CR 03-017 Resolution 2003-008 Supporting Changes to MS 383B.77•
•
February 4, 2003
Resolution 2003 -008 Supporting Changes to MS 383B.77 Hennepin County
Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HCHRA).
Proposed Action
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move to approve Resolution 2003.008
Supporting Changes to MS 383B.77 Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment
Authority (HCHRA).
Overview
The Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HCHRA) was established by
Minnesota Statutes 383B.77 and holds all of the powers of a housing and redevelopment
authority as prescribed by MS 469.001 through 469.047 (the HRA Act). Thus the HCHRA has
essentially the same powers as a city HRA, including the authority to levy a special tax not to
exceed 0.0144% of the taxable market value of all property within its area of operation.
The current enabling legislation limits the authority of the HCHRA by stating that it "shall not
exercise its powers" in a municipality where a city HRA had been created prior to June 1971,
unless the city HRA requests the HCHRA to do so. Hopkins is one of only four cities that had
an HRA in place prior to 1971. Thus, for the HCHRA to be able to levy for taxes in Hopkins,
Hopkins must annually request that the HCHRA do so. Additionally, if Hopkins were to request
the HCHRA to levy the special tax in the City under the existing legislation, the Hopkins HRA
levy capacity would be reduced or eliminated.
The current legislative requirements imposed on the HCHRA treat municipalities differently by
limiting potential HCHRA levy in some cities but not in others. County attorneys have concluded
that the HCHRA cannot legally levy for taxes in some cities without applying the same levy to
the four cities with pre -1971 HRA's. This stipulation effectively prevents the HCHRA from
levying the special tax anywhere in the County.
Hennepin County is proposing changes to the existing legislation that would allow the HCHRA
to levy for taxes in all cities in the county, regardless of when the cities created their respective
HRA's. The City of Hopkins has been asked by the County to support these changes.
Primary Issues to Consider
• What are the primary changes being proposed?
• How will the proposed changes affect Hopkins taxpayers?
• How will the proposed changes affect the Hopkins HRA?
• What activities does the HCHRA currently undertake in Hennepin County?
Supporting Documentation
• Resolution 2003 -008 Supporting Changes to MS 383B.77 Hennepin County Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA)
Steve 3fahmer
Assistant to the City Manager
C ITY OF
HOPKINS
Source:
Financial Impact: $ Budgeted: Y/N
Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.):
Notes:
Council Report 2003 -017
•
Proposed HCHRA Legislation Changes
Council Report 2003 -017
Page 2
Analysis of Primary Issues
• What are the primary changes being proposed?
The proposed changes would delete the following section of the current MS 383B.77:
"The county authority shall not exercise its powers in a municipality where a
housing and redevelopment authority was created under MS 1969, chapter 462,
before June 8, 1971, except as provided in this subdivision"
This change would eliminate the need for Hopkins, St. Louis Park, Robbinsdale and
Minneapolis to request the HCHRA special levy. Thus the HCHRA could levy the tax without
the permission of these Cities. It will also allow all cities within the county to be treated equally
with regard to the levy authority of the HCHRA.
The HCHRA special levy would be implemented by an annual vote of the County Board of
Commissioners and would be subject to the normal requirements governing the establishment
of local levies including the Truth in Taxation hearing process.
• How will the proposed changes affect Hopkins taxpayers?
The average home in Hopkins (i.e., median taxable market value) would be subject to a
maximum HCHRA levy of approximately $21 per year ($146,250 X 0.000144), although the
County could choose to levy an amount which is less than the 0.0144% maximum. The levy
• would apply to all taxable property in Hopkins.
• How will the proposed changes affect the Hopkins HRA?
According to attorneys for Hennepin County, the proposed changes would not reduce the levy
authority of the Hopkins HRA due to implementation of the HCHRA special levy; the Hopkins
HRA would retain its full capacity to levy. It is possible that language may be added to the
proposal which would affirmatively state that the HCHRA levy would have no effect on city HRA
levies — this is still under discussion. In addition, the notice and approval process which
ensures that the HCHRA carries out projects only when agreed upon by the City, would remain
in effect. The statute states that:
"If a housing or redevelopment project is undertaken in Hennepin County
pursuant to this section, the governing body of the city must approve the project
before it is undertaken."
