04-01-1980 CCMMINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - HUTCHINSON CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 1980
The special meeting was called to order by Mayor Westlund at 3:08 P.M., with the fol-
lowing members present: Aldermen Peterson, Lueneburg, Gruenhagen and Beatty, in addi-
tion to Mayor Westlund. Absent: None. Also present were: Administrative Assistant
Plotz, Westly Hendrickson of TKDA, and Clarence Simonowicz of C.R.S. & Associates.
1. Fire/Police Station Referendum
Mayor Westlund commented on three possible alternatives for the fire/police sta-
tion referendum and stated a decision would be forthcoming on the direction the
City would take.
Fire Chief Schlueter reported on a Fire Department meeting held after the election
on March 25, 1980. It was the consensus of the firemen that the referendum should
be split and presented as a Fire Station only while the issue was still fresh on
the minds of the people. One complaint heard was that the property owners of the
selected site did not want to sell at this time.
Sgt. Kirchoff reported the Police Department had met and recommended a combined
fire/police building as in the original referendum. He stated a five count defeat
was not enough to be considered a decisive vote so there should be another elec-
tion.
John Reynolds stated the referendum was rejected, irregardless of the narrow vote.
It was his opinion that the next referendum should be for a fire station or police
station, but not combined, as they are not compatible.
The daughter of Mrs. Ed Hoffman, property owner, stated some people thought the
City had gone for too much. The people should have been informed of what the
fire station was used for. She suggested going across the street and building a
fire station and utilize the present building for some other purpose. She com-
mented that her mother's property is being considered for the site, and she does
not want to sell at this time.
Emanuel Albrecht, another property owner, stated he did not wish to sell his prop-
erty with only a five vote margin. If the outcome would have been a wider margin,
he would have been agreeable to selling to the City. He felt it would be a mistake
to proceed to build with such a small margin, and good leadership would be able to
see that more support was needed from the public. Mr. Albrecht also remarked
there was dissention, for the Fire Department was saying one thing and the Police
Department something else. He further stated the referendum lost for a multitude
of reasons, although someone did a good job of promoting it. He concluded in say-
ing that under these conditions, his property is not for sale.
Clinton Gruett referred back to the 1950's, the Comprehensive Plan, and recent
proposals for moving City Offices over by Library Square. He commented this site
was taken away from the Fire Department, and they were told to "hold off." It was
his opinion that a complete City complex was the wrong route to take. If the
COUNCIL MINUTES
APRIL 1, 1980
Comprehensive Plan was not going to be followed, he didn't see any reason why
the buildings have to be together.
Alderman Gruenhagen commented that regardless of the reason picked for the defeat
of the referendum, the most logical was the amount of money being spent. Most
people would probably reject the complex because they felt it was too expensive.
He thought the No. 1 priority should be the Fire Department, and he would be fav-
orable of splitting the project for a Fire Department Referendum. Then it could
be looked at again in a year or two and consider the Police Department. He did
not feel that presenting the same referendum would gain more support from the
public. He then asked Westly Hendrickson for figures of cost for splitting the
project or starting over again.
Westly Hendrickson stated the fire station at the proposedsite would involve small
expense to prepare a referendum. It would be designed on the previous referendum,
with the removal of the Police Department from the structure.
Alderman Gruenhagen asked if the same plan could be used should the Police Depart-
ment be added on in two years.
Mr. Hendrickson responded it would require a one-story building plan so it would
require a revision, and any elevation requires expense.
Alderman Lueneburg asked what merit there would be in considering a less expensive
building, besides splitting the referendum, or possibly a metol building.
Mr. Hendrickson replied the cost was based on square foot. There might be a sav-
ings of $55-60,000, but he recommended spending the money for brick to save on the
maintenance cost of painting, etc. He stated he would not recommend a metal build-
ing for the City, although it would be the cheapest way to build.
Alderman Peterson stated he felt the referendum should be split. Since he didn't
know which one to suggest building first, he would leave it to the Fire and Police
Department to make this decision.
Alderman Beatty stated he preferred waiting 180 days and presenting the combined
complex, although he wasn't sure if it would go. It would be difficult to sell
the combination bond issue after the original was defeated.
Alderman Peterson asked if 180 days from now the figure would be higher.
Mr. Hendrickson responded that there would be 1-1(2% per month inflation increase
in the cost.
Administrative Assistant Plotz reported he had asked the County about their inten-
tions of a county jail. He was told the County intended to present a referendum
in approximately 180 days.
-2-
COUNCIL MINUTES
APRIL 1, 1980
Mayor Westlund commented the referendum presented on March 25, 1980 was the one
that should be presented again with the departments combined in one building.
Also, they needed to keep in mind the referendum proposed by the County and the
one proposed by the School District. The question to be decided is whether the
City should hold the same referendum or split the complex and purchase the land
now proposed so a second facility can be added to the same site at a later date.
Emanuel Albrecht asked if the condemnation procedure would be used to secure the
property for the proposed site.
Mayor Westlund remarked that he thought the property owners had been contacted
for a rough appraisal of their property and had given permission for same. Ap-
praisals are made prior to a referendum to help determine the bond figure for the
referendum. Relocation money is involved as well as the purchase of property.
If the referendum is approved, then the property owners are contacted with the
appraisal figures for the intent of land purchase. He stated there has never
been any condemnation proceedings with any purchase of property by the City.
