HomeMy WebLinkAboutUntitled (3) Amc
MEETING HELD
3/20/91 - BAYPORT Common ncerns
°P". Oak Park Heights Bayport
g Yp
councils open communications
By MIKE MARSNIK
and JOHN GILLSTROM
Possible community consolidation, the merger of their police and fire
departments, and continuing water management problems with Perro
Creek,kept the Oak Park Heights and Bayport city councils busy Wednes-
day evening.
The two councils held a joint public meeting at Oak Park Heights City
Hall. The 21/2-hour meeting drew three people, all residents of Baytown
Township, who expressed concerns about consolidation talks between the
two cities and the township.
"It went very,very well," said Oak Park Heights Mayor Barb O'Neal.
"A lot of information was exchanged; I think everyone involved felt that
it was worthwhile."
Bayport Mayor Bev Schultz agreed. "I was very happy with it," she
said. "I think any communication with the towns is all the better."
Although no formal action could legally be taken,much of Wednesday
evening's discussion revolved around police and fire protection in the two
cities. Currently, Bayport's volunteer department provides fire protection
to Oak Park Heights.
Council members,including both mayors,debated ideas such as:
•converting the Bayport Volunteer Fire Department into a full-time'de-
partment and having the cities share costs,
*installing a fire department substation in Oak Park Heights,
consolidating the two cities'police departments,and
*having the cities share police department administrative facilities.
But,O'Neal cautioned, "this is just the initial stage of opening commu-
nications between the communities."'
A cursory discussion of consolidating Bayport, Oak Park Heights and
Baytown Township—an idea that goes back more than a decade,accord-
ing to some officials — was planned for Wednesday's meeting, O'Neal
said.The discussion opened up,however,with the appearan Y
ce of Baytown
Township residents Fred Heck,Marion Heck and Gary Voss.
"We sought their input, but we didn't go into detail because no repre-
sentatives from the Baytown Town Board were present,"said Joe Carufel,
a member of the Oak Park Heights City Council.
O'Neal said she,Schultz,and a council member from each city plan to
meet with Baytown Township representatives later this spring.
"We want to look at the whole package," she said. "What's best for
Oak Park Heights? What's best for Bayport? What's best for Baytown
Township?"
Schultz said Bayport will likely choose its representatives for that meet-
ing at its next council meeting,April I.
Meanwhile,plans are moving ahead to ensure adequate fire protection
for Oak Park Heights if a proposed land annexation east of Minnesota ,
Highway 5 is approved by the Minnesota Municipal Board. The annex-
ation concerns land currently in Baytown Township, and would include
the site of the proposed new Stillwater High School.
(The board will hold a conference call meeting next Tuesday morning
concerning the proposed annexation.)
O'Neal said she plans to meet with Stillwater Fire Chief Gordon Seim
early next month to discuss a formal proposal from Seim's department.
She then plans to obtain a formal proposal from Bayport Chief Charles
Schwartz. Both departments have already made initial presentations,
O'Neal said.
Schultz said Oak Park Heights' willingness to look at watershed costs
was particularly encouraging.
There was also some discussion about tale plans for the new bridge andi
the effects accompanying changes to the design of Highways 36 and 95•
- might have on the two cities.A bridge meeting is scheduled for tonight at
7 p.m.at the Stillwater City Hall.
MIL
• - OPH Eityport
share concerns
•
By Julie Kink
• Cooperation with other local governments will
Dope
be the key to survival for Oak Park Heights as the
city faces major new development on land to the west
that it expects to annex shortly.
Construction of a new school and athletic com-
plex may be the catalysts,but officials there say they
have seen change coming for a long time.In an effort
to include neighboring communities in shaping that
change,the council met with officials from Bayport
on March 20 to share common concerns.
Oak Park Heights officials expect expansion of
city sewer and water service to the school district
property to lure other developers to the area. They're
not actively seeking proposals,but council members
want to head off developers at the pass with an orderly
plan that leaves room for green space and parks.
Part of that planning involves looking ahead at
fire and police protection for the area. Oak Park
Heights Mayor Barb O'Neal is conducting talks with
fire chiefs from Bayport and Stillwater in order to
come up with a recommendation for the council by
July 1. _ _ „,
Bayport, OPH concerns
:•:
.-
(Continued from p. 1)
"It doesn't necessarily have to inspection, and possibly police pacts formal approval to come pening and I think that to some de......,.be located within our city," O'Neal functions. within a couple weeks. She ex- gree it's somewhat of a normal.•`
said. "We're looking at response There was agreement that shay- planned that the council is ap- thing.
time, volunteer versus full time, ing administrative duties could proached almost weekly by "But if you had a 20-acre farm .
and other issues." benefit the communities, but the landowners outside the city who on the other side of Baytown,or if• •
Although the school itself will prospect of shared police protection want to be annexed because of you were horse people with
have fire sprinklers, Oak Park brought a different response. sewer and water extension. $100,000 to $200,000 barns, how
Heights Councilman Dick Seggelke "I think we're going to see Doerr said he too wanted to set would you view it?"Heck asked. .
pointed out that the need is still Washington County pushing for the record straight, explaining that Heck cautioned against creating
there for the services. He said he exactly what Ramsey County is the city has not taken an active role a "suburban belt"around the entire.
would be interested in calculating pushing for in Si Paul right now-- in seeking development. Twin Cities, and pointed out the:-
the formula for insurance savings a consolidated police department," "I get people asking, 'why is need for maintaining green space.;
between a volunteer serviced area said Oak Park Heights Councilman the City of Oak Park Heights gob- and farmland. tannin is the answer,
and an area served by a full-time fire Jack Doerr. While there could be bling up land?'" Doerr said. "When the officials re p had.g is you don't do
department. Oak Park Heights cur- some cost savings, Doerr warned people have come to us,we've told rep Y
rently contracts with the Bayport that problems like police brutality them to petition and follow the any planning and the person down
occur when large metropolitan po- process. We don't go out and peti- the road dies and their land.is sold,:...
volunteer fire department. you're going to get helter-skelter,••:
"From my standpoint, we've lice forces"have all these people in lion those. folks to annex. They Y g 6 8
charge who don't know who their come to us." 'development because the devel-.....
been very satisfied O'Neal the told the men are." Although the two councils opment was not planned at all and
you've provided," ON told the
Bayport officials. "I see Oak Park suffering in a were reluctant to hold much discus- there was no intention for parks,.,.
Bayport Mayor Bev Schultz case like that because we'd be pay- sion about the possible consolida- recreational areas, anything," said
commented that the city might be ing the same price that we pay tion of Oak Park Heights, Bayport Bayport Councilman Doug Beedle. -..
reluctant to contract for only a per- now, for anonymity," agreed and Baytown Township,they agreed O'Neal added that the final••,
tion of Oak Park Heights because O'Neal. to appoint two representatives each decision in any annexation is up to
of the potential for mix-ups on fire Council members from both to participate in talks with Bay- the Municipal Board."In Oak Park, 1
calls in different portions of the cities agreed that if an addition po- town,and will contact the township we are extremely sensitive to an-
city. "Keep us informed," she told lice officer is required for the in order to schedule a joint meeting. nexation because we have been hit'''
O'Neal. school, it should be a district-wide One Baytown resident, Fred with it with the county and the city
Bayport Councilman Larry responsibility. Heck,told the council members he of Stillwater,although we fought it`'
Hering said he would like to look As for the pending annexation, didn't want to See piecemeal,"leap- for years,"she said.
into consolidating other services O'Neal said that the verbal approval frog"development."My concern is "We aren't going to go out and ■•'
that are duplicated between the two has been given by the Minnesota' that there's somewhat of a gradual push on a community what we've
cities, such as planning, building Municipal Board, and that she ex- encroachment. I can see this hap- had to suffer here,"O'Neal said.
MEMO
Date : June 2, 1995
To: Mayor, Council, & Department Heads
From: Mike Robertson, City Administrator
Re: Interview Times for Co-Operation Study
The following is a list of scheduled interview times for those
department heads and Councilmembers who will be interviewed by
Springsted as part of the Co-Operation Study. The interviewer
will be Neil Christenson of Springsted. I have also enclosed a -
list of the interview questions. If you have any questions about
this please contact me .
THURSDAY, JUNE 8TH
Judy Holst 8 :30 a.m.
Lindy Swanson 10 : 00 a.m.
Roger Benson 12 : 00 noon
Jeff Kellogg 1 : 30 p.m.
Mark Swenson 3 :30 p.m.
0 a
Interview Questions
Descriptive:
Are there some unique characteristics or needs for your city/department/service that are not
reflected in the City profiles and inventory? (Same question for other city.)
Do you see your department/service as comprehensive, or are there unmet needs for additional
service elements? In your view, are these needs a high priority?
What are the greatest needs to improve your department/service, and what are some
alternative ways to meet those needs?
Are you aware of any duplication of services between the cities?
Are there services currently not provided that you think should be?
Are there services currently being provided that you think should not be offered?
History
Has the city/department/service been involved in cooperative agreement(s)? With whom? How
have they worked? What were the advantages? Problems? Setbacks?
How would you rate your relationship with your counterpart in the other city? Are there some
examples of how you have worked together?
Efficiency and Quality
How would you rate the quality of your department/service? Do you have some ideas on how to
improve efficiency and quality?
If your budget were doubled, what would you do differently? If it were reduced to one-half, what
would you do differently? .
