
successful attempt to reform regulations on telecommunications in more,
than 60 years; and, also, was the first piece of legislation to address internet
access. Congress enacted the TCA to promote competition and higher
quality in American telecommunications services and to encourage rapid
deployment of new telecommunications technologies.
The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) is the federal agency
charged with creating rules and policies under the TCA and other
telecommunications laws.
This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for legal advice. Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations.
145 University Ave. West
Saint Paul, MN 55103-2044
www.lmc.org
(651) 281-1200 or (800) 925-1122
11/4/2016
© 2016 All Rights Reserved
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 11/4/2016
Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems Page 2
The FCC also manages and licenses commercial users (like cell providers,
telecommunications wholesalers and tower companies), as well as non-
commercial users (like local governments). As a result, both the TCA and
FCC rulings impact interactions between the cell industry and local
government.
The significant changes in the wireless industry and its related shared
wireless infrastructures, along with consumer demand for fast and reliable
service on mobile devices, have fueled a frenzy of requests for large and
small cell/DAS site development and/or deployment. As a part of this, cities
find themselves facing cell industry arguments that federal law requires
cities to approve tower siting requests.
Companies making these claims most often cite to Section 253 or Section
47 U.S.C. § 253 (Semon 253
of Telecommunications Act).
332 of the TCA as support. Section 253 states "no state or local statute or
regulation may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any
42 U.S.C_ § 332(0)(. )-
entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service".
FCC 09-99. Declaratory
Section 332 has a similar provision ensuring the entry of commercial mobile
Ruling (Nov. 18, 2009).
services into desired geographic markets to establish of personal wireless
service facilities.
4; U.S.C. § 253(c),(e)
These provision should not, however, be read out of context. When reading
(Section 253 of
Telecommunications Act).
the relevant sections in their entirety, it becomes clear that federal law does
not pre-empt local municipal regulations and land use controls. Specifically,
4? U.S.C. § 332(c)(2).
the law states "[n]othing in this section affects the authority of a State or
local government to manage the public rights-of-way or to require fair and
FCC 09-99, Declaratory
Ruling (Nov. 18,2009>-
reasonable compensation from telecommunications providers, on a
competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis, for use of public rights-
of-way ..." and that "nothing in this chapter shall limit or affect the authority
of ...local government ... over decisions regarding the placement,
construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities".
sprint Spectra„ r v. Arills,
Courts consistently have agreed that local governments retain their
283 F.3d 404 (2nd Cir.
2002).
regulatory authority and, when faced with making decisions on placement of
antenna or new telecommunication service equipment on city
USCOC Uf CiiGatPY Missouritowers,
v. fill. Qf.,Ifarlhough, 618
facilities, they have the same rights that private individuals have to deny or
F.supp.2d 1055 (E.D. Mo.
permit placement of a cellular tower on their property. This means cities can
2009).
regulate and permit placement of towers and other personal wireless service
FCC U9-99, Declaratory
facilities, including controlling height, exterior materials, accessory
Ruling (Nov. 18, 2009).
buildings and even location. Cities should be careful to make sure that local
regulations don't have the effect of completely banning all cell towers or
personal wireless service facilities. Such regulation could run afoul of
federal law.
League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 11/4/2016
Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems Page 2
RELEVANT LINKS:
6'ertical Broadcasting v.
Town of'Southampton, 84 F.
Supp.2d 379 (E.D.N.Y.
2000).
Paging v. Bd. gf Zoning
Appeals for Montgomery
C:tv., 957 F.Supp 805 (W.D
Va. 1997).
Letter from Minnesota
Department of Commerce to
Mobilitie.
Nlinn. Stat. §237.162
Minn. Stat. §231.163.
Minnesota Public Utilities
Commission, Meeting
Agenda (Nov. 3, 2016).
USCOC of Greater Missouri
v. bill. Ofi,Varlbough, 618
F.Supp.2d 1055 (E.D. Mo.
2009).
Minnesota Towes Inc. v.
City gfL)uluth, 474 F.3d
1052 (81 Cir. 2007).
NE Colorado Cellular, Inc. v.
City gfNorth Platte, 764
F.3d 929 (8th Cir. 2014)
(denial of CUP for tower
must be "in writing" but need
not be a separate finding
from the reasons in the
denial).
Some cellular companies try to gain access by claiming they are utilities.
The basis for such a claim usually follows one of two themes — either that, as
a utility, federal law entitles them to entry; or, in the alternative, under the
city's ordinances, they get the same treatment as other utilities. Courts
consistently have rejected the first argument of entitlement, citing to the
specific directive that local municipalities retain traditional zoning
discretion.
B. State law
In the alternative, the argument that a city's local ordinances include towers
as a utility has, on occasion and in different states, carried more weight with
a court. To avoid any such arguments, cities can specifically exclude towers,
antenna, small cell, and DAS equipment from their ordinance's definition of
utilities. The Minnesota Department of Commerce, in a letter to a wireless
infrastructure provider, cautioned the company that its certificate of
authority to provide a local niche service did not authorize it to claim an
exemption from local zoning. The Minnesota Department of Commerce
additionally requested that the offending company cease from making those
assertions. Some confusion has arisen regarding what types of entities
represent telecommunications right-of-way users under state law. If an entity
qualifies as a telecommunications right-of-way user, a specific state statutory
provision addresses the use and regulation of rights-of-way by these
telecommunication users. Because this state law authorizes the local
governmental authorities to manage its rights of way and to recover its
rights-of-way management costs through an ordinance and subject to certain
restrictions, cities should work with city attorneys on reviewing or updating
its ordinances.
C. Limitations on cities' authority
Although federal law expressly preserves local governmental regulatory
authority, it does place several substantive and procedural limits on that
authority. Specifically, a city:
• cannot unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally
equivalent services,
• cannot regulate those providers in a manner that prohibits or has the
effect of prohibiting the provision of telecommunications services or
personal wireless services,
• must act on applications within a reasonable time (easily met by
compliance with Minnesota's 60 day rule), and
League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 11/4/2016
Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems Page 3
RELEVANT LINKS:
Minn. stat. § 15.99. see
• must document denial of an application in writing supported by
LMC information memo, The
60-Dav Rule Hinnesota's
"substantial evidence".
Automatic Approval Statute.
Smith Comm. V Kishixgtox
proof that the local zoning authority's decision furthers the applicable local
Cry, Ark., 785 F.3d 1253 (8th
Cir. 2015) (substantial
zoning requirements satisfies the substantial evidence test. Municipalities
evidence' analysis involves
cannot cite environmental concerns as a reason for denial, however, when
whether the local zoning
authority's decision is
the antennas comply with FCC rules on radio emissions. In the alternative,
consistent with the applicable
cities can request proof of compliance with the FCC rules.
local zoning requirements
and can include aesthetic
reasons).
Bringing an action in federal court represents the recourse available to the
cellular industry if challenging the denial of a siting request under federal
law. Based on the limitations set forth in the federal law on local land use
and zoning authority, most often, when cities deny siting requests, the
challenges to those denials claim:
FCC 09-99, Declaratory
. the municipal action has the effect of "prohibiting the provision of
Ruling, Nov. 18, 2009.
personal wireless service"; or
Tower and Antenna siting
FAQ sheet from FCC.
, the municipal action unreasonably discriminates among providers of
T-,Urohtle lest l- Crow, No.
functionally equivalent services (i.e. cell providers claiming to be a type
CV08-1337 (D. AZ. Dec. 16,
of utility so they can get same treatment as utility under city ordinance).
2009).
Minn. stat. §237.162
Although this memo primarily focuses on the federal law applicable to siting
Minn. Stat. §237.163
requests, cities should remember to consult state law as well. In addition to
mirroring the federal law limitations above, state law also specifically
prohibits a city from denying a permit to a telecommunications right-of-way
user for failure to include a project in a submitted plan, when the
telecommunications right-of-way user has used commercially reasonable
efforts to anticipate and plan for the project. Also, in no event may a city
unreasonably withhold approval of an application for a right-of-way permit,
or unreasonably revoke a permit from a telecommunications right-of-way
user. Finally, although a city may recover its right-of-way management costs
through fees, including permit fees, it may not require a telecommunications
right-of-way user to obtain a franchise or pay for the use of the right-of-way.
D. Court decisions
Wixxesota "Towers rxc. v.
The Eighth Circuit (controlling law for Minnesota) recognizes that cities do
City (j' 1 Cir. 07 .
1052 (8 Cir. 2007).
indeed retain local authority over decisions regarding the placement and
y $ g
construction of towers and personal wireless service facilities.
S'rrtith Comm. I! R'ashix,gtox
C:'Iv, Ark., 785 F.3d 1253 (8th
Cir. 2015).
League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 11/4/2016
Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems Page 4
RELEVANT LINKS:
Voicestrcam PCS11 Corp. v.
City of'St. Louis, No.
4:04CV732 (E.D.Mo. August
3, 2005) (city interpretation
of city ordinance treats
communication facility as a
utility).
CSCOC of GreaterMissouri
V. Vill. Of:Varlbough, 618
F.Supp2d 1055 (E.D. Mo.
2009).
LMC information memo,
Regulating City Rights of
6Gay, and model right of way
ordinance.
See Appendix, Sample
Ordinances and Agreements.
See Appendix, Sample
Ordinances and Agreements.
The Eighth Circuit also has heard cases where a carrier or other
telecommunications company argue they are a utility and should be treated
as such under local ordinances. Usually the companies that provide
wholesale telecommunication services to licensed carriers (most often
occurring in the Distributed Antenna System or DAS, systems discussed in
Section Il below) make this argument. Absent a local ordinance that includes
this type of equipment within its definition of utilities, courts do not
necessarily deem cell towers or other personal communications services
equipment functionally equivalent to utilities. Additionally, courts have
found that the federal law anticipates some disparate application of the law,
even among those deemed functionally equivalent. For example, courts
determined it reasonable to consider the location of a cell tower when
deciding whether to approve tower construction (finding it okay to treat
different locations differently), as long as cities do not allow one company to
build a tower at a particular location at the exclusion of other providers.