Brad Emans stated to take into consideration the Fire Department put in a lot of
work for the referendum. He felt the City did not need someone to come out and
do the work for them. Further, he wished the City would take the recommendation
of the Fire Department and split the referendum for the purchase of land for only
one complex.
Officer Chuck Jones commented on the split of departments and a design change for
only a Fire Department with no room for an addition of a Police Department. He
stated it was important that the Police Department relocate at some future time,
and it would be a greater cost to the tax payer at a later date. Property and
building costs will be going up in the future, and a split will mean two plans
and two buildings. This would go into more money than being proposed by the present
referendum.
The Mayor commented that several proposals had been discussed with three different
locations suggested. It was his recommendation not to reach a decision today but
rather hold another meeting.
It was suggested by Consultant Simonowicz to check into the Farm Home Administra-
tion for possible financing of the building. Perhaps this could be an alternative
method of financing.
The motion was made by Alderman Lueneburg to table discussion on the police/fire
station referendum until more information can be secured for a two-week period,
with two or three representatives from each department on the committee. Seconded
by Alderman Beatty.
The motion was amended by Alderman Lueneburg to change the date to the week of
April 21, 1980. The motion was seconded by Alderman Beatty and unanimously carried.
-3-
COUNCIL MINUTES
APRIL 1, 1980
2. Contract with C.R.S. & Associates
Consultant Clarence Simonowicz explained the contract between the City and C.R.S.
& Associates. Professional services will include assistance to the City in under-
taking tax increment financing or similar projects in accordance with the work
description. Compensation shall be at an hourly rate but shall not exceed $1,000
per month. If no project or funding results from the consultant's activity, no
fee or funding would be paid. The contract would cover a one-year period.
Following discussion, Alderman Gruenhagen moved to authorize entering into a con-
tract with C.R.S. & Associates, with the addition of the wording "at the discre-
tion of the City Council" at said two places on agreement. Seconded by Alderman
Beatty, the motion unanimously carried.
3. Establishing Meeting Dates with Government Entities
Administrative Assistant Plotz stated that dates need to be established for meet-
ing with various government entities. After discussion, the following dates were
selected:
1.) Meeting of Hutchinson City Council with HRA Board - April 3, 1980,
Noon, at Prairie House
2.) Meeting of Hutchinson City Council with Utility Commission - April 11,
1980, Noon, at Hospital Conference Room
3.) Meeting of Hutchinson City Council with City Councils of surrounding
communities - April 23, 1980, 7:30 P.M., at City Hall
4.) Meeting of Hutchinson City Council with County Commissioners and Four
Township Boards - April 28, 1980, Noon, at Hospital Conference Room
4. Intoxicating Liquor License - T. L. Scalawags
Mayor Westlund requested background information pertaining to the intoxicating
liquor license for T. L. Scalawags.
Sgt. Kirchoff reported he had been asked to approve the 1980 liquor licenses. At
the present time intoxicating liquor is being consumed in the bowling alley, and
it is the contention of the Police Department that this is in violation of the
liquor law. Also, juvenile problems add to the issue.
Administrative Assistant Plotz reported on the Ordinance requirements and the
serving of intoxicating liquor in the presence of minors.
The Mayor asked Tom Dolder if intoxicating drinks were served in the pizza parlor,
and he was told "no." He then asked if intoxicating liquor was being served in
the bowling alley, and the answer was "yes." The Mayor then questioned if food
-4-
COUNCIL MINUTES
APRIL 1, 1980
was being served in compliance with the Ordinance and how Mr. Dolder proposed not
to serve liquor in the bowling alley.
Mr. Dolder stated the previous Council was aware of his intent to serve liquor in
the bowling alley. Drawings had been presented showing a design for serving into
the bowling alley through a window.
Alderman Gruenhagen stated this was a legal matter and needed to be settled. The
bowling alley has a different owner now, and Dolder is serving liquor into another
business.
It was the recommendation of the Mayor to issue an intoxicating liquor license and
require that no sale be made in the bowling alley until a legal opinion had been
secured from the City Attorney.
Sue Larson, Manager of T. L. Scalawags, stated she felt the serving was controlled
with the present method. Also, the bowlers will bring in their own drinks if they
aren't available from Scalawags. They need the liquor sales to maintain customers
at the bowling alley.
City Attorney Schantzen commented he was under the impression Scalawags was comply-
ing with the Ordinance and was able to serve meals. No discussion had ever been
given to serving in the bowling alley. At present there are three ownerships of
business involved, and the liquor license was issued to Scalawags. The transpor-
tation of liquor into the bowling alley would be in violation. The serving of food
is the determining factor for an intoxicating liquor license.
The Mayor recommended the issuance of a liquor license for a 30 -day period and re-
quested the City Attorney to review it prior to May 1, 1980.
It was moved by Alderman Gruenhagen to issue an intoxicating liquor license to T.
L. Scalawags for a 30 -day period until May 1, 1980, and to further study the mat-
ter within said 30 -day period, with the fee to be pro -rated. Seconded by Alder-
man Beatty, the motion unanimously carried.
5. Delinquent Water Account
Administrative Assistant Plotz presented a delinquent water account, No. 04-1105-
7-00. The property owner had requested an extension of payment for one week to
April 11, 1980.
It was moved by Alderman Gruenhagen, seconded by Alderman Beatty and carried unan-
imously, to extend the date to April 11, 1980 for payment of said account.
6. Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned
at 5:00 P.M.
-5-