What are you proudest of in regard to your department/service? v �
U _ cs
L 44,472.... ---
p----/->-frA
d---(/L- -- ,,e.--------
• •
DRAFM ''
COMMUNITY CONSOLIDATION ANALYSIS
Cities of Bayport and
Oak Park Heights, Minnesota
UPDATE OF PHASE I FINANCIAL DATA
DRAFT AS OF MARCH 21, 1995
•
•
COMMUNITY CONSOLIDAN ANALYSIS
Cities of Bayport and Oak Park Heights, Minnesota
Update of Phase I Financial Data
Table of Contents
Expenditures Analysis:
Comparative Schedules of Selected Expenditures:
(All Jurisdictions)
For the Year Ended December 31, 1993 Schedule 1
For the Year Ended December 31, 1994 Schedule 2
For the Year Ending December 31, 1995 Schedule 3
Adjustments Worksheet:
For the Year Ending December 31, 1995 Schedule 4
Combined Schedules of Selected Expenditures:
City of Bayport Schedule 5
Schedule City of Oak Park Heights S hedu e 6
Detailed Schedules of Selected Expenditures:
City of Bayport- 1993 Schedule 7
City of Bayport- 1994 Schedule 8
City of Bayport- 1995 Schedule 9
City of Oak Park Heights- 1993 Schedule 10
City of Oak Park Heights- 1994 Schedule 11
City of Oak Park Heights- 1995 Schedule 12
Revenues Analysis:
Comparative Schedules of Selected Revenues:
(All Jurisdictions)
For the Year Ended December 31, 1993 Schedule 13
For the Year Ended December 31, 1994 Schedule 14
For the Year Ending December 31, 1995 Schedule 15
Adjustments Worksheet:
For the Year Ending December 31, 1995 Schedule 16
Combined Schedules of Selected Revenues:
City of Bayport Schedule 17
City of Oak Park Heights Schedule 18
Detailed Schedules of Selected Revenues:
City of Bayport- 1993 Schedule 19
City of Bayport- 1994 Schedule 20
`._ City of Bayport- 1995 Schedule 21
City of Oak Park Heights - 1993 Schedule 22
City of Oak Park Heights - 1994 Schedule 23
City of Oak Park Heights - 1995 Schedule 24
Footnotes to Revenue and Expenditure Analysis
•
COMMUNITY CONSOLIDATION ANALYSIS
Cities of Bayport and Oak Park Heights,Minnesota
Update of Phase I Financial Data
Table of Contents
Schedule of Fund Balances at December 31, 1994:
City of Bayport Schedule 25
City of Oak Park Heights Schedule 26
Historical Valuations and Population Schedule 27
Net Tax Capacity Calculation for 1994/1995 Schedule 28
•
.Y N r O�j 8 7 el 0r0 N O N N tiv N O N S v.! .--. 'T R h O M
�j h N O. a •+ el v Oh O O. 'V N 'O M O M oo a o0 0 C C 00 M
AO 0 0 y *.cr N N d' a v Q M M h iTr
Y
co %p
eX
a
2
Ch O. wt M M b y h h .-• v1 10 ON CT 00v
(, Y N O. S M o0 N 8 N N M �D Cl O Cl t� 8 n f�1 .+ V1 O•y O E r N Oh a • e7 O O O N G M C M oo C ad C G1 O a co M
Y O d R .�" N N R Q V 7 M M h VI
12 E pa 7 a► v1
r., v
Y a
0
Z
a O er M M M O .O O O S p p p p p
L q D: O N M M N h
O'
of O
3 . n .+ O; C -+ o R O C C
M M .+ G v1 t` a a a a O a O h v1 ti 7 — v:, 10 h
K oe
C x h
G9
k
G.1
S
? N ,-+ M O vi N t- N NO oo O 0 0 0 0 0 t-- M 0 N M
T C w"? .• `D 0 ON O 01 v O N
N M V O O O et o v co 7 el Na' ...
qqi� O O O N N oo O 00 m ,O en G O O O C co O C en .-r v-)
tq co C7 tV .-. a
•
•
h 10 O N M 0` O O. N M C' O a M O M h I N v1 h.N-� v�� N tin t`i N CV M v� el cpe�, c+1 M r n M kn as N N 001 t�•1 f�+1 N O O oho oho .. 00 N
F t- h O C N N N N N N .-. v1 10
fA
O O O o O O O 0 O O
ppN c7i
A
'O
Y O� h �O 0 N M ON O O. N M et O M O M v) O� N N h
O N M M O� N p N N o0 00 g M V h M
O .-� 10 N M �O iv,. N N M v1 f•1 M c•1 ■M h N to v1 O.
O cV M y1t�� c+i vO O. 00 0o - .+ Y1 p� p� P t� .. N �O .-. h
�$ .--� .+ N .-• M M M N .+ N O O .0 00 00 — N tra so
t. y h O O N N N N N N N N
t.. K
w
9
C
x O o h O. O V1 O V1 h v 0 of 0 0 0 0 0 0 h 01 .O
W °3 c°� t~'1 a v v rnn. VI cNn °° en. m �i r O
sO Os s0
VI NO Os Os 440 = en M 10 10 .+ .. N N '�
44
°" - O v1 N pp �Nt O eT e O N 00 .
•M O M Vr 1 N g.h O
�n
pp oO oo
Q h M O en en r-- e--
en en en en Z. vi vi co oo O C
W K •. cF
■ ,...0 i -xa b oh
As sr,
a w a ea
Q .-
O
c
I Pk M S, w
• W
q A O A
O Yi P.
S
i O 8
O E VI I O
U W - C fl 5...
E 0 i
.. p
. .C S G 5. I 1 < i A ...,.: i,ao @ .. 0 a.R. r r `ek >. 9 a.., r F E
4i =� U § � Up aU jir prU U
� jir O
0
N % O N
8 t` .. 00 r- en 1n v1 0- t- so en et et OD t■ 41
W
%,„I t� C 7 00 N r. oo 8 — �t v1 WI 49 II) t� N O� 00 O oo v1 to O�
7 "g t' rV oo C t- v1 en Cl 0 M 6C C 'G N O N 0% C1 .-. C ..1 CM
- 9 < E et N v1 h er et er et cn v in 0
E 7 w .� N N ems
eX O :p
es-
4,1 N 0 N 0 N .-• 00 r` m O in v1 t■ 0 r` •O an CQ'� et et 00 t� in
U R b 8 et 00 N .• co 8 .+ or v1 VI S VI t� N O. 00 8 00 v1 C•1 QI
6 V C E uC Ci 00 C r- h en e4 O r•i 1C 0 10 r- O t- O, CV .-. C .� N
in en
44 44
V
0
Z C� p�
y ONrN, 8 � � NO :°» S � "7 el' &80 888 888 cs4in oo
L. �4 .G O■ c•i Ci O NCO• !` o0 CIO r�i Cl O r•i c•i 0 r•i 0 0 0 0 0 0 o0 .. Oi
.0 .0 Ve, .N. N N en e•t V1 v1 r r m .• N
C x t� 44
•
K
W
•p •
0 in O v1 O a .+ of OT en N N en in 0 0 0 et cn c■ 0 0 0 0 0 0
dCl O N O vo .• t� .. an vpC Os ti N O O O rr1 N vn .. O .-� v1 O Vl
O O N C1 N oho CV Os M C en C C C �G N Vi C 1h N .. h -
w Vi a
v1 1n O 0 .O .� t� en N v� 00 •O v oo O oo en O r1 I V. In
— . tin N NN 'p Q. § vi 00 0o ill .� r"1 V. 00
� ... � O et N 01 vN� � C� t� •" Ql O, O O O
O O e h N ti h t�r1 N .. N een r°•1 01 0 eenpn o0 0o �qqq�� h N
F c rN O 0 N N N N N N .. N N N
Vl
»
g fA 0 O O O O O O 0 0 O 0 N
It . at
t-- 11 0 :°. c� c�n rnNv1 omo � et � o � ;11: 112 r1o � Cn•1 °O o"'o
Z .g of.. 1O trl .. et � � t L Q` ri .. is $
2 pp� O a N a0 O N et e0 r•1 .. O O . O 6 en
0o 00 CT en ler
, V t- t� O N O N N N N N N .-- C4 t�
�'i O co .-. .. N f 9
C
k » h or-2 en O co 01 M h 0 h 000 000 �Vt 0 O e0e O O O O O O d' co so W ea 6o o o0arn O O 1e0� en8 — ^' V ••4.
oC O O S o�0 O 8 8 10 .. 1D ten en to en 0�0 cn.dr a. ,�.� 444 ~ en 1p l� .. .+ .. N N v1
�+ r'
.,
S O+ O en N .44 A NN en n O O O O r �N 8
.+ to ^' 4 b O en O 0 .Nl� I Q1 Q1 00 O Q.
Cf et sO 00 O\ O. O 00 00 00 O1 N
enen to N .N+ h h V1 O"s. '�. ." .fn•
VI
H
x W
ia q
< Ezzi b in
O r•— E co V i C O b
u 14 C
z 0o a i1iI
O v E"
e 1 a
A E4
g v a 3F 9 II E4 s -A E, 9 AE• .Q IlE. ;, ;1F 3E, 1
o < � � A s N
0t C7 U a' d'. a on a 0
U g O O .
a !
01 .+ �
Y .h 8 00 R N 1V1 8 h O h h
e• N Vl 0 8 p h 8‘e) h S 8 8 h c•n
V.
eli ... N
A , E. < o co, SO
a
S) 6 hp p O 0.-O� 8
p n
c�• M N v
AO p 8 0
h0h hp es
O.
V O S
3 i O
. b
- 0 - %b . ; ,,,s04 .... N 3O $ ,eAn v N
N C ;
a
- :O
0
a
°
z r p' ) N p O 0 8 8 8 p O da n * 'V O ag O •?
Q, h
+t 1 - N a C r ,SS en C C g ao O 0o C O O O C 0 C O O Oi l�
cn en N N en v1 h e0 00 vent .4.
a, x c9 vi
w
0 F 0 O pp C 0 C a C
en •°' en °Opp °°
VI O v O O O OO R V
0 N pp S
N
G b ° ° °N A O A . y -- O N N N 4
S SA CA
A
h O h 0 en O en O O Q re-11 Ill O o R O O O o0 N h h O C7 �r r c7 en en .n to 'I a4 V Q h N v1 en en h C 00 O O co un ee�� h N N .� r1 r to N O O .-. v1 v1 e» O Os
• O. O e0 N o0 .� •O h V) O O o0 to E. 4, oo — cn en N N N N N CT 0
N rj
°� O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
^C�� fA
J
y
a
N •
y h O h O Cl O to O 0 0 C1 8 cn 0 < O < O
* N r N O .r N In V1 8 8 ^ en v1 0 N 4 eel 0 ar h N v1 h r1 f•1 h M 0 O O ^ O O
$ h N N •-• cn en N.•+ v v O p vi vi a0
g 13 8 •D N 00 c~n el N N N N N N a O
O V) V) .-i .•-, N en
90
9
O
h n � 0 O 81 o O I O I O O O O O
00 C h Q N O O O O i O
W � n v .-•
6 0 O a h - O
N d' O .- O O
O� 00 M
ts- el O t n= , N N
i9
CM
'; O r 0 cn in 0 in r1 0 r O O O .t 0 R .-. O O co 0 <
U N..'vi O N O O v
N"-- c r; r1 N N cn cn
- - vi ‘e O en cn
oo CO
en N N
ca at
g
i ."