E. City Approaches
Regulation of placement of cell towers and personal wireless services can
occur in a variety of different ways, including zoning ordinances, rights-of-
way (ROW) management ordinances or adopting a specific cell
tower/telecommunication ordinance. Minnesota law provides cities with
comprehensive authority to manage their ROWS. With the unique
application of federal law to telecommunications, coupled by siting requests
that may request siting both in and out of rights-of-way, many cities find that
having a separate telecommunications ordinance (in addition to a ROW
ordinance) allows cities to better regulate towers and other
telecommunications equipment, including addressing location, design,
height, lighting, finish or accessory buildings. Some cities also have
modified the definitions in their ordinances to exclude cell towers,
telecommunications, wireless systems, DAS, small cell equipment and more
from utilities to counter the cell industry's requests for equal treatment or
more lenient zoning under the city's zoning ordinances.
In addition to adopting specific regulations, many city zoning ordinances
recognize these structures as conditional uses requiring a permit (many of
these regulations include a provision for variances, if needed). With the
emergence of small cell technologies, like DAS systems described in a later
part of this memo, cities have started to amend their zoning and cell
tower/telecommunications ordinances to account for more expedited
decisions on small cell/DAS siting requests, including establishing a separate
administrative approval process for these less burdensome requests to add
technologies onto existing structures, like poles or water towers.
League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 11/4/2016
Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems Page 5
RELEVANT LINKS:
See Appendix, Sample
Ordinances and Agreements.
See Appendix, Sample
Ordinances and Agreements.
In addition, because these new technologies attach to existing structures,
cities often need additional documents for managing these relationships
including Master Licensing Agreements, License Supplement (or Lease);
Pole Attachment Application (if city's ordinance so requires in its permit
process); and Bill of Sale (for sale of pole from carrier to city).
II. Deployment of small cell technologies and
DAS
Small cell equipment and DAS both transmit wireless signals to and from a
defined area to a larger cell tower and often are installed at sites that support
cell coverage either within a large cell area that has high coverage needs or,
in the alternative, at sites within large geographic areas that have poor cell
coverage overall.
Situational needs dictate when cell providers use small cell towers, as
opposed to DAS technology. Generally, cell providers install small cell
towers when they need to target specific indoor or outdoor areas like
stadiums, hospitals, or shopping malls. DAS technology, alternatively, uses a
small radio unit and an antenna (that directly link to an existing, large cell
tower via fiber optics). Installation of a DAS often involves cell providers
using the fiber within existing utility structures to link to its larger cell tower.
Cities sometimes are asked to provide the power needed for the radios,
which the city can negotiate into the leasing agreement with the cell
provider.
A. Additional zoning and permitting needs
Currently many cities' zoning ordinances address large cell sites, but not
small cell towers or DAS. Cities should review their ordinances to establish
an efficient way to review and process small cell/DAS requests, particularly
in light of federal law. As discussed earlier in this memo, one common
approach includes setting up an administrative approval process to more
quickly review requests for these small cell/DAS technologies.
Since the placement of small cell technology or DAS on existing structures
oftentimes can result in cities renting space on city owned structures, like
poles or water towers, cities should also consult city attorneys to get
assistance with drafting master licensing agreements, license supplement (or
lease); pole attachment application (if city's ordinance so requires in its
permit process); and bill of sale (for sale of pole from carrier to city).
League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 11/4/2016
Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems Page 6
RELEVANT LINKS:
47 U.S.C. §332 (commonly
known as Section332 of
Telecommunications Act).
}CC 09-99, Declaratory
Ruling (Nov. 18, 2009).
FCC; 14-153, Report K Order
(October 21, 2014).
See, "Small Cells and
distributed antenna systems,"
Best, Best and Krieger Law
(Sept. 2014).
Generally, the terms of the Master License Agreement should include
provisions regarding:
• licensing scheme
• defmitions of scope of permitted uses
• establishment of ROW rental fee
• protection of city resources
• provision of contract term
• specification of each installation subject to sublicense or lease
• establishment of application approval process
• statement of general provisions
Cities also should be aware that new DAS or new small cell technologies are
subject to the same restrictions under federal law that apply to large of
towers. Specifically,
• a city may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of
functionally equivalent services,
• may not regulate in a manner that prohibits or has the effect of
prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services,
• must act on applications within a reasonable time and
• must make any denial of an application in writing supported by
substantial evidence in a written record.
The below questions may help guide cities when reviewing current
ordinances:
• Does the city's zoning ordinance apply to smaller facilities in the rights-
of-way?
• Will the city's regulatory process allow it to review a request to place a
number of facilities at multiple sites in a timely way?
• Can the city ensure that small facilities, once approved, will not expand
into harmful facilities later?
• Does the DAS provider have wireless customers, or is it only placing
facilities with the hope of obtaining them?
• Has the city developed an approach to leasing government-owned
property for new wireless uses that protects the community and
maximizes the value of its assets?
• Does the city's rights of way management ordinance exclude these small
facilities from the definition of utilities?
League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 11/4/2016
Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems Page 7
RELEVANT LINKS:
Section 6409(a) of the
Middle Class Tax Relief and
Joe Creation Act of 2012,
codified at 47 U.S.C. § 1455
FCC Public Notice AD 12-
2047 (January 25, 2013).
FCC 14-153, Report & Order
(October 21, 2014).
F'CC' Public Notice AD 12-
2047 (January 25, 2013).
FCC Public Notice AD 12-
2047 (January 25, 2013).
City oj'Arlington Texas, et.
al. V. Fuc', et. al., 133 S.Ct.
1863, 1867 (2013) (90 days
to process collocation
application and 150 days to
process all other applications,
relying on §332(c)(7)(B)(ii)).
Minn. Stat. § 15.99.
This model ordinance and
other information can be
found at National
Association of Counties
Website,
B. Modifications of existing telecommunication
structures
Cities should know that, if a siting requests proposes a modifications to
and/or collocations of wireless transmission equipment on existing FCC
regulated towers or base stations, then federal law further limits local
municipal control. Specifically, the law requires cities to grant requests for
modifications or collocation to existing FCC regulated structures when that
modification would not "substantially change" the physical dimensions of
the tower or base station. The FCC has established guidelines on what
"substantially change the physical dimensions" means and what constitutes a
"wireless tower or base station".
Once small cell equipment or antennae gets placed on that pole, then the
pole became a telecommunication structure subject to federal law and FCC
regulations. Accordingly, the city now must comply with the more restrictive
federal laws which allow modifications to these structures that do not
substantially change the physical dimensions of the pole, like having
equipment from the other cell carriers.
Under this law, it appears cities cannot ask an applicant who is requesting
modification for documentation information other how the modification
impacts the physical dimensions of the structure. Accordingly,
documentation illustrating the need for such wireless facilities or justifying
the business decision likely cannot be requested. Of course, as with the other
siting requests, state and local zoning authorities must take prompt action on
these siting applications for wireless facilities (which Minnesota's 60 day
shot clock rule satisfies).
Two wireless industry associations, the WIA (formerly known as the PCIA)
and CTIA, collaborated with the National League of Cities, the National
Association of Counties, and the National Association of
Telecommunications Officers and Advisors to: (1) develop a model
ordinance and application for reviewing eligible small ce1UDAS facilities
requests under federal law (2) discuss and distribute wireless siting best
practices; (3) create a checklist that local government officials can use to
help streamline the review process; and (4) hold webinars regarding the
application process.
III. Moratoriums
The cellular industry often challenge moratoriums used to stall placement of
cell towers, as well as small cell/DAS technology, until cities can address
regulation of these structures. Generally, these providers argue that these
moratoriums:
League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 11/4/2016
Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems Page 8
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 11/4/2016
Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems Page 9
• prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal
wireless services; or
• violate federal law by failing to act on an application within a reasonable
time.
Courts agree that the legality of moratoria related to cell tower or personal
wireless service deployment requires a case by case analysis and turns on the
facts of each situation. Review of these moratoriums oftentimes depend
upon:
APTMinneapolis, Inc. v.
• whether the city already had a cell tower ordinance in effect at the time
Stillwater Township, Civil
No 00-2500 (D. Minn. June
of application or if the city passed the moratorium because they had no
22, 200 1) (unpublished).
relevant zoning In place);
Sprint Spectrum v. City, of
• how much time had passed since the passing of the federal law,
Medina, 924 F.Supp.
1036 (W.D.Wash.1996).
indicating whether this moratorium was not in response to recent
legislation;
bprint cam v. Town of
l�V.Seneca, 65 659 N.Y.S.2d 687
• Whether the citycontinued to accept applications during the moratorium,
ppp ons g
(N.Y.Sup.Ct.1997).
even if fmal decisions became delayed; and
Sprint Spectrum v. Jejjercon
• the length of time for the moratorium.
Count v, 968 F.Supp. 1457 IN
.D.Ala.1997).
Telecommunications
.4dvisors v. Bd. of Selectmen
(V the Town oj'li'.
Stockbridge,
27 F.Supp.2d 284
(D.Mass.1998).
IV. Conclusion
With the greater use of calls and data associated with mobile technology,
cities are likely to see more new cell towers, as well as small cell
technology/DAS requests. As a consequence, it would make sense to
proactively review city regulations to ensure they are consistent with federal
law, while still retaining control over the deployment of structures and in
and uses of rights of way.
League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 11/4/2016
Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems Page 9
Appendix A: Sample Ordinances and Sample Agreements
Many cities address cell towers in their ordinances already. For information purposes only, the
links below reference just a few of these telecommunications facilities ordinances in Minnesota:
Sample Telecommunications Ordinances
City of Edina
Ordinance: (Chapter 34 Telecommunications)
City of Greenwood
Ordinance (Page 98, Telecoinmimications Facilities)
City of Minneapolis
Ordinance: (Amendment to Ordinance to accommodate Small Cell/DAS equipment)
City of Minnetonka
Ordinance: (Section 300.34 Telecommunications Facilities)
Sample Master License Agreement for DAS/Small Call
Texas City Attorney Association
Addendum to Local Gov. Code, Chapter 283
San Antonio, Texas
Boston, Massachusetts
San Francisco, California:
Sample Ordinances approving Master License Agreement for
DAS/Small Cell
Houston, Texas
San Antonio, Texas
Cooperation Agreement with Verizon
Boston, Massachusetts
League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 11!4/2016
Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems Page 10
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL CityafA
Request for Board Action
Agenda Item: Public Hearing for School Road & Roberts Road Reconstruction (L2/P17-02)
Department: PW/Eng
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 12/13/2016
Application Complete N/A
Contact: Kent Exner
Agenda Item Type:
Presenter: Kent Exner
Reviewed by Staff
Public Hearing
Time Requested (Minutes): 20
License Contingency
Attachments: Yes
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OFAGENDA ITEM:
City staff administered a neighborhood meeting on Tuesday, December 6th, with property owners adjacent to the
proposed project referenced above. Please see the attached Neighborhood Meeting Notice (mailed to all property
owners) and Neighborhood Meeting Information Sheet (provided to meeting attendees) documents. Also, an
estimated improvement assessment amount was provided to adjacent property owners within the formal Public
Hearing notice mailing. At this point, City staff is not aware of any major property owner concerns relative to this
proposed project's construction and associated special assessments.
