Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
cp12-13-2016
CITY 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