W4 a
x
geV
la
a A �,
c 0 B
II.• $
: I .1 ° cif
6 g 0 .0 C
Le V
ea 9
0 sr
E.
o � � 3 8. Yd8 0a8 0
U g Ups
\ . 0
ao0 0 oco 000 000 000 000 000 00a
2 2
2 ZS
E.
$ . 0 0 0 o 0 o o o o o 2
p
o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 a
§ »
<
2 0 0 o 0 o o . 0 0 0 o a
§ 2
¢
t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a
p
; 0 0 0 o 0 o o c o o a
} a
<
G o 0 0 0 o o 0 o 0 o a
ƒ
<
2 o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o a
V
. . <
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
t
<
K
§
. i
■
a § g
En ii S
k_.
f_ = A
%
C.) ^ § ` a
2 It 2 $ ,§ i _ 2 $ ■ o Q a a - 22 -
■ < - i � / � / � � I.
/ § ƒ�a. /� B �
§ k § 7 - 8 � 2 e
§ 1IYj ! iiriii'2I ! rI ! r ! rr b a o
Q § I
0 •
°' '2 a 8° HE 04 8e 8° 8°
g 8 89 8° o o o CR 8° 8° 8° 8°-
n 3 ' NoN o vQo A A A A
u o o ro at
U
a• > a p�pp E4:: O e�}} N e�p a� N t� O� ��pp p ��pp can p ern o0 00 tin .-. N
'� .�+ O 8 �O 8 V1 cr .••� 8 N O; �O S �O 00 S DD oo S oo V1 M N ai U4 Q 1 •-1 h C v ar .� V C _ b C ■O h C v O v O * , .en kO .Mr VI
_.
v
18 S t` p n 00 d N v1 V7 O C- r �p �p t r t` .-+ 00
.-. �O (� S .• d �O (� S [� M N v1 �O S �O v1 S H O S M O:
O a v1 CI-.' '-+ v0 O O V d' C a.e}�• d O d' .-) O .+ .-. C .+ •-i
V Obi " N N �O h v1 h v1 et d O .+ N
O
E .. va tp
O
6A
U a
tx r.,y.-,v ,,, d,:,2on�'.r.'M.x::;;c;:.,.. :-• .•3 : %..:+.. .-x..'-:'•. t=:=;' "t::•; ::::Wi ,•;�t.`-''•ik:::;":.::"•tit-: ::R'-3v=:;. �. xt•. .;,?x3a?? :
t..: :;:.x•..• •.,_...:..x:••::••.:•.:.;.'•t•;y .. ;.,t:'�:+".v`,:. -.tt.•• vt.: '.•��+�:'+`:•'�'�c:�� `a..-�. :'&
es8 ("" S g8g MSM vvlC) .111 S $ $00 0_ S °° NS N rnOa
- - N O N C '4 O . NO O %O [- C t- O O O 'O O NO V 0
N ' O
C a N N N N - ..1 d d .-. — N fA
iN
Z M .
g d
• 0 O N N 1= Z O d • b O O S `+O. O W O O 7
1,'rs,„ d y N O N
Is Id, •O O 'O O PI e.i d o0 N O en O d C O O .• .O r v1 O vi N -• 00
OK C?, ••• .r 00 T M M .- 1 eh .. v1
. O •-+ N N .+ vO•.• < G9 A. a
c9
W U
▪ LL N ...... en p v1 N NN v1 v1 N '0 00 0 pp 0 e- M 0 .+ N en
M v1 .r `O O O. O ON N O N N eat v1 S O S d O d 00 d M N o� .-'
- d u C •-• d am.. M O M — 'Cr- O C O 00 O o0 O O -+ d cv
(%� a 0 N N N N M M O O .y �Vp1
to i9
VI S .N•. O M O cen� tel O en O O O O M O .. p o0 O 00 In
41 01 O: �O en M N N •_, ^• O 0 M en
pp�� M M d of o0 00 N N .•-i -'+ v1 ' h v1
.._ "'e O. ro 00 00 N N *-• •-. co 00 O 0 •-■ -
O - 7 en en d -et N N N N en en
LC i9
Z
i9
Es a
ON O, 0 en N h (N�yy �'C `O O. 0 O 0 d en O « (dV o
a .� •-� .-. er �O O M O 7 �O h ^� O. O� 0�0� O O�
... eT O� O� en •-•� N d 00 N O en co O,
]['']� ro ko NO O� o0 00
C v r en
r`7 d en en en en N � .•,
CA W '4 -
A N O N 0 h VNj h O it, 'eh .Nd' O O O .Mr O ,M.e O M M p�� Oro
4 pp�� N .-' e+1 �Np Oh N 00 00 O� e7. al. e"1 M 4'1 e� N O e: 00
V] O. o a t--: " .� • er V h O� 000 coo — N O N N
en Q M M M M .. ., ., ..
ill =
- en
II
g
Zei el
13 A
U 01
Q > • a % `7 sad 3 0
�i a B r.. 0 0 ro 4 c°g C O
EyM a r ° 1 3 ? Hg�
a & A 6 e 00 A a 2 C H E- S,
Cw o 'oi a .V 21 o Si ,c2' ... 31 a .. S S .. S1 o
ON z a A.F1F ”It 1 g E• 3Ey � F � � ErEr
to a a a a a i; a
5 eQU" � U U � UU 8. C.) � UU aUO oUU N
U8 U
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
�b 3 K berme, wee e. e. tpa, � Ag Aga- 6,
y • 3 ;, N ‘o
eenn N '" v ° Q .N+ ° v im M Q M Q � v
1s 5 ° c° ., z ., z z O Z A
°., > ^� r %in " �a .• aN Oen vpd c 00 0 o N. p N •■
°p, D oN S N 0,1 e-I — o t0 , O N r': �+ 00 is: O r. t".... n Cl
U d 0 V C •+
M `� M t1 N C V O d
M M M C en
`� C oo
N N d — O • as en ■∎L
r
r
U S r.i O N OHO e M r 'C O 0 0 N
~ O N N 'r)1 S h M
� ° ° ° — C -. r s0
.L in to 7'
• U _ ... N N ■0
U 69
vM N 9
a.
:. __
h N C co O; a h S v� O Vim, O M O SOS os ONO, N
�T
N ■O M 0 O O 00 O 00 O C O C C C C r Os r
M en 4
P. N •-* N N M m in In 00 00 In in
H d
�
0
0 73 O N M rOo O pp M 0. ON a 0 S S p
S (-1 Inn, O0o
CS O ON C 1 N O r o0 N O N fV O M M O M C C C O oo —
__ — f„. d -, N N M M V1 Y1 N N as •. C vl
At.C� N N E 69 69
W ,
10 0
S . M ..a } O p N M p M
O c+ �n �O. M p
M O 8 S S S O
r .i co.;- - --+ M 4 0 0 0 •-- C • r C r O O C C r in
!V
M M .11 In sO %.0 Q N N▪ — 69 NI-
'n0inz OOO InN OhN O0O0 SO8 O 000 o �O c
N C4,� u h N :..
h N O OO: h K1 OO O O v? v1 0.r b O r .+ ! . ! O •+ r O O M O i O rt : N O` O: ao 00 �n v� r� M O I� b9 N cV ".. 69 H •O N M a` N a o o� 00 o '0 oO o 00 0 0 0 0 �n h r r �0 l 00 oO �0 Oo 00 �0 N o0(� M •+ 00 gr..M O pO �eO� e+w O . •+ O .-�
Q O O O 00 8 S 5 ~ 'O O O h en Obo
y .-� .Q b N ... .-+ ... N N h v�
Ixt
in
W ~ 4'
E g g
00 ENNO O_ t� M .gyp. b O yr' N OO ID
O O O »es
to
en eel
US. ON
VI
NO se,�„� d en '� N O M a �!' t7' M M (ppV M �ppn Cn CV r O
as ch a w
a -
c
co
U 00
h
A •0
a g
a
r 4.0. IC % 0 O lit 0
. �" v w 6 0 xs d i. O
v� 'o
G7 _ `' pap++
G�r A O �' c c a w Oa Oa
W °� 9 a V v O O
L M a u li m o ao
a .+ o O
O CO '> a 9 1.' v � Ag a + o � a �0 0v o u o o o o o
E
op g pm - _
a C i g U a a a a a ; ca. n r6 O � U es
v UU
a U
Z UU
w V .0U a
a 0
U
r
•
CITY OF BAYPORT, MINN)TA
r
(EXCERPTS OF 1993 ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT) Schedule 7
Page lof2
DETAILED SCHEDULE OF SELECTED EXPENDITURES(NOTE 1)
For the Year Ended December 31, 1993
Library and
Forfeiture/ Equipment Per
General DARE Acquisition Capita
Fund Funds Fund Total (Note 3)
Expenditures:
General government:
Mayor and council:
Current $54,510 $54,510 $31.55
Elections:
Current 520 520 0.30
Capital outlay 5,672 5,672 3.28
Administrator.