Following a brief project overview by City staff and potential public comments, staff will request that the City Council
move forward with the final preparation of project plans/specifications and future advertisement for bids. The
anticipated bid opening date is Wednesday, March 1st (11:00 AM).
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: $ 2,974,000.00
Total City Cost: $ 2,824,000.00 Funding Source: Bonding, State Aid & Utility Funds
Remaining Cost: $ 150,000.00 Funding Source: Special Improvement Assessments
RESOLUTION NO. 14652
RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT
AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
LETTING NO. 2/PROJECT NO. 17-02
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 22nd day of November 2016, fixed a date for
a Council Hearing on the following improvements:
School Road & Roberts Road Reconstruction: School Road (approximately 300 LF south of
Roberts Rd. to bridge) and Roberts Road (Roberts Park entrance to Alan St.); roadway
reconstruction/reclamation by construction of grading, curb and gutter, draintile installation,
bituminous/concrete surfacing, stormwater/drainage, water distribution, sanitary sewer,
street lighting, trail, sidewalk, pedestrian crossing systems, landscaping, restoration and
appurtenances.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON,
MINNESOTA:
1. Such improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible as detailed in the feasibility report.
2. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the resolution adopted the 22nd day of
November 2016.
3. Such improvement has no relationship to the comprehensive municipal plan.
4. Kent Exner is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. The engineer shall prepare
plans and specifications for the making of such improvement.
5. The City Council declares its official intent to reimburse itself for the costs of the improvement from
the proceeds of tax exempt bonds.
Adopted by the Council this 13th day of December 2016.
Mayor: Gary Forcier
City Administrator: Matt Jaunich
RESOLUTION NO. 14653
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
LETTING NO. 2/PROJECT NO. 17-02
WHEREAS, the Director of Engineering/Public Works has prepared plans and specifications forthe following
described improvement:
School Road & Roberts Road Reconstruction: School Road (approximately 300 LF south of
Roberts Rd. to bridge) and Roberts Road (Roberts Park entrance to Alan St.); roadway
reconstruction/reclamation by construction of grading, curb and gutter, draintile installation,
bituminous/concrete surfacing, stormwater/drainage, water distribution, sanitary sewer,
street lighting, trail, sidewalk, pedestrian crossing systems, landscaping, restoration and
appurtenances.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON,
MINNESOTA:
1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby
approved.
2. The Director of Engineering/Public Works shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper,
the City of Hutchinson Web -Site and in Finance and Commerce, an advertisement for bids upon the making of
such improvements under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published for
three weeks, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be received by the Director of
Engineering/Public Works until 11:00 am on Wednesday, March 1st, 2017, at which time they will be
publicly opened in the Council Chambers of the Hutchinson City Center by the City Administrator and Director
of Engineering/Public Works, will then be tabulated, and the responsibility of the bidders will be considered by
the Council at 6:00 pm on Tuesday, April 11th, 2017 in the Council Chambers of the Hutchinson City Center,
Hutchinson, Minnesota.
Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bid will be given an opportunity to
address the Council on the issue of responsibility. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the
Director of Engineering/Public Works and accompanied by cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified
check payable to the City of Hutchinson for 5 percent of the amount of such bid.
Adopted by the Hutchinson City Council this 13th day of December 2016.
Mayor: Gary Forcier
City Administrator: Matt Jaunich
A
Project Neighborhood Meeting Notice
Letting No. 2 8z 3/Project No. 17-02 8z 17-03
School Road 8-- Roberts Road Reconstruction
8z Trail Improvements Projects
Tuesday, December 6th ♦ 7: 00 PM to 8:30 PM (7:10 PMpresentation)
Hutchinson Event Center (1005 Hwv 15 South)
INTRODUCTION
The City of Hutchinson would appreciate the opportunity to review the upcoming School Road and Robert
Road Reconstruction and Trail Improvements projects with you. At this time, project construction is
anticipated to start in the spring/summer of 2017. The intent of this meeting is to provide a general
project review and discuss the preliminary roadway/trail corridor layout. There also will be some initial
information provided regarding potential property assessments associated with this project.
PROPOSED PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS
The project area consists of the School Road corridor from about 300 LF south of the Roberts Road
intersection to the South Fork of the Crow River bridge and Roberts Road corridor from the Roberts
Park entrance to approximately the Alan Street intersection. These streets have been identified as
needing limited to significant maintenance by the City's Pavement Management Program and/or existing
condition observations. Also, please note that these roadways are being selected for improvements during the
2017 construction season based on the current safety concerns, pedestrian/bicyclist needs, and funding
availability. At this point, this proposed project is only being considered and is subject to not being addressed
this coming construction season depending on City Council approvals and/or City funding limitations.
The proposed projects consist of proposed reconstruction of the existing roadway surface/section, limited
utility (water & sanitary sewer) replacements/upgrades, limited drainage/storm sewer improvements,
draintile installation, signing/striping, street lighting, sidewalks, trails and restoration. In regards to project
financing, a portion of the proposed work required to accomplish these projects is to be funded by previously
allocated Federal Aid funding and the City's Municipal State Aid allotment. However, the remainder of the
work will need to be funded by City bonds, utility funds and/or property improvement special assessments.
At this point, the proposed project area has been established, but the details of the anticipated improvements
are subject to change depending on property owner, public, City Council and/or staff input.
HEARINGS/PROCESS
This Neighborhood Meeting is the first step in the process. This meeting will be an informal discussion
regarding the project that allows City staff to communicate preliminary information regarding what the
project is proposed to include and to provide a preliminary estimate of specific property assessments to
property owners. This informal discussion will allow individual questions/comments to be heard and for a
general review of the project to occur prior to the first official hearing required by the formal project
assessment process.
The first official hearing, the Public Hearing, is scheduled to occur at the December 13th City Council
meeting (6:00 PM). This meeting will be televised and is the formal presentation of the proposed project to
the City Council. Public input time is included and welcomed at this meeting. Approval at this hearing does
not mean that the project will be constructed as presented. This will be the point at which a formal decision
will be made by the City Council as to whether or not City staff should continue the special assessment
process and move on to the next step of completing the project plans/specifications with the understanding
that actual construction bids for completing the work will be requested.
The second official hearing, the Assessment Hearing, would be during another City Council meeting after
receiving the construction bids (most likely in March or April). At that point, City staff will prepare final
assessment amounts for each property, and mail them out in advance of the meeting. At this hearing,
property owners will then be given the opportunity to comment on the merits of both the project and the
proposed amount of the assessments. Questions, thoughts and concerns regarding the project or associated
assessments would be heard by the City Council, and official action on whether or not to award the project
work for construction would be taken. To formally contest an assessment, a written/signed objection letter
must be provided to the City Administrator prior to or at the Assessment Hearing. This action then allows
you, the property owner, to appeal an assessment to District Court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section
429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Administrator within 30 days after the
adoption of the assessment (typically the Assessment Hearing date) and filing such notice with the District
Court within ten days after service upon the Mayor or City Administrator.
ASSESSMENTS
As described above, this project's roadway work is considered to be a reconstruction project, thus a portion
of the total cost of these improvements will be assessed to the adjacent private properties per the City's
Special Assessment Policy. However, City staff is recommending that this project be assessed at the
mill/overlay rates (lower in comparison to the reconstruction rates) to account for the existing pavement
conditions and remaining roadway lifecycle. These anticipated assessment amounts/approach appear to be
consistent and fair with respect to past City improvement projects. Per currently identified funding sources
and the recent assessment calculations, a significant portion of the overall project cost will still be incurred
by Federal Aid, City Municipal State Aid, utility funds and City bonding.
At this time, City staff estimates that adjacent properties' assessments will include all or a portion of the
following items:
• General Assessment - $25.50 per lineal foot of roadway frontage (established partial reconstruction
rate)
• Water Service Assessment — to be determined
• Sanitary Sewer Service Assessment - none
• Commercial/Industrial Water Service Assessment — none
At the above identified rate, a typical 66' -wide residential lot would incur an assessment of $1,683.00.
SCHEDULE & CONSTRUCTION ITEMS
As previously mentioned, construction is anticipated to start in the spring/summer of 2017. The project
should be completed within one construction season (weather dependent) including final paving and turf
restoration work. At this time, we encourage adjacent property owners to plan for the relocation of irrigation
systems, invisible dog fences, personal landscaping features, etc. from the roadway right-of-way (typically
extends 15' from the street edge). Also, if necessary, project staff will be contacting specific property
owners to request permission (right -of -entry form) to properly construct a grading match to your
lawns/driveways/landscaping features, address tree replacements and/or install utilities.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Please feel free to contact Kent Exner/City Engineer at 234-4212 or kexner&ci.hutchinson.mn.us if you have
any questions, comments or concerns that you would like addressed. City Engineering Department staff
would be willing to meet at your property to further discuss the proposed improvements.
Thank you for your time and consideration!
December 6, 2016 ♦ 7:00 — 8:30 PM ♦ City Event Center
Proiect Scope
STREET RECONSTRUCTION — School Road (from approximately 200 LF south of the Roberts Road
intersection to the South Fork of the Crow River bridge) and Roberts Road (from the Roberts Park entrance to
approximately the Alan Street intersection); roadway reconstruction by construction of curb and gutter, draintile
installation, bituminous/concrete surfacing, stormwater/drainage, water distribution, sanitary sewer, street lighting, trail,
sidewalk, landscaping, restoration and appurtenances.