This language does not refer to the act of levying of taxes, which would be allowed without
approval by cities with pre -1971 HRA's, but rather to specific HCHRA activities within the City.
Examples of such activities are listed below.
• What activities does the HCHRA currently undertake in partnership with
municipalities in Hennepin County?
(as detailed by Hennepin County)
1111 • Administration of federal HUD programs for rental housing, homeownership and
homelessness;
• Administration of state MHFA programs for housing rehabilitation and first -time
homeowners;
Proposed HCHRA Legislation Changes
Council Report 2003 -017
Page 3
• Provision of county assistance through the Affordable Housing Incentive Fund to
increase affordable rental and ownership housing opportunities;
• Tax - exempt financing for housing, including senior housing and community facilities;
• Transportation corridor planning and investments including a focus on Transit -
Oriented Development;
• Creation of community infrastructure and amenities through Hennepin Community
Works to increase housing and job opportunities and enhance the tax base; and
• Assistance with brownfield cleanup, economic development technical assistance and
small business finance.
Council Options Regarding the Resolution
The Council may:
1. vote to pass the resolution;
2. vote to pass the resolution with any recommended changes or conditions;
3. vote not to pass the resolution; or
4. continue the discussion and direct staff to gather more information.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approving Resolution 2003 -008 Supporting Changes to MS 383B.77
Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HCHRA).
•
•
•
•
and
CITY OF HOPKINS
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2003 -008
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING CHANGES TO MS 383B.77 HENNEPIN COUNTY
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HCHRA).
WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority
(HCHRA) was created pursuant to special law MS 383B.77 (Laws 1987, c. 177,
Sec. 1) with all the powers granted by the statewide "HRA Act" including the
power to levy a special tax not to exceed 0.0144% of taxable market value; and
WHEREAS, MS 383B.77 requires the HCHRA to notify communities
annually of its programs, and further requires that HCHRA must receive approval
by resolution of the governing body of a City before it can undertake any project;
WHEREAS, the MS 383B.77 also requires that cities with a housing and
redevelopment authority (HRA) in existence prior to June 8, 1971 must request
annually that the HCHRA levy the special tax in their city, in which case the
County levy reduces any local levy for HRA Act purposes; and
WHEREAS, this requirement affects only 4 of 28 municipal HRA's in
Hennepin County, and therefore treats municipalities unequally by limiting the
potential levy for HRA Act purposes in some cities but not in others; and
WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners has approved
seeking a legislative change to MS 383B.77 to clarify the HCHRA's levy authority
by deleting this requirement affecting only pre -1971 municipal HRA's, and
allowing the pre -1971 HRAs to continue their levy; and
WHEREAS, it is the position of the County that this legislative initiative be
pursued only in the event that the goal of clarifying the HCHRA's levy authority is
achieved, and that any other amendments which would have a negative effect on
either the HCHRA or municipal HRA's would be strenuously opposed including
withdrawal of the proposed legislation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Hopkins goes on record in support of the proposed changes to MS 383B.77
insofar as the HCHRA's levy authority will in no way reduce, restrict or otherwise
infringe on the levy authority and capacity of the Hopkins HRA, and insofar as the
City of Hopkins retains the authority to reject proposed HCHRA activities within
the City in the event that the interests of the County and the City of Hopkins are in
conflict.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Hopkins requests that staff be
kept appraised by Hennepin County of the status of legislative deliberations on
this matter.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Hopkins, Minnesota, this day of
, 2002.
ATTEST:
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk
Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor
•
•
•
•
•
•
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City council
FROM: John M. Anderson P.E., Assistant City Engineer
DATE: February 6, 2003
SUBJECT: NPDES Phase II Permit requirements
Hopkins Public Works Department
Attached is some very general information describing the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) phase II permit program the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) will be administering. The permit deadline is March 10, 2003. The
Engineering Department has been working to prepare a permit for the City of Hopkins.