Current 136,682 136,682 79.10
Capital outlay 1,429 1,429 0.83
Audit
Current 14,135 14,135 8.18
Assessing:
Current 6,049 6,049 3.50
Legal and engineering:
Current 54,863 54,863 31.75
Planning and zoning:
Current 48,783 48,783 28.23
General government buildings:
Current 32,683 32,683 18.91
Central services:
Current 0 0 0.00
Total current 348,225 0 0 348,225 201.52
Total capital outlay 7,101 0 0 7,101 4.11
Total general government 355,326 0 0 355,326 206
Claims and judgments:
Current 0 0 0 0 0.00
Public safety:
Police department
Current 301,972 11,668 313,640 181.50
Capital outlay 0 0 0.00
Fire protection:
Current 83,297 83,297 48.20
Less fire contracts (30,682) (30,682) (17.76)
Capital outlay 6,952 6,952 4.02
Total current 354,587 11,668 0 366,255 211.95
Total capital outlay 6,952 0 0 6,952 4.02
See accompanAR idt4 ntant's report 361,539 11,668 0 373,207 215.98
1011 110
CITY OF BAYPORT, MINNESOTA
(EXCERPTS OF 1993 ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT) Schedule 7
Page 2 of 2
DETAILED SCHEDULE OF SELECTED EXPENDITURES (NOTE 1)
For the Year Ended December 31, 1993
Library and
Forfeiture/ Equipment Per
General DARE Acquisition Capita
Fund Funds Fund Total (Note 3)
Public works:
Street maintenance:
Current $117,894 $117,894 $68.23
Capital outlay 0 0 0.00
Street lights:
Current 21,957 21,957 12.71
Recycling:
Current 4,003 4,003 2.32
Total current 143,854 $0 0 143,854 83.25
1 Total capital outlay 0 0 0 0 0.00
Total public works 143,854 0 0 143,854 83.25
Parks:
Current 53,944 53,944 31.22
Capital outlay 10,998 10,998 6.36
Total parks 64,942 0 0 64,942 37.58
Library:
Current 0 187,313 187,313 108.40
Other:
Current 1,504 1,504 0.87
Capital outlay 735 735 0.43
Total other 2,239 0 0 2,239 1.30
Total current 902,114 198,981 0 1,101,095 637.21
Total capital outlay 25,786 0 0 25,786 14.92
Total selected expenditures $927,900 $198,981 $0 $1,126,881 $652.13
See accompanying notes and accountant's report
•
•
CITY OF BAYPORT, MINNNOTA
(EXCERPTS OF 1994 ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT) Schedule 8
Page 1 of 2
DETAILED SCHEDULE OF SELECTED EXPENDITURES(NOTE 1)
For the Year Ended December 31,1994
Library and
Forfeiture/ Equipment Per
General DARE Acquisition Capita
Fund Funds Fund Total (Note 3)
Expenditures:
General government:
Mayor and council:
Current $58,601 $58,601 $33.91
Elections:
Current 1,869 1,869 1.08
Capital outlay 0 0 0.00
Administrator:
Current 125,335 125,335 72.53
Capital outlay 0 0 0.00
Audit:
Current 14,512 14,512 8.40
Assessing:
Current 6,233 6,233 3.61
Legal and engineering:
Current 10,409 10,409 6.02
Planning and zoning:
Current 89,924 89,924 52.04
General government buildings:
Current 32,236 32,236 18.66
Central services:
Current 0 0 0.00
Total current 339,119 0 0 339,119 196.25
Total capital outlay 0 0 0 0 0.00
Total general government 339,119 0 0 339,119 196
Claims and judgments:
Current 0 0 0 0 0.00
Public safety:
Police department:
Current 317,752 7,410 325,162 188.17
Capital outlay 3,652 3,652 2.11
Fire protection:
Current 88,281 88,281 51.09
Less fire contracts (46,000) (46,000) (26.62)
Capital outlay 0 0 0.00
Total current 360,033 7,410 0 367,443 212.64
Total capital outlay 3,652 0 0 3,652 2.11
Total public safety 363,685 7,410 0 371,095 214.75
See accompanying notes and accountant's report
• 0
. CITY OF BAYPORT, MINNESOTA
(EXCERPTS OF 1994 ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT) Schedule 8
Page 2 of 2
DETAILED SCHEDULE OF SELECTED EXPENDITURES (NOTE 1)
For the Year Ended December 31, 1994
• Library and
Forfeiture/ Equipment Per
General DARE Acquisition Capita
Fund Funds Fund Total (Note 3)
Public works:
Street maintenance:
Current $124,298 $124,298 $71.93
Capital outlay 4,022 4,022 2.33
Street lights:
Current 20,502 20,502 11.86
Recycling:
Current 7,584 7,584 4.39
Total current 152,384 $0 0 152,384 88.19
Total capital outlay 4,022 0 0 4,022 2.33
Total public works 156,406 0 0 156,406 90.51
Parks:
Current 58,613 58,613 33.92
Capital outlay 576 576 0.33
Total parks 59,189 0 0 59,189 34.25
Library:
Current 0 192,404 192,404 111.34
Capital outlay 10,774 10,774 6.23
Total library 0 203,178 0 203,178 118
Other:
Current _ 8,913 8,913 5.16
Capital outlay 0 0 0.00
Total other 8,913 0 0 8,913 5.16
Total current 919,062 210,588 0 1,129,650 653.73
Total capital outlay 8,250 0 0 8,250 4.77
1.:, Total selected expenditures $927,312 $210,588 $0 $1,137,900 $658.51
■
See accompanying notes and accountant's report
•
•
CITY OF BAYPORT, MINNESOTA -
(EXCERPTS OF 1995 BUDGET) Schedule 9
Page 1 of 2
DETAILED SCHEDULE OF SELECTED EXPENDITURES(NOTE 1)
For the Year Ending December 31, 1995
Library and
Forfeiture/ Equipment Per
General DARE Acquisition Capita
Fund Funds Fund Total (Note 3)
Expenditures:
General government:
Mayor and council:
Current $86,655 $86,655 $50.15
Elections:
Current 6.00 600 0.35
Capital outlay 0 0 0.00
Administrator.
Current 126,526 126,526 73.22
Capital outlay 0 0 0.00
Audit:
Current 14,600 14,600 8.45
Assessing:
Current 6,300 6,300 3.65
Legal and engineering:
Current 10,500 10,500 6.08
Planning and zoning:
Current 98,159 98,159 56.80
General government buildings:
Current 40,572 40,572 23.48
Central services:
Current 0 0 0.00
Total current 383,912 0 0 383,912 222.17
Total capital outlay 0 0 0 0 0.00
Total general government 383,912 0 0 383,912 222
Claims and judgments:
Current 0 0 0 0 0.00
Public safety:
Police department:
Current 359,231 12,255 371,486 214.98
Capital outlay 0 0 0.00
Fire protection:
Current 96,157 96,157 55.65
Less fire contracts (43,000) (43,000) (24.88)
Capital outlay 0 0 0.00
Total current 412,388 12,255 0 424,643 245.74
Total capital outlay 0 0 0 0 0.00
See accompanXR c ntant's report 412,388 12,255 0 424,643 245.74
• 410
. CITY OF BAYPORT, MINNESOTA
(EXCERPTS OF 1995 BUDGET) Schedule 9
Page 2 of 2
DETAILED SCHEDULE OF SELECTED EXPENDITURES (NOTE 1)
For the Year Ending December 31, 1995
Library and
Forfeiture/ Equipment Per
General DARE Acquisition Capita
Fund Funds Fund Total (Note 3)
Public works:
Street maintenance:
Current $186,853 $186,853 $108.13
Capital outlay 0 0 0.00
Street lights:
Current 24,500 24,500 14.18
Recycling:
Current 7,042 7,042 4.08
Total current 218,395 $0 0 218,395 126.39
Total capital outlay 0 0 0 0 0.00
Total public works 218,395 0 0 218,395 126.39
Parks:
Current 82,213 82,213 47.58
Capital outlay 0 0 0.00
Total parks 82,213 0 0 82,213 47.58
Library:
Current 0 201,134 201,134 116.40
Capital outlay 0 0 0.00
Total library 0 201,134 0 201,134 116
Other:
Current _ 5,051 5,051 2.92
Capital outlay 0 0 0.00
Total other 5,051 0 0 5,051 2.92
Total current 1,101,959 213,389 0 1,315,348 761.20
Total capital outlay 0 0 0 0 0.00
L, Total selected expenditures $1,101,959 $213,389 $0 $1,315,348 $761.20
I
See accompanying notes and accountant's report
I S
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
(EXCERPTS OF 1993 ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT) Schedule 10
Page l of 2
DETAILED SCHEDULE OF SELECTED EXPENDITURES(NOTE 1)
For the Year Ended December 31,1993
Selected
Forfeiture and Capital Per
General Seizure Improvement Capita
Fund Fund Projects Total (Note 3)
Expenditures:
General government:
Mayor and council:
Current $34,348 $34,348 $11.04
Elections:
Current 0 0 0.00
Capital outlay 0 0 0.00
City clerk:
Current 150,714 150,714 48.45
Capital outlay 4,632 4,632 1.49
Planning and zoning:
Current 7,211 7,211 2.32
Municipal Building:
Current 17,579 17,579 5.65
Capital outlay 1,394 1,394 0.45
Assessor.