Estimated Proiect Costs & Fundin
Estimated Roadway Reconstruction Construction Cost $ 2,400,000
Estimated Trail Improvements Construction Cost $ 256,000
Estimated Project Expenses (Engineering, Administration, Geotechnical. Lighting,etc.) $ 632,760
Estimated Total Project Cost $ 3,288,760
City Bonding
$ 1,733,760
Improvement Assessments
$ 150,000
TAP Federal Aid (Trail Funding)
$ 200,000
Municipal State Aid
$ 750,000
Water Fund
$ 250,000
Wastewater Fund
$ 25,000
Stonnwater Fund
$ 180,000
Estimated Funding
$ 3,288,760
City Pays For
■ Street Rehabilitation — about 50% of pavement, curb replacements, draintile, storm sewer and restoration costs
■ Partial Street Reconstruction — about 50% of pavement, curb installation, draintile, storm sewer and restoration costs
■ Full Street Reconstruction — about 50% of pavement, curb installation, draintile, storm sewer and restoration cost
■ Mill & Overlay — about 50% of pavement, curb replacements, structure adjustments and restoration costs
■ Alley Reconstruction — about 50% of pavement, grading, drainage improvements and restoration costs
■ Sanitary Sewer & Water Main Improvements — 100%
Property Owner Pays For
■ Residential/Commercial Streets — about 50% of Street Rehab, Partial Street Recon, Full Street Recon, Mill & Overlay and
Alley Recon costs
■ Water/Sanitary Sewer Services - in areas of new main construction ($1000-1500/1" water, $1250-1750/1 1/4 - 2" water, $1750-
$2250/6" water, $1000-1500/6" sewer)
■ Proposed Assessment Rates (40' -width basis)
o Street Rehabilitation $52.50/Frontage Foot
o Partial Street Reconstruction $65.00/Frontage Foot
o Full Street Reconstruction $80.00/Frontage Foot
o Mill & Overlay $30.00/Frontage Foot (34' -width = $25.50/FF)
o Alley Reconstruction $40.00/Frontage Foot
■ Estimated Total Assessment for Typical City Lot (66' width)
o Mill & Overlay $1,683.00
■ NOTES: 1. Methods and amounts of estimated assessments are subject to change.
2. Assessments allocated to properties over a 10 -year term (interest rate estimated to be 4 to 6%).
PHASE 1- START CONSTRUCTION MAY 15TH. INTERIM COMPLETION TO GRAVEL GRADE BY JUNE 23RD
(6 WEEKS). CURB & GUTTER AND BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE (2 LIFTS), AND TRAIL
COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE AUGUST 4TH.
PHASE 2a -START CONSTRUCTION JUNE 26TH. INTERIM COMPLETION TO CURB & GUTTER AND BITUMINOUS
BASE COURSE (2 LIFTS) COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE JULY 14TH (3 WEEKS).
PHASE 2b -START CONSTRUCTION JUNE 26TH. INTERIM COMPLETION TO CURB & GUTTER AND BITUMINOUS
BASE COURSE (2 LIFTS) ON OR BEFORE AUGUST 4TH (6 WEEKS).
PHASE 3- START CONSTRUCTION AUGUST 7TH. INTERIM COMPLETION TO CURB & GUTTER AND
BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE (1 LIFT) ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 1ST (4 WEEKS).
PHASE 4- BOULEVARD GRADING COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 1ST. SITE AVAILABLE
(FOLLOWING TEMPORARY RESTORATION) TO TRAIL PROJECT CONTRACTOR (SEPARATE CONTRACT)
ON SEPTEMBER 5TH. FINAL COMPLETION FOR TRAIL PROJECT ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 29TH.
PHASE 5- FINAL COMPLETION BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE, LIGHTING, LANDSCAPING, RESTORATION, AND
CLEANUP ON OR BEFORE NOVEMBER 3RD.
L �o
cam. \.J SC�OO � l_J ZI
ROBERTS `J
w ROBERTS ROAD SW
(� z
w cn
NO. BY DATE REVISIONS I HEARBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR SHEET
DRAWN BY: XX UNDER MY DIRECT SURERMSION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED SCHOOL ROAD & ROBERTS ROAD 2017 CONSTRUCTION PHASES
DESIGNED BY: XX
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 0 150 300
APPROVED BY: KESIGNATURE: DATE: SCALE FEET OF
PRINTED NAME: KENT EXNER LIC. NO. 42907 1
on
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL CityafA
Request for Board Action
Agenda Item: Public Hearing for School Road & Roberts Road Trail Improvements (D/P17-03)
Department: PW/Eng
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 12/13/2016
Application Complete N/A
Contact: Kent Exner
Agenda Item Type:
Presenter: Kent Exner
Reviewed by Staff
Public Hearing
Time Requested (Minutes): 20
License Contingency
Attachments: No
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OFAGENDA ITEM:
City staff administered a neighborhood meeting on Tuesday, December 6th, with property owners adjacent to the
proposed project referenced above. Please note that this project addresses the multi -use trail improvements (west
side of School Road - from Roberts to the bridge & north side of Roberts Road - from park entrance to Alan) that the
City received Federal Aid Transportation Alternatives Program funding ($200,000) to construct. At this point, City staff
is not aware of any major property owner concerns relative to these improvements. Also, no property owners are
being assessed for any portion of this trail's implementation.
Following a brief project overview by City staff and potential public comments, staff will request that the City Council
move forward with the final preparation of project plans/specifications and future advertisement for bids. The
anticipated bid opening date is Wednesday, March 29th (11:00 AM).
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: $ 314,760.00
Total City Cost: $ 64,760.00 Funding Source: Bonding
Remaining Cost: $ 250,000.00 Funding Source: Federal Aid TAP Funding
RESOLUTION NO. 14654
RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT
AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
LETTING NO. 3/PROJECT NO. 17-03
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 22nd day of November 2016, fixed a date for
a Council Hearing on the following improvements:
School Road & Roberts Road Trail Improvements: West side of School Road (Roberts Rd.
to bridge) and north side of Roberts Road (Roberts Park entrance to School Rd.); multi -use
trail installation by construction of grading, bituminous surfacing, concrete sidewalk/ramps,
restoration and appurtenances.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON,
MINNESOTA:
1. Such improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible as detailed in the feasibility report.
2. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the resolution adopted the 22nd day of
November 2016.
3. Such improvement has no relationship to the comprehensive municipal plan.
4. Kent Exner is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. The engineer shall prepare
plans and specifications for the making of such improvement.
5. The City Council declares its official intent to reimburse itself for the costs of the improvement from
the proceeds of tax exempt bonds.
Adopted by the Council this 13th day of December 2016.
Mayor: Gary Forcier
City Administrator: Matt Jaunich
RESOLUTION NO. 14655
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
LETTING NO. 3/PROJECT NO. 17-03
WHEREAS, the Director of Engineering/Public Works has prepared plans and specifications forthe following
described improvement:
School Road & Roberts Road Trail Improvements: West side of School Road (Roberts Rd.
to bridge) and north side of Roberts Road (Roberts Park entrance to School Rd.); multi -use
trail installation by construction of grading, bituminous surfacing, concrete sidewalk/ramps,
restoration and appurtenances.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON,
MINNESOTA:
1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby
approved.
2. The Director of Engineering/Public Works shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper,
the City of Hutchinson Web -Site and in Finance and Commerce, an advertisement for bids upon the making of
such improvements under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published for
three weeks, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be received by the Director of
Engineering/Public Works until 11:00 am on Wednesday, March 29th, 2017, at which time they will be
publicly opened in the Council Chambers of the Hutchinson City Center by the City Administrator and Director
of Engineering/Public Works, will then be tabulated, and the responsibility of the bidders will be considered by
the Council at 6:00 pm on Tuesday, April 11th, 2017 in the Council Chambers of the Hutchinson City Center,
Hutchinson, Minnesota.
Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bid will be given an opportunity to
address the Council on the issue of responsibility. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the
Director of Engineering/Public Works and accompanied by cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified
check payable to the City of Hutchinson for 5 percent of the amount of such bid.
Adopted by the Hutchinson City Council this 13th day of December 2016.
Mayor: Gary Forcier
City Administrator: Matt Jaunich
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL ci=v-f�
Request for Board Action 7AL =-WZ
Agenda Item: Review of the 2016 Compensation Study Results
Department: Administration
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 12/13/2016
Application Complete N/A
Contact: Matt Jaunich/Brenda Ewird
Agenda Item Type:
Presenter: Matt Jaunich/Brenda Ewitl
Reviewed by Staff F1
Communications, Requests
Time Requested (Minutes): 20
License Contingency N/A
Attachments: Yes
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OFAGENDA ITEM:
Back in April of this year, the City hired Keystone Compensation Group, LLC to conduct a Job Evaluation and
Compensation Study. A comprehensive study like this hadn't been done since 2000. There was a study done in 2005
that used much of the methodology from 2000 and only a partial study was completed in 2010. On Tuesday Brenda
and I will present you with the results of that Study and what is being proposed for a new pay plan in 2017. A copy of
that presentation is attached to this Board Action Form.
No formal action will be sought on Tuesday with the expectation that the board will be presented with the new pay
plan at your second meeting this month to act upon.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
No formal action.
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:
i �` �� �
r �� ���
i�i��,r
� i
PRESENTATION AGENDA
1. Objectives of the compensation study
2. Job Evaluation
3. Hutchinson's compensation strategy
4. Overview of market analysis and results
S. Important changes to the City's compensation program
6. 2 016 and 2 017 salary structures
7. Exhibits for results of compensation analytics
8. Recap and questions
STUDY OBJECTIVES
1 Review and revise job descriptions; interview
employees
Evaluate City jobs and confirm internal equity
3. Conduct a competitive market analysis for City's
compensation program
4. Calibrate/revise current salary structure based on
market and internal job evaluation.
S. Estimate the budget impact for implementing new
ranges
6. Strategic objectives:
Enable City to retain and attract qualified talent
b. Compliance with the Local Government Pay Equity Act
STUDY PROCESS
1. Job descriptions were reviewed and updated. Consultant conducted job interviews with
representative employees for each job to confirm job duties.
2. Department heads provided feedback about the current compensation program.
3. Consultant evaluated all jobs using the Keystone Job Leveling System and assigned job grades.
4. Department Heads reviewed their departmental grade. Consultant and Administration jointly
worked on resolving questions about job calibration.
S. Consultant used the market peer group government agencies to prepare the market summary
statistics.
6. Benchmark base pay data was collected from market jurisdictions and reviewed for quality of job
matching.
7. Consultant used the combination of the job evaluation results and market analysis to create the
new salary ranges to establish internal equity while maintaining a competitive market position.
8. Assigned salary grades to all jobs and prepared various comparisons and analytics to illustrate
the impact of the new salary structure. Developed an estimate for the financial impact of the new
salary ranges.