As you may recall the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) organized an effort to assist
cities in preparation of the permit and asked for participating cities to contribute $5000
each to the effort. The City of Hopkins along with nearly 100 other cities joined forces
with the LMC and through that effort produced a Guide Plan to use as a reference in
completing the permit. The participation was greater than initially expected and the cost
per city was reduced by $2000 which the LMC returned to the participating cities.
We are now working with the LMC Guide Plan as a reference to complete the permit. We
expect to have a finalized permit in front of the City Council at their March 4, 2003
meeting for approval and then submit on time to the MPCA by March 10, 2003.
City staff is working in cooperation with other agencies to account for and document
their efforts. For example Nine Mile Creek Watershed District may have an
informational mailing they send out to Hopkins residents. The mailing is a way of
reducing storm water pollution in Hopkins therefore it can be listed in Hopkins permit
with the watershed as the responsible party.
The impacts of the permit are significant. The permit is a list of measurable goals that the
city will accomplish through out the 5 year permit period to address storm water quality.
Examples of this are things such as street sweeping, treatment pond maintenance, public
awareness programs, and installation of water quality treatment equipment. MPCA will
hold the City accountable for accomplishing the goals listed in the permit. There will be
an ongoing effort by City staff to document the progress in accomplishing those goals
and this documentation needs to be submitted to the MPCA on an annual basis. The
process of documenting the City's progress in itself is a time consuming process. The
LMC sponsored a seminar showcasing ASIST, a software package written specifically
for this permit and the required documentation. Again the LMC is working to facilitate a
program in which cities can join forces to take advantage of a volume discount: The list
price for the ASIST software is $6000, the vendor has offered to reduce this to $5000
through the end of February and depending on the volume purchased additional reduction
may also apply. I recommend the city of Hopkins purchase this software and utilize it to
complete the final documentation of the permit and use it to begin the required
documentation process in March.
,
;Nr"
•
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Steven J. Stadler, Public Works Director
Copy: Steven C. Mielke, City Manager
Date: February 6, 2003
Subject: Qwest Wireless ROW Permit Application
Public Works Department
Purpose: To review Qwest Wireless ROW permit request to install antenna and
ground support equipment in the 3rd Street North right of way near the north end of 20
Avenue within Hilltop Park.
• Background: Qwest Wireless is proposing to replace an existing street Tight pole and
attach an antenna on the top at the north end of 20 Avenue North. Qwest initially
requested the ROW permit in July 2002 but put that request on hold when city staff
expressed concerns about the ground equipment in the park and near the single - family
residential area. Qwest then investigated alternative locations. They also contacted
the property owner at 254 - 20 Avenue North seeking permission to install their ground
equipment on their private property. The property owner agreed but the location
required a front and side yard setback variance. City Council continued the variance
request at the December 3 meeting, there was discussion regarding ground support
equipment in residential districts at the Dec 10 worksession and City Council ultimately
denied the variance request at the January 21 Council meeting. In January 2003 City
Council approved a moratorium on the installation of wireless communications facilities.
Qwest is once again seeking approval of its ROW permit to construct the antenna and
ground equipment in the unimproved 3 Street North right of way. Prior to city staff
action on the ROW permit request, City Council requested to review the permit
application and the staff recommendation.
Discussion: The location of the Qwest Wireless ground equipment within the 3rd
Street North right of way is shown on the attached drawings. Hopkins City Code
Section 805, Right of Way Management imposes regulations regarding placement and
maintenance of facilities and equipment within the right of way. Other pertinent
regulations include the 1997 comprehensive right -of -way Minnesota legislation
• (Minnesota Statutes 237.162 and 237.163) and the federal Telecommunications Act of
• 1996. Generally, these regulations provide that "a telecommunication right -of -way user
may construct, maintain and operate conduit, cable, switches and related
appurtenances and facilities along, across, upon, above, and under any public right -of-
way." However, these right -of -way access rights are subject to a local government
unit's authority to manage its public right -of -way. The City Code and Minnesota Statute
state that ROW access may be denied if the city determines that denial is "necessary to
protect the health, safety and welfare or when necessary to protect the public ROW and
its current use." The City Code also allows the city to impose reasonable conditions
with any ROW permit to protect the public health, safety and welfare.