Current 10,173 10,173 3.27
Engineering:
Current 7,738 7,738 2.49
General management
Current 136,521 136,521 43.88
Total current 364,284 $0 $0 364,284 117.10
Total capital outlay 6,026 0 0 6,026 1.94
Total general government 370,310 0 0 370,310 119.04
Public safety:
Police department
Current 547,215 5,110 552,325 177.54
Capital outlay 9,108 9,108 2.93
Building inspections: -
Current 71,619 71,619 23.02
Capital outlay 331 331 0.11
Fire protection:
Current 30,809 30,809 9.90
Animal control:
Current 2,224 2,224 0.71
Total current 651,867 5,110 0 656,977 211.18
Total capital outlay 9,439 0 0 9,439 3.03
Total public safety 661,306 5,110 0 666,416 214.21
See accompanying notes and accountant's report
. CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESO#
(EXCERPTS OF 1993 ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT) Schedule 10
Page 2 of 2
DETAILED SCHEDULE OF SELECTED EXPENDITURES(NOTE 1)
- For the Year Ended December 31, 1993
Selected
Forfeiture and Capital Per
General Seizure Improvement Capita
Fund Fund Projects Total (Note 3)
Streets and highways:
Streets and alleys:
Current $23,564 $23,564 $7.57
Snow and ice removal:
Current 27,947 27,947 8.98
Street lighting:
Current 41,196 41,196 13.24
Arborist:
Current 1,658 1,658 0.53
Total streets and highways 94,365 $0 $0 94,365 30.33
Sanitation:
Refuse collection and disposal:
Current 297,452 297,452 95.61
Less charges for services (103,039) (103,039) (33.12)
Tree removal and planting:
Current 14,971 14,971 4.81
Total sanitation 209,384 0 0 209,384 67.30
Recreation:
Parks,playgrounds and rinks:
Current 160,257 160,257 51.51
Capital outlay 324 324 0.10
Total recreation 160,581 0 0 175,228 51.61
Total current 1,480,157 5,110 0 1,485,267 477.42
Total capital outlay 15,789 0 0 15,789 5.08
Total selected expenditures $1,495,946 $5,110 $0 $1,501,056 $482.50
See accompanying notes and accountant's report
•
•
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
(EXCERPTS OF 1994 ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT) Schedule 11
Page l of 2
DETAILED SCHEDULE OF SELECTED EXPENDITURES(NOTE 1)
For the Year Ended December 31, 1994
Selected
Forfeiture and Capital Per
General Seizure Improvement Capita
Fund Fund Projects Total (Note 3)
Expenditures:
General government:
Mayor and council:
Current $29,699 $29,699 $9.55
Elections:
Current 3,644 3,644 1.17
Capital outlay 0 •0 0.00
City clerk:
Current 159,430 159,430 51.25
Capital outlay 6,007 6,007 1.93
Planning and zoning:
Current 12,572 12,572 4.04
Municipal Building:
Current 17,036 17,036 5.48
Capital outlay 4,168 4,168 1.34
Assessor:
Current 11,005 11,005 3.54
Engineering:
Current 4,300 4,300 1.38
General management:
Current 132,670 132,670 42.65
Total current 370,356 $0 $0 370,356 119.05
Total capital outlay 10,175 0 0 10,175 3.27
Total general government 380,531 0 0 380,531 122.32
Public safety:
Police department:
Current 578,404 2,810 581,214 186.83
Capital outlay 20,386 20,386 6.55
Building inspections:
Current 56,570 56,570 18.18
Capital outlay 4,083 4,083 1.31
Fire protection:
Current 46,081 46,081 14.81
Animal control:
Current 1,008 1,008 0.32
Total current 682,063 2,810 0 684,873 220.15 •
Total capital outlay 24,469 0 0 24,469 7.87
Total public safety 706,532 2,810 0 709,342 228.02
and accountant's report
See accompanying notes po
•
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESO •
(EXCERPTS OF 1994 ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT) Schedule 11
Page 2 of 2
DETAILED SCHEDULE OF SELECTED EXPENDITURES(NOTE 1)
- For the Year Ended December 31, 1994
Selected
Forfeiture and Capital Per
General Seizure Improvement Capita
Fund Fund Projects Total (Note 3)
Streets and highways:
Streets and alleys:
Current $24,181 $24,181 $7.77
Snow and ice removal:
Current 33,744 33,744 10.85
Street lighting: -
Current 40,130 40,130 12.90
Arborist:
Current 2,004 2,004 0.64
Total streets and highways 100,059 $0 $0 100,059 32.16
Sanitation:
Refuse collection and disposal:
Current 326,926 326,926 105.09
Less charges for services (108,310) (108,310) (34.82)
Tree removal and planting:
Current 11,572 11,572 3.72
Total sanitation 230,188 0 0 230,188 73.99
Recreation:
Parks,playgrounds and rinks:
Current 164,685 164,685 52.94
Capital outlay 1,380 1,380 0.44
Total recreation 166,065 0 0 176,257 53.38
Total current 1,547,351 2,810 0 1,550,161 498.28
Total capital outlay 36,024 0 0 36,024 11.58
Total selected expenditures $1,583,375 $2,810 $0 $1,586,185 $509.86
L
See accompanying notes and accountant's report
•
CITY OF OAK PARK HEISS, MINNESOTA
(EXCERPTS OF 1995 BUDGET) Schedule 12
Page 1 of 2
DETAILED SCHEDULE OF SELECTED EXPENDITURES(NOTE 1)
For o the Year Ending December 31, 1995
Selected
Forfeiture and Capital Per
General Seizure Improvement p Capita
Fund Fund Projects Total (Note 3)
Expenditures:
General government:
Mayor and council:
Current $38,670 $38,670 $12.43 .
Elections:
Current 720 720 0.23
Capital outlay 0 . 0 0.00
City clerk:
Current 188,550 188,550 60.61
Capital outlay 1,000 1,000 0.32
Planning and zoning:
Current 10,000 10,000 3.21
Municipal Building:
Current 20,350 20,350 6.54
Capital outlay 6,750 6,750 2.17
Assessor:
Current 11,500 11,500 3.70
Engineering:
Current 8,000 8,000 2.57
General management:
Current 132,725 132,725 42.66
Total current 410,515 $0 $0 410,515 131.96
Total capital outlay 7,750 0 0 7,750 2.49
Total general government 418,265 0 0 418,265 134.45
Public safety:
Police department
Current 630,960 630,960 202.82
Capital outlay 21,000 21,000 6.75
Building inspections:
Current 61,660 61,660 19.82
Capital outlay 500 500 0.16
Fire protection:
Current 43,000 43,000 13.82
Animal control:
Current 1,950 1,950 0.63
Total current 737,570 0 0 737,570 237.08
Total capital outlay 21,500 0 0 21,500 6.91
Total public safety 759,070 0 0 759,070 243.99
See accompanying notes and accountant's report
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOt •
e
(EXCERPTS OF 1995 BUDGET) Schedule 12
Page 2 of 2
DETAILED SCHEDULE OF SELECTED EXPENDITURES(NOTE 1)
For the Year Ending December 31, 1995
Selected
Forfeiture and Capital Per
General Seizure Improvement Capita
Fund Fund Projects Total (Note 3)
Streets and highways:
Streets and alleys:
Current $20,125 $20,125 $6.47
Snow and ice removal:
Current 30,000 30,000 9.64
Street lighting:
Current 42,800 42,800 13.76
Arborist:
Current 2,000 2,000 0.64
Total streets and highways 94,925 $0 $0 94,925 30.51
Sanitation:
Refuse collection and disposal:
Current 348,000 348,000 111.86
Less charges for services (113,000) (113,000) (3632)
Tree removal and planting:
Current 15,000 15,000 4.82
Total sanitation 250,000 0 0 250,000 80.36
Recreation:
Parks,playgrounds and rinks:
Current 180,540 180,540 58.03
Capital outlay 1,300 1,300 0.42
Total recreation 181,840 0 0 195,540 58.45
Total current 1,673,550 0 0 1,673,550 537.95
Total capital outlay 30,550 0 0 30,550 9.82
Total selected expenditures $1,704,100 $0 $0 $1,704,100 $547.77
See accompanying notes and accountant's report
• 0
C et oo 40
N NNC
: : : .-. on r M O. N ..
N MM . N.+ ..+co
N M ON N N O •-• N M., h C� M O: O. N .-• P:
p M h C. f+7 c•'1 N et .-i h 00 .�-•i M O �O O N 00 h
w .'3 O M N h N N N .-. M .-. .-. N G.
., H u 7 v t�9
Oa w
ell
Q
d
O p
v1 h N M 00 h 00 .-w to N N N h 0 thy, 0 d
v, 00 •-■ 00 N h 00 O; h Cl t
P A yl « CO s.1 .hr N O et �• v. N N 00 M O 00 D\ C a\
M a H
a = IA • to
d
a
1
V0% v1M00 .0 v, Nr 0Os a 00000 .-. in 0% M Ma
O; r 0o O N M .-+ Q M O: O: ,O t� N h t:;
.. V] M� N 0 0 VN M O d < O N N .h-. .--. N N
h co 0 .. 00 %O •O ON N 4...,
O I� t� 00 h eh N N
_ mt et h h O� M M 00 N v1 00 O
.5 N N t- v1 — 'O O to m "O O '0 "O •-+ N N ON ON
O h 00 mr •-■ O. O N M M Co � Co If O M 00
G9 to
C 0 0 0 fA
d
H•
'O
^ ...... M 0 1pO� h sO 'd pNp N X00 O �O �O M h 00
~ N 000 O .h-• 00 �O N O h�p h OHO N 00:1 N
d �p
Z r0 N N •eh v1 0% O N en en
v. 000 W. d CO h O en 0�0
p 0% - .-. r-. N .-. ... .. .r O'
cn t i f N GN9
a
a
a
a 8 8
ai so h v0 en N �-. 0~O M M 00 O N N 1 N c C 8
`� .-. M N O Oo v1 .-4 O+ NO 00 O
t�! a et C' M V'1 �O eel' v1 h a' N O In N7 •-• •n O h
✓ O 4. es h v1 .. c M .-. Y1 ∎O 00 N O .n N M d
N7
CA to IA
F• 00 N M O M O, 4;...1 p O O O O O M M O. O o0
i�+ t- oo M M t� c� l'� M M N N 00 O
v'1 et 00 ., O .•, .• of
y o0 00 r- h M. v1 00 M •"• .■• O I� N O. N
en
VI
AC
A
Q
o g
1T OM at u 1 es
@ to a
a g� g U ' n ffi W` ego
4 .5
1.-. � � ° e " c S. I. n t F.v. V d JJ O a OA
I 0 i a■ ] d 1.1 e-,:::, t , 0 O 8
Y V « C I C H �
1 ' P
.I O
U
U w
• 9
.d-1 M N N N h d QQ .-+ .0 Q 00 '0 M O O. 0 d .0
.t h a N c: h, 6■ M O: • c' oo cn vt ' M O;
R Od 'd' M M N `O O M N .�-. .d-� M N N in
M0 < i9 f499
z
A
b cos N N N h d o r+ •O p o0 .D M O O+ O. .O
U � O y of t� et N o0 � On M ON .O � M o0 M vl � M O�
p1p� .r vi 90 O+ .0 .D C c,i Vi a. " 90 N .0 M 0 V1
V O y.., t O d M o0 N M N •, — cn N — .., N b cr a � � • iatAAtt iA
N <
41
O
O O. 00 M O. O. N ON 00 0 N N p 00 N tel
0: ., 00 .0 v1 0. 1-4 .1: No v1 MOIN 8 .. 8 .O o0
s �9 s4 . Od 4 of v c- M vi O O+ a C r+ cV Oi — O ' O
7 Vi a .oC � N — Nd .-. .-� M .-y d .1 9. .r �
ia" .=v+ V3 '4
c
a
E
VO. O 0 en N ., M M d p d d AA N 00 v1 M
cn cn d c0 01 r O 8 t� et 0 t. r Cs! c? O N
O M c'•1 O § O. O O 0+ •0 C co 00 co � N "0 V1
d N .D Q V' ., v1 M ., ., N N CO M d
• i9 u
M M M C•10, N 0 1,9 M M O N •O O rN 00 h .D 00 M O..-+ .- .-i h O O. M .- "e)�• M d cn tNi O Vl OO of 0 00 O N N N M .0 N O. "C O 00 .D rn N
••• N M
iA Vd
O O 0
0
c
0
to
N .'+ F. 8 N N d M N O. N 0 0 0 M M p N
•0i N OHO d OMO can v1 FA'
0�o N '1 � ON. N N et• .0 0000 O N - N 90 N O+7 h t.. N .-+ fls.....