9. Consultant reviewed preliminary study results with Administration and, subsequently, met with
department heads collectively to review the results.
JOB EVALUATION
• Job evaluation compares the important characteristics and elements of jobs
to establish the relative job hierarchy within the City. Each factor is
assigned a degree and a corresponding point value. The overall score for a
job is determined by totaling the assigned points for all the factors.
• Since 2000, the City had utilized the Stanton Group Job Evaluation System.
For this study, the consultant used the Keystone Job Leveling System, an
updated version of the Stanton system, to determine the relative value of
jobs within the City.
• The updated Keystone job evaluation system includes an improved
definition of accountability and some of the other factors that were used in
the old Stanton Job Evaluation System to provide for a more accurate
evaluation.
JOB EVALUATION
The purpose of evaluating jobs is to compare different characteristics or elements of jobs in
order to establish a job ranking. The Keystone system provides logical and systematic steps to
reduce the subiect�of judging job value. It also provides more consistency in how jobs are
assigned to grades. The process of job evaluation can be characterized as:
1. Systematic Method: This means evaluation is completed according to a plan with
specific steps and methods.
2. Evaluating jobs: Evaluation is for jobs not persons holding the jobs.
3. Repeatable Process: The system provides a structured process flow for evaluators to
follow in a consistent manner.
4. Relative Hierarchy: The system provides a means for comparing jobs with each other,
and is not intended to determine the intrinsic value of jobs. It helps establish grade
levels and build career progression.
S. job Worth: Refers to the level of job contribution to achieving organization's objectives
and business results.
6. Within organization: Job evaluation systems are concerned with comparing jobs
within an organization in order to establish a job hierarchy. Points may not be
compared across organizations.
JOB EVALUATION
The Keystone System evaluates and compares the important characteristics and elements of
jobs to establish the relative job hierarchy. The System uses five of the most broadly used
compensable factors as evidenced by extensive research on point -factor job evaluation
methods. These factors have been proven to have a high degree of correlation with market
value and are considered the key factors in translating input into output results for jobs at
various levels within organizations and across industries. They are also relatively easier to
define and have minimal overlap among each other. These characteristics or Compensable
Factors are:
1. Knowledge, Skills & Competence The knowledge and skills gained through
education, training, and experience required for achieving the overall purpose of the job
2. Responsibility and Accountability -The impact by the jobholder on achieving the
objectives of the team, department, function or organization
3. job Complexity - Complexities encountered and degree of original thinking required to
provide solutions
4. Contacts & Interpersonal Skills - The extent of making contacts, communication,
negotiating, or influencing decision making with people in and outside the City
S. Working Conditions - Level of exposure to unpleasant conditions and potential
exposure to injury, health hazards, and the physical demands
HUTCHINSON COMPENSATION
STRATEGIES
The compensation strategy for the City of Hutchinson to compete
for talent in the marketplace is based on four key pillars:
1. What is our market for talent? Who do we compete with?
29 Cities and Counties, generally comparable in size and type of services delivered; where
City draw talent
2. Where does the City intend to position its pay program relative to the
market?
City's salary range midpoints are aligned with market median
3. What does the City intend to pay for?
City's pay philosophy is to reward employees for contributions as determined by the
performance evaluation process
4. How does the City administer its pay program and grant pay increases?
Merit increases are determined based on performance and pay within the range
CITY OF HUTCHINSON MARKET
City of Hutchinson Peer Group
City of Hutchinson Peer Group
Name
Population
Name
Population
Fairmont
10,328
Willmar
19,570
Alexandria
11,680
Hastings
22,564
Waconia
11,774
Farmington
22,571
Worthington
12,932
Meeker County
23,102
New Ulm
13,258
Champlin
23,591
Fergus Falls
13,304
Faribault
23,594
Brainerd
13,452
Austin
24,716
Marshall
13,641
Chaska
24,838
Hutchinson
14,200
Chanhassen
24,918
Bemidji
14,453
Prior Lake
25,039
Sibley County
14,875
Owatonna
25,625
Renville County
14,892
Winona
27,384
Red Wing
16,470
McLeod County
35,932
Albert Lea
17,815
Carver County
98,741
Northfield
19,166
Wright County
131,311
Market Definition:
29 Cities and Counties
comparable in size, type of
services delivered, and where
the City's talent pool exists
BENCHMARKING CITY COMPENSATION
PROCESSS
1. Determined Market Peer Group: population size, Geo., talent
source
2. Collected market data from 29 cities & counties
3. Reviewed and summarized market data
4. Completed analysis and comparisons for City's actual pay and
ranges with market
S. Calibrated/redesigned pay ranges to align with market. Used
the combination of job evaluation results and market analysis
to create the new salary ranges. A best fit regression line was
developed to establish internal equity while maintaining a
competitive market position.
6. Evaluated budget impact of adopting the new ranges
7. Reviewed outcomes with City leadership
MARKET STUDY FINDINGS
1. Benchmarked 90% (74) of City jobs with the
defined market
2. Benchmark jobs cover 88% of City incumbents
3. Actual pay for City employees is at 104.3% of
market
4. Overall, City's pay program is competitive and
requires some internal and external alignment
S. City is paying employees competitively with
market
PROPOSED COMPENSATION
STRUCTURE RESULTS
1. All jobs have been accurately calibrated
internally and with the market
2. Range maximum increased to 20% above the
midpoint up from 15% in the old structure
3. The midpoint is set at 100% of market median
vs. 97.5% of market in the old structure
4. Range minimum remains at 80% of midpoint
S. More competitive and slightly wider ranges in
place to attract and retain qualified talent
PROPOSED COMPENSATION
STRUCTURE RESULTS
6. For implementation in 2017, employee pay rates
will be placed on the new pay grid based on the
2016 year-end pay rates.
• No increases in pay will result except for the following:
The pay rates for 5 employees with rates below the new
2017 minimums will be increased to the 2017 minimum
rate with a small budget impact estimated at $9,000
• Three employees have current pay rates above the new
maximums. These rates will remain unchanged and will
not be reduced.
• 82%of City positions will realize an earnings potential
increase with the grade placement
PROPOSED COMPENSATION
STRUCTURE RESULTS - continued
7. An updated pay for performance system is being designed.
Similar to our current system and with the pay for
performance model, merit increases are determined by
current actual pay within the range and performance level.
Merit increases get smaller as the actual pay gets closer to the
competitive market rate (market value for the work). Beyond
that point, only outstanding performance is rewarded with
meaningful salary increases above the overall market
movement. Emphasis is on current pay amount not the
percentage of salary increase awarded.
Merit Guide Chart Exampl
Pay Level Within Grade
Performance Rating
Minimum
Lower Middle
Midpoint
(Competetive
Market)
Upper Middle
Maximum
Outstanding Performer (5)
6-7%
5-6%
4-5%
3-4%
Lump Sum ?
Exceed Expectations (4)
5-6%
4-5%
3-4%
2-3%
Lump Sum ?
Solid Performer (3)
4-5%
3-4%
2.5-3%
1.5-2%
Lump Sum ?
Need Improvement (2)
0-2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Unsatisfactory (1)
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
CURRENT PO
SITION CLASSI
FICATION TABLE
The current Job Evaluation system has 19 grades
Grade
Grade A
Grade
1 PT Office Specialist (Event Center)
4 Arborist
8
Building Official
PT Compost Scale Operator
Building Inspector
Facilities Manager
PT Custodian (City Center/Event Center)
Emergency Dispatcher (FT/PT)
Motor Vehicle Deputy Registrar
PT PRCE Receptionist
Engineering Specialist
Parks Supervisor
Equipment Mechanic
Police Sergeant
2 Compost Laborer
Lab Technician/WW Operator
Recreation Facilities Operations Manager
Permit Technician
Payroll/Benefits Specialist
Water Supervisor
PT Human Resources Administrative Technician
Police Investigations Specialist
Wastewater Supervisor
PT Liquor Sales Clerk
Plant Equipment Mechanic II
PT Licensing Clerk
Senior Public Works Maintenance Specialist
10
Police Lieutenant
PT Recreation Facility Maintenance Technician
Water Plant Operator
Fire Chief
3 Administrative Secretary (Engineering)
5 Compost Operations Specialist
11
Public Works Manager
Administrative Secretary (Public Works)
Event Center Coordinator
Compost Equipment Operator
Executive Assistant/Paralegal
12
Compost Manager
General Maintenance Worker (Event Center)
Information Technology Specialist
Economic Development Director
General Maintenance Worker (HATS)
Parks Maintenance Specialist
Finance Director
Heavy Equipment Operator
Police Officer (FT/PT)
Human Resources Director
Hospital Security Guard (FT/PT)
Maintenance Lead Operator/Supervisor
IT Director
Parks Maintenance Equipment Operator
Sales & Marketing Specialist
Liquor Sales Manager
Plant Equipment Mechanic I
Senior Engineering Specialist
Planning Director
Police Records Specialist
Police Supplemental Services Specialist
6 Compost Coordinator
14
Police Chief/Emergency Management Director
Senior Accounting Specialist
Recreation Services Coordinator
PRCE Director
Senior Liquor Sales Clerk
Utility Billing Specialist
7 Operations & Maintenance Supervisor
16
City Attorney
Wastewater Services Operator
Project/Environmental/Regulatory Manager
Public Works Director/City Engineer
Water Maintenance Technician
Senior Accountant
Water/Wastewater Office/Laboratory Specialist
Server/Network Technician
19
City Administrator
PROPOSED POSITION CLASSIFIC
ATION TABLE
The Job Evaluation resulted in a new structure with
16 grades, compared to
the current system that has
19
grades.