•
The Public Works Director believes that Qwest's request for installation of this ground
equipment is contrary to the public welfare in this residential area. However, according
to Qwest data, if this antenna and equipment installation is allowed there will be public
benefit to cellular phone users by eliminating "dead zones" in the Highway 7, northwest
Hopkins area. Additionally, the City Attorney does not believe the city could make the
case that the public welfare would be ill- served by placing this equipment in this single -
family residential /park area, as proposed.
Qwest's request is to install above ground equipment with the following dimensions:
3' wide x 6' long x 5.5' high. Additional future equipment could extend the overall length
of the equipment cabinets to 10 feet. Staff doesn't recommend the equipment be
installed in an underground vault. The vault would have to be quite large and there
would be a greater need for ventilation requiring above ground unit/s.
Staff recommendation: Public Works Director approve the ROW permit application
provided Qwest Wireless meets the requirements of our right -of -way management
ordinance, i.e., registers with the city, provides certificate of insurance and Gopher
State One -Call registration. Other conditions would be the installation of a solid cedar
screen fence and landscaping around the equipment area and written agreement
regarding maintenance.
Note: Qwest will provide a photo rendering of their proposed equipment with
landscaping and a screen fence. This should be available at the work session.
•
Qwest:
Min526
20TH AVE N & 3RD ST N
HOPKINS, MN
PRIVATE
Not for disclosure outside of Qwest Wireless, L.L.C.
Do not distribute or reproduce without permission fromQwest Wireless, L.L.C.
•
•
EIBUSIMI
MPRIPP
1111
(
0
4- C3
0z
0 w
z w
•
1 r
VW7
I ef3
tt e
U- th e
•
•
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Steven J. Stadler, Public Works Director
Copy: Steven C. Mielke, City Manager
Date: February 6, 2003
Subject: City of Hopkins Flag Display Policy /Practices
Public Works Department
Purpose: To review with City Council our current flag display practices.
Background: In September 2002 the city received a letter from Mr. 011ie Arlt, past
Hopkins VFW Commander, stating that he did not feel we were properly displaying the
• US flag following presidential decree or on the Memorial Day observance holiday. (Mr
Arlt's letter and the city's response is attached) Following these letters, City Council
asked to discuss our flag display policy /practice at a future work session.
Flag Locations and Current Flag Display Practice: The attached Public Works
memo from Ray Vogtman includes the City's flag locations and a brief description of our
past practice on flag display.
Staff recommendation: Continue to display flags at current locations. Lower all flags
to half -staff upon decree of President or Minnesota Governor, per United States Code,
Title 36 (attached). Contact the VFW and American Legion prior to the Memorial Day
holiday to determine if there's a need to lower the Downtown Park or other City flag in
support of a ceremony.
• 7114 it4a1 'et/
Ont 24g441-0-te'ete
?Z
•
612'
•
41 41 a/ qd-ue 607144. ior-a
°. � � 9
&-170€94,-e 4iiiddeer
vS-4 Je7C1s-L
Pte. d ,�t
D /� .otz' %-e/
A-a, ePAtaz: g-7,1_12e .04
/4.-ov\
/e71.0 e—e g Aze
J /7 "l
r eArw,
/"'ei rder,
6P4_ /1)-ett-44"-- ez,t-cP 47-,e-,11-6-1Ave-e4
r T*4/7\
e
e9A gl*
•
•
October 15, 2002
011ie Arit
223 18 Avenue North
Hopkins, MN 55343
Dear Mr. Arlt:
received your letter regarding the flying of the American flag at the city's Downtown
Park. You are correct that on Memorial Day and on September 11 we did not fly the
Downtown Park flag at half -staff. The presidential declaration for Sept 1 1 th was to fly
flags at half -staff at all government buildings. We did fly the flag at half -staff at Hopkins
City Hall and at the Public Works building. We did not lower the flag to half -staff at
Downtown Park or Central Park or Maetzold Field. By flying the flag at half -staff at our
buildings, we believe that we complied with the presidential order.