i \
ap V1 N N "t M t0. N d •7 O M M •-" M 0 O. 00
y • `Ot: N 0d0 cCnn .1- vN1 Q h ,~-+ C. N Co 90 •-• tom- •M-•
p} • co in .-� et O Di .O r+ .•▪ O d N r" O. d .O M
o a • c-- N '0 � c+M1 d •-, Io �D O. M en V1 M en
i VI vi .. 's
.. t}1 O
�+ * d o0 O M ." d O 00 O N N a N
N '. 'Qf� .N+ oho. eenn cNMn• OO. c��l can 00 d N N vi
E. 41 O O .-y 900 O r-, cN•f V Nd' •.00 •N0
x °°in
04 i i
� Z
pU
o Z rna 'o 0
E a .. 0 o .. uj a E C
'$ t 1 0 0 �+ > re 'a
it). i Te ] Cg 1 g 1 a •
c7 C.) .,
U g U w
' I
• 0
on
of a .� .. O, 8 00 0 O, l� et M C I- 0 0 el" 00 .r
osp la 00 00 oo O o0 M a0 M an v? 40 N o0 M M Q) et 00
= F .... en 'N? N ° coo N ° en N ..-, M ..-
O y i9 N
7
u o,
CA
as
- C .- 8 0 00 0 ON h et M of h 0 O et o0
_ a0 00 .-+ 8 00 M CO M V7 V7 'O N 00 M M O; et o0
U .� O 0 can 0 O N N-, C M N — : O e7 O■ Os co on
aE" aa 0 , VI
b
N
u
0
Z Vl M h - co Vi N 'd' h .. e� 0 M
y V1 C; O O: a\ N ,O oo O 'n O 40 00 'G 8 M N
C td OC O N N ° —tr, M '�t O 00 N O N M V1 CT O V.
=
d
a
1 p, p p p
"' 1 O Vd1. NO 8 C; O 0�0. Vii. O N N 00 0000_ 0
CA ca a
Vi
h O M in oo O M V, 00 00
O O
A
M
,p 0
— -- 00 — NO 00% O^ O cn M N O
7 0 N h — H f O: 0\ V7 00
O co h ,O N �O O, O ON N et •O of et e! ^
E... O N .-, .1.. ^ ,--.
4
CA
C 0 O O O
o c9
E
H
7
'LS
d
^ OHO 00 ° .Mr � N 8 O O 000 M N O 8 O
N �pp
0 ,R. "O —lei ,-+ %0 O;Q`
Z et 0 N N .-. v7 Q` U M 00 �.
00 N oo N NO ON O ON N et .O et et eh
N N ei
0
0
d
04 8n-, 00o 8 ° „? 8 ° 8 8
> 8 888 8
'O % �D O� V1 N O� �O O O O N O Vf
V 0 a .15 N n `n o h O N 8
x
N V1
13 iA ,.-i
g
z. V1 N .-+ 0 .0
N 00 O M O O +l1 8 C' M
Vj - r., 00 h O r' M O O 0 C N _
N O O V7 et 00 N h a0 et �p N et (-4
�O
a i.
al
, .
E =
..,
C ui vt c
a` o
O Cn a a u
w y '' = �' i
O M $ a[i u e
L [-: i 11 .s b 0
a e. °.4.., o
..
4%)i i. w 0
o 44
oa
u .+ u a u es
a,q
.4 0 W o, -t H .rice E K o w An c `' 0 m o 0 C3'
co
!nj2
n i A
d 0
VI
i o 0 U
V g U a,
`o •
,o 03 0 0 0 0 co 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O 0 0o,0
E.<
xl
u
y
c O O O O
4) v)
0o
a
V
a
F 0 0 0 0
d 64
O
b
a
C 0 0 0 O
E
VI 4t
b
a
E 0 0 . 0 0
d ds
E v,
7
;d
a
0 0 0 0
in
ga
7
V--,
a
0 0 0 0
d to
E el
7
Q
0 0 0 0
u o v3
N
ft
;
110 •
N - .. .. �. .. .. .. .. ..
eQSE ° p ° * * * AR * 8.0 80 8° * * 8°ON
i g 5 a Q
O to
ou
u
O. "' DD (.7,1,-. N 00 M f� O. ••, V1 M M N 0 N (�
....� 8 O. g3 N N M O M M to M cn o •• N .D a' i 00
U a O can M K1 0 0 N ,v. C N 0 N N 0 - d
fR
v
'R•' Ti.^ •" •-, 0. 0 .-. 00 0 Oh S d' N 0 0 'at oo r•
~n.. 00 00 .--, O CO �Mp 00 M h N 00 M cn Q, 0O
U OO. z M et M O O NN•+ O M N O O: O: oo M
c> a
W 5v+a.<z ,k c co-
CZ 'Zt '0 O Oh -4 5 0 00 ON er N 00 er 0 00
VI N O ..A O .. l-; •-+ oo 'n P; tel ,D a0 N YO
N C. b '0 N ID O .-; oo Cp O N oo .-, oo n �{
41 O .O �D �t N t� N .. .r N
p ,.• ..j
y� 4+
V C O. 0 0 M N .. M 0 M e)• h N 00 un M
.1- c� fn M 00 al r O O s 'cr. N• N Cl S O N
u 0 I M M 0 .-i O. 0 0 cT •D 00 00 .O 5 .D VI
aw ¢ N •O ••■ In M .-■ N N en en
R 69
.d U
v s.
•+ v
co 4. C. vi M oo in v 0 O. v 00 •-■ In o. Cr) v
y ppcn� yea O'. M 00 O N} M .-, O M O: .O N h N N
O. t� t�+1 N VOA O .D • M O ' ' N .N. �-� N N
Q
I _
; W
�n N .� O V1• P. OM 00 8 M
..,, co pa O. N 000 co N c�) M NO N .O
'e7
ca 69-
Z
4 (— 1/1 x001 O N O. N O v� oo tom- N O O M o0
0? ' 'a - .O h m- - 00 M N O0. M 0000 N N H
.•. a N .-, O h M N N o0 �n in N-
C
ai N � 01 Q 000 N O a 00 .. O •O M v v .D .D .D
O S ~ 59
aa
' enN dpp-. 00 .•-� O .-. .•. et N a N e
O. Q es N o�0 ch n n V N h c�•1 en 8.
aa Prr bq H
0
I i P; d U
Gel._- .-. pr., C d g Q a col
ill
O
CZ (� �' u a �o al ccs. i
os
a
$
U �aQ s., = 'S S w
x �wO . g w o a
U eX O g . .- U w 4 A Q V •..1
0 0
00 - o 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 W.tsR d a0i h -4' oo Q. M O\ . vO 0 N o0 O �t O 0p 1n
.= ._ r- O. .--i o0 0 M ..- " .-. .-r '-' .O .-+
.� a 3 �'„ N .... .. ..
O Q
co UP4rf)
5 °' p
> +' CD o0 N O n O N N M 4..1 C 00 00
Q Cl ""'� 'ct 00 '� 1 1 Cl I� kn l� V•1 en O) '-' 'A
U < O ^' 00 N O "O cV 00 C O 0 ‘O •--- co ch M .-.
N .-. .-. 1n .-. '- N . ..... .- 00
69 64
a
a� ." •—, v. O — 0000, S v 5 0 0 v 00 -.
C p, y, 'd' 00 00 .--. O 0o M oo M v1 H oo M M 0; ‘t o0
U 0, a) O cV Vi O 00 vD cV O C. N O 4 a` C\ 00 c+i
E O M M 0 N •-- M N M •-•tn
U a ' "4
..+ kn M r--0 er 00 %O •--■ v1 N •--- .. ss�� 0 O M
In d N vO (� O\ ON N NO 00 O NO 00 �O O M N
N ON 'U $ N 5 0 •-, M O o0 M h V i O: 0 h N
.r O 1/1 .r .r N M .-r
�D
��+ 64
M
6)
w
O O Ci 00 M Os p% ON ,It 00 N p 00 N M
O d a O\ — 00 ‘D in OT h N 8 •! CO iO 00
y .s_ .0. 00 `a• C N M h o Oi fV O' - 0 -.: O
U N N .r c' r. .■. .-. 4.1 — .--i V'1
^.4 M d' h
Q 64 64
.d U
v
t a h N N M 00 • 00 r. 'O N v v 0 N .-+
M c� 00 .at •-• 00 N l 00 O\ V1 N 00 h N 0 [- v,
CA a. V 000 .--. --. rf CMq co .� 0 M - 00 C O: cr.Cq
64 •zr in
ER
E
v1 0 0 12 O O h O
8 ~ 8 8 8 8 8 811
V1 N . •O N a' v� N O� n O N O
co
rn Vt NO in v1 M M .--. 00 .-. [— OT O iO
0 N .+ Pa .-i .-. .-r
CD 64
HC Q Y1 N t7 M a\ Tri 1 M •--� M O C\ 00 7 c� I N o0 M N Yw O Os M 4" C^ •..Ri N y a\ 00 h .--. O M �O •-• O� NO M...., ,..