Grad
110
PT Compost Scale Operator
140
Compost Equipment Operator 1
180
1 Building Official
110
PT Custodian (Maintenance)
140
Compost Operations Specialist
180
Facilities Manager
110
PT Custodian - Event Center
140
Information Technology Specialist
180
Motor Vehicle Deputy Registrar
110
PT Liquor Sales Clerk
140
Lab Technician/Wastewater Operator
180
Parks Supervisor
110
PT Office Specialist - Event Center
140
Parks Maintenance Equipment Operator
180
Police Sergeant
110
PT PRCE Receptionist
140
Payroll/ Benefits Specialist
180
Project/Environmental/Regulatory Manager
140
Plant Equipment Mechanic II
180
Senior Accountant
120
Administrative Secretary - Public Works
140
Police Investigations Specialist
180
Wastewater Supervisor
120
General Maintenance Worker - Event Center
140
Senior Accounting Specialist
180
Water Supervisor
120
Permit Technician
140
Senior Liquor Sales Clerk
120
Police Records Specialist
140
Senior Public Works Maintenance Specialist
190
Police Lieutenant
120
PT Licensing Clerk
190
Recreation Facilities Operations Manager
120
PT Recreation Facility Maintenance Technician
150
Building Inspector
120
Utility Billing Specialist
150
Compost Coordinator
200
Compost Manager
120
Water Maintenance Technician
150
Engineering Specialist
200
Economic Development Director
120
Water/Wastewater Office/Laboratory Specialist
150
Equipment Mechanic
200
Fire Chief
150
Maintenance Lead Operator/Supervisor
200
Liquor Sales Manager
130
Administrative Secretary - Engineering
150
Parks Maintenance Specialist
200
Public Works Manager
130
Compost Laborer
150
Sales & Marketing Specialist
130
Emergency Dispatcher - FT & PT
220
Finance Director
130
Heavy Equipment Operator
160
Arborist
220
Human Resources Director
130
Hospital Security Guard - FT
160
Executive Assistant/Paralegal
220
Information Technology Director
130
Plant Equipment Mechanic I
160
Police Officer - FT & PT
220
Parks/Recreation/Community Ed (PRCE) Director
130
Police Supplemental Services Specialist
220
Planning Director
130
PT Human Resources/Administrative Technician
170
Event Center Coordinator
130
Wastewater Services Operator
170
Operations & Maintenance Supervisor
230
City Attorney
130
Water Plant Operator
170
Recreation Services Coordinator
230
Police Chief/Emergency Management Director
170
Senior Engineering Specialist
230
Public Works Director/City Engineer
170
Server/Network Technician
260
City Administrator
CURRENT PAY GRID STRUCTURE
City of Hutchinson
2016 Compensation Plan - Pay Grid (2% increase)
Mid -Pt. Mid -Pt. Market Market
Grade 80% 80% 97.5% 97.5% 100% 100% 115% 115%
19
$7,887
$45.504
$9,613
$55.458
$9,859
$56.880
$11,338
$65.412
18
$7,600
$43.847
$9,263
$53.439
$9,500
$54.809
$10,925
$63.030
17
$7,313
$42.190
$8,912
$51.419
$9,141
$52.738
$10,512
$60.648
16
$7,024
$40.524
$8,561
$49.388
$8,780
$50.655
$10,097
$58.253
15
$6,738
$38.872
$8,211
$47.375
$8,422
$48.589
$9,685
$55.878
14
$6,450
$37.210
$7,860
$45.350
$8,062
$46.512
$9,271
$53.489
13
$6,162
$35.548
$7,509
$43.325
$7,702
$44.435
$8,857
$51.101
12
$5,874
$33.891
$7,159
$41.305
$7,343
$42.364
$8,444
$48.719
11
$5,585
$32.221
$6,806
$39.269
$6,981
$40.276
$8,028
$46.317
10
$5,298
$30.564
$6,456
$37.249
$6,622
$38.205
$7,615
$43.935
9
$5,010
$28.902
$6,105
$35.224
$6,262
$36.128
$7,201
$41.547
8
$4,722
$27.241
$5,754
$33.199
$5,902
$34.051
$6,787
$39.158
7
$4,434
$25.584
$5,404
$31.180
$5,543
$31.979
$6,374
$36.776
6
$4,148
$23.931
$5,055
$29.166
$5,185
$29.914
$5,963
$34.401
5
$3,858
$22.256
$4,701
$27.124
$4,822
$27.820
$5,545
$31.993
4
$3,573
$20.613
$4,354
$25.122
$4,466
$25.766
$5,136
$29.631
3
$3,282
$18.937
$4,000
$23.080
$4,103
$23.672
$4,718
$27.222
2
$2,995
$17.280
$3,650
$21.060
$3,744
$21.600
$4,306
$24.840
1
$2,707
$15.619
$3,299
$19.035
$3,384
$19.523
$3,892
$22.452
PT Custodian
$13.63
$16.61
$17.04
$19.60
PT Liquor Store
Clerk
$10.33
$12.59
$12.91
$14.85
PT Compost Monitor
$9.70
$11.82
$12.12
$13.94
City of Hutchinson - Police Officer Bargaining Unit
2016 Compensation Plan - Pay Grid (2.25% increase)
Mid -Pt. Mid -Pt. Market Market
Grade 80% 80% 97.5% 97.5% 100% 100% 115% 115%
5 $3,876 1 $22.362 r $4,724 1 $27.254 1 $4,845 1 $27.952 r $5,572 1 $32.145
PROPOSED PAY GRID STRUCTURE
NOTE: Positions in pay grades 90,95, and 100 are in Grade 110 on the position table. Market dictates the wage ranges indicated here.
2016 Hutchinson Structure
Grade
MIN
MID
MAX
Range
Spread
260
$45.00
$56.25
$67.50
50.0%
50.0%
250
$42.40
$53.00
$63.60
50.0%
50.0%
240
$40.20
$50.25
$60.30
50.0%
230
$38.40
$48.00
$57.60
50.0%
50.0%
220
$35.00
$43.75
$52.50
50.0%
50.0%
210
$33.20
$41.50
$49.80
50.0%
50.0%
200
$31.60
$39.50
$47.40
50.0%
50.0%
190
$28.60
$35.75
$42.90
50.0%
50.0%
180
$26.40
$33.00
$39.60
50.0%
50.0%
170
$24.16
$30.20
$36.24
50.0%
50.0%
160
$23.00
$28.75
$34.50
50.0%
50.0%
150
$21.20
$26.50
$31.80
50.0%
50.0%
140
$20.00
$25.00
$30.00
50.0%
130
$18.60
$23.25
$27.90
50.0%
50.0%
120
$17.00
$21.25
$25.50
50.0%-
50.0%
110
$14.80
$18.50
$22.20
50.0%
PT Cust
100
$13.20
$16.50
$19.80
50.0%
PT LIQ
95
$10.32
$12.90
$15.48
50.0%
PT Comp
90
$9.72
$12.15
$14.58
50.0%
NOTE: Positions in pay grades 90,95, and 100 are in Grade 110 on the position table. Market dictates the wage ranges indicated here.
2017 Hutchinson Structure
Grade
MIN
MID
MAX
Range
Spread
260
$46.13
$57.66
$69.19
50.0%
250
$43.46
$54.33
$65.19
50.0%
240
$41.21
$51.51
$61.81
50.0%
230
$39.36
$49.20
$59.04
50.0%
220
$35.88
$44.84
$53.81
50.0%
210
$34.03
$42.54
$51.05
50.0%
200
$32.39
$40.49
$48.59
50.0%
190
$29.32
$36.64
$43.97
50.0%
180
$27.06
$33.83
$40.59
50.0%
170
$24.76
$30.96
$37.15
50.0%
160
$23.58
$29.47
$35.36
50.0%
150
$21.73
$27.16
$32.60
50.0%
140
$20.50
$25.63
$30.75
50.0%
130
$19.07
$23.83
$28.60
50.0%
120
$17.43
$21.78
$26.14
50.0%
110
$15.17
$18.96
$22.76
50.0%
PT Cust
100
$13.53
$16.91
$20.30
50.0%
PT LIQ
95
$10.58
$13.22
$15.87
50.0%
PT Comp
90
$9.96
$12.45
$14.94
NOTE: Positions in pay grades 90,95, and 100 are in Grade 110 on the position table. Market dictates the wage ranges indicated here.
COMPENSATION ANALYTICS EXHIBITS
1. Comparison of Current Ranges to Midpoints to Market
Median
2. Comparisons of City's Actual Pay with Current Ranges
MIN and MAX
3. Comparison of City of Hutchinson's Actual Pay with
Market Median
4. Calibration of New Salary Range Midpoints with
Market and Internal Job Grades
S. Comparison of Hutchinson Average Pay by Job with
New Ranges
6. Comparison of Hutchinson Actual Pay Rates with the
New Ranges
70.00
60.00
50.00
H
0
U
r 40.00
1
Y
C 30.00
0
M
P 20.00
10.00
0.00
Comparison of Current Ranges Midpoint to Market Median
♦ Current Range Midpoint
■ Market Median ■
—Current Midpoint Line RZ = 0.977
■
■
■
■ Old midpoints were actually
competitive!
0 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Current Grade
70.00
60.00
H 50.00
0
u
r 40.00
1
y
R 30.00
a
t
e 20.00
E llsioI
0.00 +
0
Comparisons of City's Actual Pay with Current Ranges MIN and MAX
♦ CH Average Rate
■ Current Range Minimum
* Current Range Maximum
C:
■
♦ ■ ■
■
■
■
♦ Part-time
■
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Current Grade
`Comparison of City of Hutchinson's Actual Pay with Market Median
65.00
♦ CH Average Rate
G0.00
0 Market Median
♦ RZ = 0.8590
— —CH Pay Line
♦ /
55.00
Market Pay Line
♦ ♦ /
� RZ = 0.849
50.00
H
45.00
0
r
40.00
r
/i
•
�
♦
y
35.00
30.00
R
a
•
t
25.00
e
•
20.00
•
15.00
10.00
5.00
100 110 120 130 140 150
160
170 180 190 200 210
220 230 240 250 260 270
New Keystone Job Grade
$75.00
$70.00
$65.00
$60.00
H $55.00
0
U $50.00
r
1 $45.00
y
$40.00
R
a $35.00
t
e $30.00
$25.00
$ 20.00
$15.00
$10.00
100
Calibration of New Salary Range Midpoints with Market and Internal Job Grades
110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270
New Keystone Job Grades
New CH MDPT
• New MIN
• New MAX
•
— — — Market Grade Avg Line
New Range MDPT Line
'
New Range MIN Line
— — — New Range MAX Line
,r
. •
.'