• Regarding Memorial Day, the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10 states that, "on
Memorial Day the flag should be displayed at half -staff until noon only, then raised to
the top of the staff." We have not been doing this. Additionally, it did not seem that this
was being done at other locations. I checked with Hennepin County and the Hopkins
Post Office and confirmed that neither agency lowers their flag on Memorial Day. Even
though the US Code seems clear, it appears that the half -staff display on Memorial Day
is rarely done. In addition to it not being common practice, there would be a city cost,
as it would involve holiday overtime pay. Just prior to this past Memorial Day we did
install a new flag at Downtown Park. However, the City does not intend to lower and
raise our flags each Memorial Day. That doesn't mean that we wouldn't support a
special Memorial Day ceremony at Downtown Park. In addition, we could perhaps
lower the lanyards to make them accessible so that anyone organizing or participating
in a special event could lower this flag.
Thank you for writing the City regarding this issue. It is important that we properly
maintain, handle and display our flags. Please feel free call me at 952 - 939 -1338 if
you'd like to discuss this further.
Sincerely,
Steven J. Stadler
Public Works Director
•
Memorandum
TO: Steve Stadler
FROM: / Ray Vogtman
DATE: February 5, 2003
SUBJECT: Flag Display
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The U.S. flag is displayed at the following City buildings and park locations: City Hall, fire
station, Downtown Park, Maetzold Field, Central Park, Hopkins Public Works, and Shady
Oak Beach (seasonal). These flags are on occasion donated by the Hopkins VFW; at other
times purchased as needed. On permanent display, these flags are replaced as needed,
dictated by wear and fading.
Concerns from the public generally surround the lowering of U.S. flags to half - staff.
Historically this practice was used in the death of a president, U.S. Senator or U.S.
Representative. This was widened to include state dignitaries. Most recently, this custom of
lowering the flag to honor national, regional or local heroes has been included. We have
also been requested to observe this practice for slain police officers and the death of fire
fighters. Veteran's Day observances also ask for the lowering and raising of flags for this
occasion.
Confusion over who calls for the observance (i.e., federal or state jurisdictions, or a local
observance), the length of time for the flags to remain at half -staff and the timing of the
request has resulted in a limited number of public phone calls to the City on the practice.
Some flags are in highly visible locations, easy to get to. Others, as in Central Park or
Maetzold Field are in City parks. These two sites had to have City plows remove snow in
order to access them this week for the astronaut's recognition. This last event was actually
called on a Sunday, during a heavy snowfall event.
City staff has made an attempt to honor all requests for the lowering of U.S. flags at all of
these locations based on the observance of that used at the Minnesota capitol. If the state
honors an occasion, we try to do the same. To keep costs for this practice down, which is
becoming more common, we attempt to not use weekends or evening overtime to lower the
flags. To avoid vandalism, most of these sites have ropes secured above the reach of area
youth, or have lockable access panels. These sites require a boom truck and /or keys to
access the ropes. Each event requires a minimum of two to four hours to lower the flags.
Putting the flags back up takes about 2 hours. Total cost of about $180 to $270 if overtime
is to be used, about $120 to $180 for weekly events.
• The general practice on Veteran's Day has been to not lower all flags by most
municipalities, only the flag at the site of the ceremony.
Hopefully this memo helps to outline the flag display policy we use within the City of
Hopkins.
•
United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10
:s ;iira
Source of document below: CD -ROM prepared and published by the Office of the Law
Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives. It contains the laws in force on January
4, 1993.
• § 170. National anthem; Star - Spangled Banner
UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 36
CHAPTER 10
41110 4116
PATRIOTIC CUSTOMS
Page 4 of 15
• § 170. National anthem; Star- Spangled Banner.
• § 171. Conduct during playing.
• § 172. Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery.
• § 173. Display and use of flag by civilians; codification of rules and customs; definition.
• § 174. Time and occasions for display.
• § 175. Position and manner of display.
• § 176. Respect for flag.
• § 177. Conduct during hoisting, lowering or passing of flag.