, g Q 69 ... 44
i it
to oo M (� M �O •-• 1n N o0 �O M O o0
U iD V1 iO M eq .+ 00 M M O� l� �O O
M M N O N ON %O 00 N 'Ct �t
tT' r '�f •tf M 1n vO M h h N h h O l-- 5
. � ¢ Yl Y1 .-+ M M •� Yl �O O Y1 N M Q
,-.1 Fy 64 69 F+•
R. E Q
cna a
cl
u, g
C7 °` h a, 3 .0
GO a .. S C
a Q g .. U O ! y .� C
II !tom., 0 E. E 0.
vl Q .. a a w 0
w air 3 �" o p a �, o as w o a �, `�
Q ''t -a C y O y p� as M� 9 :� c�.1 U Lit S 0
CITY OF BAYPORT, MINNTA 40
(EXCERPTS OF 1993 ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT) Schedule 19
DETAILED SCHEDULE OF SELECTED REVENUES(NOTE 2)
For the Year Ended December 31, 1993
Library&
Drug forfeiture/ Debt Per
General DARE Service Capita
Fund Funds Funds Total (Note 3)
Revenue:
General property taxes(gross):
Local $646,184 $112,394 $758,578 $438.99
HACA 111,438 17,044 128,482 74.35
Fiscal disparities 76 182 11 651
span 87,833 .50.83
Excess TIF 140 140 0.08
Total general property taxes 833,944 141,089 975,033 564.25
Intergovernmental:
State(Except HACA):
Local government aid 22,215 22,215 12.86
Police aid 21,446 21,446 12.41
Police training aid 1,678 1,678 0.97
Firemen's aid 27,840 27,840 16.11
Presidential reimbursement
Washington County:
Gravel tax 728 728 0.42
Recycling 4,693 4,693 2.72
Total intergovernmental 78,600 0 0 78,600 45.49
Licenses and permits 73,170 0 0 73,170 42.34
Charges for services:
General government 562 307 869 0.50
Public safety 14,284 14,284 8.27
Administrative-construction funds 18,767 18,767 10.86
Public works
Parks 2,150 2,150 1.24
Cemetery _ 5,360 5,360 3.10
Total charges for services 41,123 307 0 41,430 23.97
Fines and forfeits 23,147 7,276 0 30,423 17.61
Interest on investments 25,010 2,213 0 27,223 15.75
Donations 12,594 64,455 0 77,049 44.59
Other revenue:
Refunds and reimbursements 23,745 78 23,823 13.79
Special assessments 3,594 3,594 2.08
Other 1,062 10,801 11,863 6.87
Total other revenue 28,401 10,879 0 39,280 22.74
Total selected revenue $1,115,989 $226,219 $0 $1,342,208 $776.74
See accompanying notes and accountant's report
•
_ CITY OF BAYPORT, MINNESOTA 0 •
(EXCERPTS OF 1994 ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT) Schedule 20
DETAILED SCHEDULE OF SELECTED REVENUES(NOTE 2)
_.. For the Year Ended December 31, 1994
Library&
`" Drug forfeiture/ Debt Per
r
General DARE Service Capita
Fund Funds Funds Total (Note 3)
Revenue:
General property taxes(gross):
Local $687,206 $115,265 $802,471 $464.39
HACA 110,689 15,965 126,654 7330
Fiscal disparities 95,743 13,815 109,558 63.40
Excess TIF 1,440 1,440 0.83
Total general property taxes 895,078 145,045 1,040,123 • 601.92
Intergovernmental:
State(Except HACA):
Local government aid 29,511 29,511 17.08
Police aid 22,814 22,814 13.20
Police training aid 1,970 1,970 1.14
Firemen's aid 29,917 29,917 17.31
Prison pond 1,679 1,679 0.97
Washington County:
Gravel tax 728 728 0.42
Recycling 8,364 8,364 4.84
Prison pond 8,232 8,232 4.76
Total intergovernmental 103,215 0 0 103,215 59.72
Licenses and permits 62,968 0 0 62,968 36.44
Charges for services:
General government 951 91 1,042 0.60
Public safety 19,937 19,937 11.54
Administrative-construction funds 3,288 3,288 1.90
Public works
Parks 1,875 1,875 1.09
Cemetery - 6,245 6,245 3.61
Total charges for services 32,296 91 0 32,387 18.74
Fines and forfeits 30,812 18,000 0 48,812 28.25
I Interest on investments 40,874 4,606 0 45,480 26.32
LDonations 1,254 64,026 0 65,280 37.78
Other revenue:
L Refunds and reimbursements 20,440 27 20,467 11.84
Special assessments 13,314 13,314 7.70
Other 1,545 26,967 28,512 1630
Total other revenue 35,299 26,994 0 62,293 36.04
Total selected revenue $1,201,796 $258,762 $0 $1,460,558 $845.21
See accompanying notes and accountant's report
•
•
CITY OF BAYPORT, MINN OTA
(EXCERPTS OF 1995 BUDGET) Schedule 21
DETAILED SCHEDULE OF SELECTED REVENUES(NOTE 2)
For the Year Ending December 31, 1995
Library&
Drug forfeiture/ Debt Per
General DARE Service Capita
Fund Funds Funds Total (Note 3)
Revenue:
General property taxes(gross):
Local $708,507 $89,119 $797,626 $461.59
HACA 114,094 16,438 130,532 75.54
Fiscal disparities 100,527 27,443 127,970 74.06
Total general property taxes 923,128 133,000 1,056,128 611.19
Intergovernmental:
State(Except HACA):
Local government aid 33,816 33,816 19.57
Police aid 15,000 15,000 8.68
Police training aid 1,725 1,725 1.00
Firemen's aid 30,000 30,000 17.36
Consolidation study 3,624 3,624 2.10
1 Washington County:
Gravel tax 300 300 0.17
Recycling 5,000 5,000 2.89
Prison pond 43,378 43,378 25.10
Total intergovernmental 132,843 0 0 132,843 76.87
Licenses and permits 37,300 0 0 37,300 21.59
Charges for services:
General government 100 100 0.06
Public safety 24,000 24,000 13.89
Administrative-construction funds 3,288 3,288 1.90
Public works
Parks 2,000 2,000 1.16
Cemetery - 3,000 3,000 1.74
Total charges for services 32,388 0 0 32,388 18.75
Fines and forfeits 20,000 0 20,000 11.57
Interest on investments 15,000 0 15,000 8.68
Donations 48,100 0 48,100 27.84
Other revenue:
Refunds and reimbursements 3,000 3,000 1.74
Special assessments 1,300 1,300 0.75
Other 200 20,034 20,234 11.71
Total other revenue 4,500 20,034 0 24,534 14.20
Total selected revenue $1,165,159 $201,134 $0 $1,366,293 $790.69
See accompanying notes and accountant's report
• •
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
(EXCERPTS OF 1993 ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT) Schedule 22
DETAILED SCHEDULE OF SELECTED REVENUES(NOTE 2)
For the Year Ended December 31, 1993
Selected
Forfeiture and Debt Per
■ General Seizure Service Capita
Fund Fund Funds Total (Note 3)
Revenue:
General property taxes(gross):
Local $1,194,165 $1,194,165 $383.85
HACA 54,358 54,358 17.47
Fiscal disparities 53,263 53,263 17.12
Excess TIF 15,037 15,037 4.83
Total general property taxes 1,316,823 $0 0 1,316,823 • 423.27
Intergovernmental:
State(Except HACA):
Police aid 33,516 33,516 10.77
Washington County:
Gravel tax 691 691 0.22
Recycling 14,490 14,490 4.66
Other-miscellaneous 5,935 5,935 1.91
Total intergovernmental 54,632 0 0 54,632 17.56
Licenses and P ermits 62,898 0 0 62,898 20.22
Charges for services:
Administrative-Enterprise Fund 80,000 80,000 25.72
Inspections-Bayport 20,800 20,800 6.69
Other 4,476 4,476 1.44
Total charges for services 105,276 0 0 105,276 33.85
Fines and forfeits 4
44,189 7,274 0 51,463 16.54
Interest on investments 25,180 320 0 25,500 8.20
Refunds and reimbursements 30,408 0 0 30,408 9.77
Total selected revenue $1,639,406 $7,594 $0 $1,647,000 $529.41
t
L
L
See accompanying notes and accountant's report
• •
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
(EXCERPTS OF 1994 ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT) Schedule 23 . .