Balancing internal equity
•
with mare move closer
•
to line of best fit
110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270
New Keystone Job Grades
Comparison
of Hutchinson Average Pay by Job with
New Ranges
80.00
� New Minimum
70.00
MNei a Ex mum
■
x CH Average Rate
60.00
H
o
50.00
x
u
r
x
I
Over Max
■ : x
R
x
a
t
e
x
i
x
Below Min
100
1.1 1h:� 130
140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220
2 1) 240 2>0
270
New Keystone Job Grades
80.00
70.00
60.00
H
0
U 50.00
r
I
y 40.00
R
a 30.00
t
e
20.00
10.00
N "I
Comparison of Hutchinson Actual Pay Rates with the New Ranges
x CH Hourly Rate
■ New Grade MIN
♦ New Grade Max
x I
f
x
x
x ■
x
M
x
x
At the individual employee level
100 110 120 130 140 150 161) 170 1S0 1C1Cs 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270
New Keystone Job Grade
RECAP and QUESTIONS
1. The study has been completed except for the details to be
finalized regarding the pay for performance
matrix/model.
2. Administration will request that the Council accept the
results of the study and establish the 2017 propose
position classification table and pay grid.
3. City leadership will communicate the results of this study
to employees and explain the performance pay system,
so employees know how pay decisions are made.
QUESTIONS
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL
ci=v-f�
Request for Board Action
7AL =-ft
Agenda Item: Review of Truth in Taxation Hearing
Department: Administration
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 12/13/2016
Application Complete N/A
Contact: Matt Jaunich
Agenda Item Type:
Presenter: Matt Jaunich
Reviewed by Staff ❑
Communications, Requests
Time Requested (Minutes): 5
License Contingency N/A
Attachments: No
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OF AGENDA ITEM:
As a follow up to the Truth in Taxation Hearing from December 6, the Council should
have a discussion on whether or
not there is a desire to change anything in regards to the 2017 budget and/or tax levy. Requests (if any) for additional
information from the Truth in Taxation Hearing will be presented at this time as well.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
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:
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL CityafA
Request for Board Action
Agenda Item: Consider Approval for Res. of Support for Fastlane Grant App. for Hwy 212 Imp.
Department: PW/Eng
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 12/13/2016
Application Complete N/A
Contact: Kent Exner
Agenda Item Type:
Presenter: Kent Exner
Reviewed by Staff
New Business
Time Requested (Minutes): 5
License Contingency
Attachments: Yes
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OFAGENDA ITEM:
Per the Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition's request, City staff has prepared the attached Resolution to
communicate the City of Hutchinson's support of Carver County's (in partnership with MnDOT) application for federal
funds (FASTLANE grant program) to expand Highway 212 from a two-lane highway to a four -lane highway between
the Cities of Cologne and Carver. The FASTLANE program provides dedicated discretionary funding for projects that
address critical freight issues facing our nation's highways and bridges.
Thus, please consider the timely approval of this Resolution to allow for its inclusion within the proposed grant
application.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Approval of Resolution
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:
RESOLUTION NO. 14657
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A FASTLANE GRANT APPLICATION
FOR HIGHWAY 212 IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, Highway 212 serves a critical role in connecting the Twin Cities to South Dakota and beyond and has been
designated a High Priority Interregional Corridor in the Twin Cities, while also being placed on the National Highway
System;
WHEREAS, the City of Hutchinson has been assigned an Interregional Corridor by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT) consisting of State Highway 22 to Highway 212;
WHEREAS, the City of Hutchinson is a regional population center currently not provided direct access to a four -lane
highway system;
WHEREAS, the City of Hutchinson has significant transportation needs relative to commercial, industrial, agricultural,
commuter and recreational traffic;
WHEREAS, Highway 212 from Glencoe, MN, through Carver County continues to have two segments within this
corridor that remain as two-lane undivided roadway with significant capacity and safety concerns;
WHEREAS, Carver County, in partnership with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is seeking
FASTLANE funds to expand Highway 212 from a two-lane highway to a four -lane highway between the City Cologne
and Carver;
WHEREAS, This two-lane gap poses a number of safety, access and mobility issues, while negatively impacting freight
movement and economic development initiatives;
WHEREAS, To address these issues, Carver County and MnDOT have completed an extensive planning effort to
determine innovative ways to expand the two-lane highway to a four -lane highway while reducing cost;
WHEREAS, The two-lane gap has been officially mapped and an Environmental Assessment has been approved;
WHEREAS, A four -lane highway will remove barriers to efficient freight movement, provide economic development
opportunities at key locations, preserve existing infrastructure, and improve the corridor's mobility and safety for all
users;
WHEREAS, forty-one communities and local chambers of commerce have passed resolutions supporting
improvements to Highway 212 to expand the capacity of this highway and the Board of Commissioners of every
county along the corridor has passed such a resolution;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Hutchinson strongly supports this project and Carver County's
application for funding under the FASTLANE grant program.
Adopted by the Hutchinson City Council this 13th day of December, 2016.
Gary Forcier, Mayor
Attest:
Matt Jaunich, City Administrator
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL CityafA
Request for Board Action
Agenda Item: Approve/Deny Voluntary Assessment to the CGMC Environmental Action Fund
Department: Administration
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 12/13/2016
Application Complete N/A
Contact: Matt Jaunich
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:
At the July 2016 membership meeting, the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities (CGMC) voted to establish a
voluntary assessment to provide funding for a more proactive environmental program. The voluntary assessment for
the city of Hutchinson would be recommended at $4,903.
This is the second request for a voluntary payment with the City previously committing to this voluntary assessment
back in December of 2015 for the spring of 2016. The amount at that time was $4,740. Last year, when we
participated in the voluntary assessment, it was done with a direct purpose to assist the CGMC in their fight to seek
an amendment to or a repeal of the state's new riverine standards and to pursue a federal lawsuit challenging the
EPA's approval of those standards.
As staff has reviewed the current request, we do so with the feeling that this current voluntary assessment request is
being done without a specific purpose and is very broad in nature. Staff notes that the CGMC already represents its
members interest on issues related to the environment and those costs are covered through our regular annual dues.
While staff agrees with the CGMC in that greater MN cities are facing more environmental regulations, we have
concerns on how this funding request is being handled by the CGMC.
I would agree with staffs concerns and feel that regulatory concerns affecting CGMC members should be covered by
existing dues. If environmental concerns are increasing and the demand on CGMC increase, then I feel that dues
should reflect that. As I review this request I see no direct purpose like the one the city participated in last year.
Because there is no direct purpose, I would recommend to the City Council that we not participate in this years
voluntary assessment.
If in the future the City was directly affected by a specific regulation that the CGMC was going to fight, I would feel that
the voluntary assessment would be warranted. However, at this time I do not see that specific purpose. The official
request from the CGMC is attached to this board action form.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve or Deny participating in the Voluntary Assessment to the CGMC Environmental Action Fund in the amount of
$4,903 due in February of 2017.
Fiscal Impact: $ 4,903.00 Funding Source: Wastewater Utility
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:
P�\011 of GREarE� 1114, �a
C I TIES p
Dedicated to a Strong Greater Minnesota
November 7, 2016
RE: Voluntary Assessment for the CGMC Environmental Action Fund
Dear CGMC member,
In recognition of an increasingly challenging environmental regulatory landscape for Greater
Minnesota cities, the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities (CGMC) voted to establish an
Environmental Action Fund at our membership meeting in August. The Environmental Action
Fund will support vital legislative, legal and regulatory efforts by the CGMC to advocate for the
environmental interests of Greater Minnesota cities and will be funded in part through a
voluntary assessment of our members.
When we sent your city's CGMC assessment invoice in August you should have also received a
specialized invoice for the voluntary assessment. We understand that many of you are currently
in the middle of your 2016-2017 budgeting process. In order for the CGMC to plan
Environmental Action Fund activities, please let us know if your city intends to contribute to the
voluntary assessment. The suggested assessment is $0.35 per capita of your city. We have solid
participation so far, but to move forward with an effective environmental program we need your
support.
For your convenience, I have attached a pledge fomilinvoice and a brief memorandum outlining
the purpose and scope of the Environmental Action Fund. Please fill out the pledge form and
return it to CGMC staff by Dec. 9 so we can begin to implement our environmental legal,
legislative and regulatory strategy.
At this point, we only need to know if your city intends to contribute as your city's contribution
is essential to our cause. The deadline to pay the assessment is not until Feb, 1, 2017.
To follow up with you on this important matter, I or CGMC staff will likely reach out to you by
phone or email to find out where your city stands.
Thank you for your continued support of the CGMC
Sincerely,
am
A ' d
Sara Carlson, Mayor of Alexandria
President, Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities
Pledge Form/Invoice
CGMC 2016-2017 Environmental Action Fund
Voluntary Assessment
The Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities (CGMC) has established an Environmental Action
Fund that will be financed by its members through a voluntary assessment. The suggested
assessment is $0.35 per capita from each member city.
The City of Hutchinson's proposed assessment is $ 4,903
You may send a check now or by February 1, 2017.
Thank you for your support of the CGMC Environmental Action Fund. If you have any
questions about the Environmental Action Fund or the voluntary assessment, please contact
Daniel Marx at dmmarxc flahert-hood.com or via telephone at (651) 225-8840.
Please return this portion to the CGMC by December 9, 2016.
❑ YES, the City of Hutchinson will participate in the Voluntary Assessment for the CGMC
Environmental Action Fund by (select one):
❑ Submitting payment of the voluntary assessment now (enclose check payable to
the CGMC) in the amount of
❑ Pledging to pay a voluntary assessment in the amount of by February
1, 2017.
❑ NO, the City of Hutchinson elects not to participate in the voluntary assessment.
Return this form to the CGMC via email at CGMC Communications flahert-hood.com or
via mail to:
Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities
CIO Dana Hogan
Flaherty & Hood, P.A.
525 Park Street Suite 470
Saint Paul, MN 55103
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayors and City Administrators/Managers of CGMC members
From: CGMC Executive Director Tim Flaherty and environmental attorney Daniel
Marx
Date: November 7, 2016
Re: CGMC Environmental Action Fund
The Need for the Environmental Action Fund
In August, the CGMC membership elected to establish an Environmental Action Fund to deal
with the increasing challenges cities face due to an onslaught of new and future regulations
imposed upon public wastewater treatment, centralized drinking water and stormwater
management systems. These new and future regulations include the new phosphorus (river
eutrophication) standards, the chloride and sulfate standards, the nitrate standard and the anti -
degradation standard all of which are having and/or will have a dramatic impact on Greater
Minnesota cities.
The Environmental Action Fund is necessary to allow the CGMC to enhance its efforts to
confront these issues and work to ensure that current and future water quality regulations are
scientifically sound, reasonable and effective. This means the CGMC must be prepared to
vigorously oppose ill-conceived regulations that are not grounded in a sound scientific rationale
and fail to produce measurable benefits to water quality, while simultaneously working to offer
effective solutions to the clean water concerns facing our state.