• § 178. Modification of rules and customs by President.
• § 179. Design for service flag; persons entitled to display flag.
• § 180. Design for service lapel button; persons entitled to wear button.
• § 181. Approval of designs by Secretary of Defense; license tomanufacture and sell; penalties.
• § 182. Rules and regulations.
• § 182a to 184. Repealed.
• § 185. Transferred.
• § 186. National motto.
• § 187. National floral emblem.
• § 188. National march.
• § 189. Recognition of National League of Families POW/MIA flag.
The composition consisting of the words and music known as The Star - Spangled Banner is designated
http : / /www.usflag.org /us.code36.html 02/06/2003
•
•
•
United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10 Page 7 of 15
•
• (e) The flag of the United States of America should be at the center and at the highest point of the
group when a number of flags of States or localities or pennants of societies are grouped and
displayed from staffs.
• (f) When flags of States, cities, or localities, or pennants of societies are flown on the same
halyard with the flag of the United States, the latter should always be at the peak. When the flags
are flown from adjacent staffs, the flag of the United States should be hoisted first and lowered
last. No such flag or pennant may be placed above the flag of the United States or to the United
States flag's right.
• (g) When flags of two or more nations are displayed, they are to be flown from separate staffs of
the same height. The flags should be of approximately equal size. International usage forbids the
display of the flag of one nation above that of another nation in time of peace.
• (h) When the flag of the United States is displayed from a staff projecting horizontally or at an
angle from the window sill, balcony, or front of a building, the union of the flag should be placed
at the peak of the staff unless the flag is at half staff. When the flag is suspended over a sidewalk
from a rope extending from a house to a pole at the edge of the sidewalk, the flag should be
hoisted out, union first, from the building.
• (i) When displayed either horizontally or vertically against a wall, the union should be uppermost
and to the flag's own right, that is, to the observer's left. When displayed in a window, the flag
should be displayed in the same way, with the union or blue field to the left of the observer in the
street.
• (j) When the flag is displayed over the middle of the street, it should be suspended vertically with
the union to the north in an east and west street or to the east in a north and south street.
• (k) When used on a speaker's platform, the flag, if displayed flat, should be displayed above and
behind the speaker. When displayed from a staff in a church or public auditorium, the flag of the
United States of America should hold the position of superior prominence, in advance of the
audience, and in the position of honor at the clergyman's or speaker's right as he faces the
audience. Any other flag so displayed should be placed on the left of the clergyman or speaker or
to the right of the audience.
• (1) The flag should form a distinctive feature of the ceremony of unveiling a statue or monument,
but it should never be used as the covering for the statue or monument.
• (m) The flag, when flown at half - staff, should be first hoisted to the peak for an instant and then
lowered to the half -staff position. The flag should be again raised to the peak before it is lowered
for the day. On Memorial Day the flag should be displayed at half -staff until noon only, then
raised to the top of the staff. By order of the President, the flag shall be flown at half -staff upon
the death of principal figures of the United States Government and the Governor of a State,
territory, or possession, as a mark of respect to their memory. In the event of the death of other
officials or foreign dignitaries, the flag is to be displayed at half -staff according to Presidential
instructions or orders, or in accordance with recognized customs or practices not inconsistent with
law. In the event of the death of a present or former official of the government of any State,
territory, or possession of the United States, the Governor of that State, territory, or possession
may proclaim that the National flag shall be flown at half - staff The flag shall be flown at half -
staff thirty days from the death of the President or a former President; ten days from the day of
death of the Vice President, the Chief Justice or a retired Chief Justice of the United States, or the
Speaker of the House of Representatives; from the day of death until interment of an Associate
Justice of the Supreme Court, a Secretary of an executive or military department, a former Vice
President, or the Governor of a State, territory, or possession; and on the day of death and the
following day for a Member of Congress. As used in this subsection -
o (1) the term 'half -staff means the position of the flag when it is one -half the distance
between the top and bottom of the staff;
o (2) the term 'executive or military department' means any agency listed under sections 101
and 102 of title 5; and
http : / /www.usflag.org /us.code36.html 02/06/2003