The CGMC recognizes that some additional regulations and efforts from cities will be required
to ensure clean water in Minnesota now and into the future. Our member cities are willing to
work in partnership with the state to improve water quality, provided that the imposed
regulations are based in sound science, provide measurable benefits to water quality and the state
assists in providing the funding needed for their implementation.
Purpose and Uses of the Fund
The Environmental Action Fund will enable the CGMC to enhance its current legislative, legal
and regulatory efforts:
Legislative Advocacy. The Environmental Action Fund will allow the CGMC to enhance its
current efforts to lobby the Legislature for better laws that would constrain the excessive
discretion and overreach of the MPGA, to improve regulatory rulemaking and permitting
procedures, to enhance the scientific oversight of the MPGA, to work for creative legislative
solutions to water quality problems and to continue to advocate for sufficient state funding for
clean water infrastructure.
Regulatory Advocacy. The Environmental Action Fund will allow the CGMC to proactively
engage at the MPCA level in the development of water quality standards to ensure that they are
scientifically sound, reasonable and effective. The CGMC could also more effectively support
and collaborate with the Minnesota Environmental Science and Economic Review Board
(MESERB), League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) and other similar organizations to pursue
necessary research, white papers and pilot projects that would benefit the environmental interests
of CGMC members.
Legal Advocacy. Where CGMC's legislative and regulatory advocacy does not prevent
MPCA from adopting or enforcing unreasonable regulations, the Environmental Action Fund
may be used to support litigation against MPCA or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). This would allow us to directly challenge unscientific and/or unreasonable regulations,
prevent the enforcement of illegal or unadopted rules and support individual member cities in
legal challenges in cases of potential precedential value to the broader membership.
Status of Ongoing Efforts
As a result of the 2015-2016 Voluntary Assessment, the CGMC was able to implement a
comprehensive two-pronged legal strategy aimed at applying pressure on the MPCA to fix its
scientifically flawed phosphorus (river eutrophication) standards.
The first prong of this strategy is a federal lawsuit challenging the U.S. EPA's illegal approval of
the MPCA's flawed phosphorus standards. The lawsuit was filed in federal court on July 12,
2016 by the Center for Regulatory Reasonableness (CRR) on behalf of the CGMC. The second
prong of this strategy is a state rulemaking petition aimed at forcing the MPCA to correct the
scientific flaws in the phosphorus standards. The petition was filed on behalf of 18 Greater
Minnesota cities and sanitary districts with. the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) on July
29, 2016.
The federal lawsuit against the EPA is ongoing and will likely not be concluded until late 2017.
The state rulemaking petition was initially dismissed by OAH in a legal decision fraught with
technical and legal errors. The petitioning cities and sanitary districts elected to appeal that
decision to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. That appeal was filed on July 29, 2016, concurrently
with a motion to stay the appeal pending the outcome of the federal lawsuit because the two
cases are substantially similar. The Minnesota Court of Appeals granted both the appeal and the
2
motion to stay the appeal and the case is currently in a holding pattern awaiting the conclusion of
the federal lawsuit.
There is evidence that our strategy is working. On Aug. 1, 2016, the MPCA published a guidance
document in part reversing its previous erroneous position related to our legal challenges.
Through the application of this guidance document the MPCA intends to implement the
standards in a manner that is close to our requested amendments. This appears to be a direct
response to our legal challenges. We know for certain that this change has prevented the MPCA
from implementing flawed phosphorus limits in the wastewater permit of at least one CGMC
member and potentially others. While this is a positive development, it is not a long-term
solution to the scientific flaws at issue with the standards because the guidance document does
not have the force and effect of law. Unless and until the MPCA formally adopts our requested
amendments into rule, the guidance and implementation could change at the MPCA's whim or
be challenged successfully by environmental advocacy organizations.
If you have any questions about the Environmental Action Fund, the voluntary assessment or the
current legal actions, please contact Daniel Marx at dmmarx e flaherty-hood.com or 651-225-
8840.
TPFIDMM
3
HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL ci=v-f�
Request for Board Action 7AL =-WZ
Agenda Item: Set City of Hutchinson 2017 Organizational Meeting
Department: Administration
LICENSE SECTION
Meeting Date: 12/13/2016
Application Complete N/A
Contact: Matt Jaunich
Agenda Item Type:
Presenter: Matt Jaunich
Reviewed by Staff ❑
New Business
Time Requested (Minutes): 5
License Contingency N/A
Attachments: No
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION OFAGENDA ITEM:
The Hutchinson City Charter states that on the first Monday in in January following a regular municipal election the
council shall meet at the usual place and time for the holding of council meetings. If the first Monday is a holiday, the
first Tuesday in January shall then be used. The Council shall meet and the newly elected members of the Council
shall assume their duties. The first Monday in January 2017 is a New Year's Day Holiday, therefore the Council will
need to meet on Tuesday, January 3rd. At this meeting, the Council Members and Mayor will be sworn in and other
organizational items will be reviewed and acted on. The Council will need to consider what time time to hold this
organizational meeting.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Set City of Hutchinson organizational meeting for January 3, 2017.
Fiscal Impact: Funding Source:
FTE Impact: 0.00 Budget Change: No
Included in current budget: No
PROJECT SECTION:
Total Project Cost:
Total City Cost: Funding Source:
Remaining Cost: $ 0.00 Funding Source:
Library Board Meeting Minutes
Monday, October 24, 2016 @ 4:30 p.m.
Present: Dianne Wanzek, Steve Bailey, Mary Christensen, Gerry Grinde, Jack Sandberg, Julie
Lofdahl, and Katy Hiltner, Ex -Officio
Dianne Wanzek called the meeting to order. The minutes from the September 26, 2016,
meeting were reviewed. Motion to approve with correction made by Mary Christensen and
seconded by Jack Sandberg. Minutes approved with the following correction Mary Christensen
will be going to the upcoming Pioneerland Board meeting.
Old Business:
Upcoming Program: Author Allen Eskens
Program is tomorrow at 7:00 pm. The local TV station to film the program. Allen Eskens is a
good writer. Katy described him as the real deal.
Program Updates: Family History Research Series
Programs in Hutchinson and Brownton have been well attended. The genealogy sessions will be
presented in different towns so more people can attend closer to where they live.
3. Teen Program Update: Art Journaling
Mariah Ralston hosted a program as part of Teen Read Week. The session was not well
attended because of the time of day (3:30-4:30 p.m.). However, a grandmother and child came,
and they had a really great time. A regularly scheduled Teen Art Journaling program will start in
January and will run through May. This teen event will be held the first Thursday of each month
with the time changing to 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. in the library's meeting room.
4. Children's Program Update: Kiwanis LEGO Club
Beginning in October, Sherry will be meeting at 6:30 p.m. the second Monday of each month
(Oct. 10, Nov. 14, and Dec. 12) to build with LEGOs. The group is sponsored by the Kiwanis Club.
Sherry is sponsoring a club naming contest, so we should have this name by our November
meeting.
5. Recommendations for Board Positions
John Hassinger and Mary Inglis have been recommended for the Pioneerland Board and Kristine
Luenze has been recommended for our library board. Kristine was given an interest form to
turn into the City.
Annual Report to McLeod County
Novemeber 1St Katy and Jackee will present at the County Board of Commissioners meeting.
The topics to be covered at the meeting include: Library Spaces, Library Collections, Library
Technology, Adult Programming, Teen Development, Ongoing Children's Programming, Family
Programming, Lifelong Learning Support, and Outreach and Partners. This is not a hard sell on
funding for the Library, but a chance to give a look at the great things the libraries have done.
To give support, the County will need reasons. This gives them a chance to see why and how
they can support the libraries.
Budgeting: Katy does a budget and sends it to Laurie Ortega at Pioneerland to review. PLS asks
each library to have a three-month reserve. If funding is not received, PLS will have Katy look at
budget to make cuts, and the first to go is frequently the book/collections budget. If budget
cuts happen, library may need to get grants for programs, donations, and funds from Friends of
the Library.
New Business:
1. Sale of Old Computers
Katy got the okay to sell the library's old computers. The top price will be $200 for keyboard,
monitor, and tower. Five or six people have been asking to purchase the computers. Funds will
go back into other on the budget.
2. McLeod County Christmas Project 2016
Library will again collect new children's books. Katy will contact schools to put donation boxes in
the elementary schools and one will also be at the library. Friends of the Library will give money
to purchase books. Project will be in the paper and possibly put on KDUZ. Jack brought up the
thought of changing the name from Christmas Project to Holiday Project. Katy will check with
County on this change. The Library may use the name Holiday Project. Board thought this was a
good idea.
3. 2017 Winter Reading Program
The adult (18 and up) reading program will be Book Your Winter Getaway. Someone from Plum
Creek submitted the logo for 2017. The dates of the program will be January 2nd to March 31St
4. Thrivent Grants
Mary Henke applied for a grant with Thrivent for the Friends Annual Fall Book Sale. She received
$250 which will be spent on children's audio books. The Board thought it was a great idea for
receiving funds for the library.
5. Other
The book for One Book, One Community will be announced in November. Watch Hutchinson
Leader for details. The library will order a set of the book for a book club kit.
Katy is still working on memorial book purchase for Jon Ross.
Mary enjoyed her first meeting of Pioneerland. She learned a lot:
o Grand Rapids library is now issuing passports. They get $25 per application. Staff takes
a four-hour course every four years.
o Fairmont library has a MN Braille and talking books program.
o PLS has hired a consulting service which is the same one the City of Hutchinson used.
o In November, PLS will start working on three-year strategic plan.
o Mary sent a flyer around showing numbers for PLS for the summer programs. There
were 580 preschool, 2093 youth and 355 tweens/teens. Total Storytimes were 210 with
attendance of 4,908.
o The Cosmos library is scheduled to reopen November 13th. New London has new site
for their library in the City Center.
o Roger Vacek invited Mary to the meeting and she will try to go quarterly.
Motion to adjourn by Steve Bailey, seconded by Gerry Grinde. Meeting adjourned 5:17 pm
Minutes submitted by
Julie Lofdahl, Secretary
Next meeting: November 28, 2016 at 4:30 p.m.
September 2016 Donations
Memorial for Jon Ross $ 30.00
3M Foundation Grant (children's programming) $250.00
Hutchinson Lioness Club (large print books) $200.00
Total $480.00