DETAILED SCHEDULE OF SELECTED REVENUES(NOTE 2)
For the Year Ended December 31, 1994
Selected
Forfeiture and Debt Per
General Seizure Service Capita
Fund Fund Funds Total (Note 3)
Revenue:
General property taxes(gross):
Local $1,178,760 $1,178,760 $378.90
HACA 75,245 75,245 24.19
Fiscal disparities 61,842 61,842 19.88
Excess TIP 14,397 14,397 4.63
Total general property taxes 1,330,244 $0 0 1,330,244 . 427.60
Intergovernmental:
State(Except HACA):
Police aid 43,523 43,523 13.99
Washington County:
Gravel tax 209 209 0.07
Recycling 15,870 15,870 5.10
Other-miscellaneous 1,512 1,512 0.49
Total intergovernmental 61,114 0 0 61,114 19.65
Licenses and permits 60,914 0 0 60,914 19.58
Charges for services:
Administrative-Enterprise Fund 94,250 94,250 30.30
Inspections-Bayport 34,402 34,402 11.06
Other 2,681 2,681 0.86
Total charges for services 131,333 0 0 131,333 42.22
Fines and forfeits 55,111 4,000 0 59,111 19.00
Interest on investments 34,473 310 0 34,783 11.18
Refunds and reimbursements 36,139 0 0 36,139 11.62
Total selected revenue $1,709,328 $4,310 $0 $1,713,638 $550.85
See accompanying notes and accountant's report
• •
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
(EXCERPTS OF 1995 BUDGET) Schedule 24
DETAILED SCHEDULE OF SELECTED REVENUES(NOTE 2)
For the Year Ending December 31, 1995
Selected
Forfeiture and Debt Per
General Seizure Service Capita
Fund Fund Funds Total (Note 3)
Revenue:
General property taxes(gross):
Local $1,274,100 $1,274,100 $409.55
HACA 76,615 76,615 24.63
Fiscal disparities 55,270 55,270 17.77
Excess TM 0 0 0.00
Total general property taxes 1,405,985 $0 0 1,405,985 " 451.95
Intergovernmental:
State(Except HACA):
Police aid 43,500 43,500 13.98
Washington County:
Gravel tax 550 550 0.18
Recycling 12,700 12,700 4.08
Other-miscellaneous 1,900 1,900 0.61
Total intergovernmental 58,650 0 0 58,650 18.85
_- - Licenses and permits 71,765 0 0 71,765 23.07
Charges for services:
Administrative-Enterprise Fund 95,000 95,000 30.54
Inspections-Bayport 20,000 20,000 6.43
Other 2,000 2,000 0.64
Total charges for services 117,000 0 0 117,000 37.61
Fines and forfeits 49,200 0 0 49,200 15.81
Interest on investments 30,000 0 0 30,000 9.64
•
Refunds and reimbursements 16,500 0 0 16,500 5.30
Total selected revenue- $1,749,100 $0 $0 $1,749,100 $562.23
L
See accompanying notes and accountant's report
• •
CITY OF BAYPORT AND CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS,
NOTES ON SCHEDULES OF SELECTED REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
December 31,1993,1994 and 1995 Budget Page 1 of 3
Note 1 EXPENDITURES
The accompanying Schedules of Selected Expenditures have been compiled to provide a comparison of such data
on a per capita basis. This data has been compiled solely to assist the above-named communities in connection
with their proposed consolidation. Such data has been extracted from Annual Financial Reports,and/or Budget
Reports of the above-named communities. Such expenditures have been selected as follows:
CITY OF BAYPORT,MINNESOTA
1993 1994 1995
Description Actual Actual Budget
General and Special Revenue Funds
Total actual/budgeted expenditures $1,157,563 $1,183,900 $1,358,348
Additions and deletions:
Charges for services-fire contracts (30,682) (46,000) (43,000)
Selected capital projects:
Equipment acquisition - - -
Transfer out - - -
Total selected expenditures $1,126,881 $1,137,900 $1,315,348
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS,MINNESOTA
1993 1994 1995
Description Actual Actual Budget
General and Special Revenue Funds
Total actual/budgeted expenditures $1,604,095 $1,694,495 $1,817,100
Additions and deletions:
Charges for services-refuse collection (103,039) (108,310) (113,000)
Selected capital projects:
Park improvements - - -
Street sealcoating - - -
Total selected expenditures $1,501,056 $1,586,185 $1,704,100
•
CITY OF BAYPORT AND CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS,
NOTES ON SCHEDULES OF SELECTED REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
December 31,1993, 1994 and 1995 Budget Page 2 of 3
Note 2 REVENUES
The accompanying Schedules of Selected Revenues have been compiled to provide a comparison of such data on
a per capita basis. This data has been compiled solely to assist the above-named communities in connection
with their proposed consolidation. Such data has been extracted from Annual Financial Reports,and/or Budget
Reports of the above-named communities. Such revenues have been selected as follows:
CITY OF BAYPORT,MINNESOTA
1993 1994 1995
Description Actual Actual Budget
General and Special Revenue Funds-
Total actual/budgeted revenues $1,353,508 $1,605,735 $1,528,293
Additions and deletions:
Charges for services-fire contracts (30,682) (46,000) (43,000)
Debt service general property taxes
levied in the general fund - (119,000) (119,000)
Transfer from Trust Fund(interest earnings) 19,382 19,823 -
Total selected revenues $1,342,208 $1,460,558 $1,366,293
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS,MINNESOTA
1993 1994 1995
Description Actual Actual Budget
General and Special Revenue Funds-
Total actual/budgeted revenues $1,750,039 $1,821,948 $1,862,100
Additions and deletions:
Charges for services-refuse collection (103,039) (108,310) (113,000)
Debt service general property taxes
- and related state aids(1) - - -
Total selected revenues $1,647,000 $1,713,638 $1,749,100
(1)Includes ad valorem property taxes for a special storm sewer taxing district.
Note 2 PER CAPITA DATA,
1.,
All per capita data(for all years)has been based upon the 1990 Federal Census reduced by incarcerated
individuals as follows:
1990 Federal Census
Jurisdiction Total Incarcerated Net
City of Bayport 3,200 (1,472) 1,728
City of Oak Park Heights 3,486 (375) 3,111
Totals 6,686 (1,847) 4,839
• •
CITY OF BAYPORT AND CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS,
NOTES ON SCHEDULES OF SELECTED REVENUES
December 31,1993, 1994 and 1995 Budget Page 3 of 3
Note 3 COMBINED PER CAPITA DATA
The combined per capita data presented in this report is based upon a weighted average of selected revenues
achieved by dividing the combined total of such selected revenues by the combined total population of 4,839.
J
s • •
v .J .J .s .J .J .J
N .0 .0 .0 JO
'UC 'UO '0 10 'U U
C 'U
:) r
'CI
0 0 0 0 0 0 a)
d ococ
U V; 13)i 4.) 4.) i b.0 o 0 x
CA 0 E E E E E E c
p 0. 'a a) a) a) a)
1.
E
C.) . a) E
i a i r.). E i i b E 0 8 a a a
E t7). w 'C '0 'd '0 'd '0
4.
a) a) a) a) a) a> 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V"' y 2 .8 2
a 4.> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C g V a) < S b a) a) a) a) a) a) •0 a) 0 0
u°.. o .0 A �'' 0 0 0 0 0 E 08 ° e .g
c.. > Vl ,c g y °i ° ° ° ° ° 0 a a. .. ,,.,
0 ° y o b0 ca w °' w E e 0. 0 0 3 aci
= >a, U a°i 4.) E 3 ' aEi Cl.)E a3i a�i VI
U U `° ° o CO
° M _ § g >
5 p °' °= 5 b0
a) aciaa oo
0 C - co 0 0 0 0 0 0 . U '0 •o, 0
t ▪ � '� o g 0 0 0 0 0 0 S -� � u 5e 0 0 0 0 0 0 el 03 m 0 i o U E ° E E E E E E " � $ a)a) 0 0 a = � 0 0 o. 0 = 0 = 0 0
U u▪ U a 0 a a) u a) ) a) ) u a) ' N
u u vg
E
'5 'S 'S 'S 6 -5 0 6 -5 .56 .5 .5 'E > > 6 .6 ccc; ai
0 0 0 L. 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 I. S. 0 I. S. I. 0 I. a'
w w w w w C w w .. w w w w w w w w w w w a. GL
• 4 4 4 4 $ 4 4 = 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 H
C C C C C 0 C C U C 0 C C C C 0 C 0 C C C °
0 0 0 0 0 U 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 °
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 �' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .d
U U U U U a U U 3 U U U U U U 6)) U U U U U °N
< < < < < < < 0 < < < < Q.• < < < < < < < 0
y o`.+ v, 00 0� %0 o Q en o 00 h d ■O 0■ as o0
U Q\ ■00 •r- d' oo C .. cn �O % en ON 00 v) en o N +n 8
∎0. v t V1 00 N .-4 [ �%D0 et v, 0% N Cl, M O l� I
« en vi n r- oo .. c— o M d N N. oo V1 N o0 N h
-. 00 M .--. 00 N (— N N r- en d• N V1 N en N
en [- — V1 V1 v) d — en V1
0
M. �
ON
ON
•
CN
en
14 v
0
C
w en
ON
d 8
�A b w
A C w •0
0
.Q Q 1 4'
v1
0 0 t bo a
a) 8
.
0 o
w d 4▪ " E. 0c4 .-4- a„j, 0 0 j . g .s
W c
E,, o w E o g� .v cif 4 0 0 •S a) a)
C c ,°'�, aci • > as "1 0 0 W .= A >n E 8
G4 0 'v p4 U bo 4 W U c e c a0 S, > c
w U 3 c ., c 0 . ., ., 0 0 w E E a
O .� a w c w aci E w 0 a aci v aEi E " N E. = ]
Cel W 0 u °' •� ••� a '0 eEdo••°• Q Q •p - m ., 0 d 'd
IL. a .0 q°• .� ° Via+ E E o°�• a3i �3 a)
e'Z .7 A W r4 U v) E-. ,, r... W ... . '5 E-. .-. .-. e,"� tel 44 Rai
FC . a.3 �'
U vU) Qj U W E'
• 0
o 4)i% •'°v
u c .� .0 > w w y
cel o .o z a C a .-. .-: ... ..A N .5
td O Gh b b < 1 w
3 O O O 'b o0 v ¢ Q 00
C
0 0 C j o b C V ' UN o . - U C
O. a) a) .
w 4 4 E Q C
W W W W y8
V y E
a e e i(A c a)rJa w a :
y Q Q Q Q U U 3=y e a) c0 C C C C a) 4)
° � °y V Z > c e C o E E � c x ,� c as 3 �fr. 0 b�
O ^ C y ) C �H O as c0 •• Q < Q )r
y 2 8 8 CD 'U 2 'V L .. ,. ti . N n M cn 3 3 §cn GI 0. H u •
a) o o x
>, ' y ) a) o U U U U c „ c c te
a) o e c a .._ ; a c
' u • c $ � 5 is) i �, . .03 a) o �
'" ti ) E 0 a E C C E E 3 a 3 3 a)
° c o � ti c c G c v • . : s s ° o =
y 3
E0000 ° 0 CO o :o m o b a) a a a •= 'a '0 • -
•yR y •� ••a c " �'V til U V a
i ' > : 0 c cc co E c = 4. w w I- w c ) c a C t 0
N a a a ) b O ) a N %-, '0 4) 4 a a a a C •5 C .5 C y 7 .fl
.5 •5 5 e 6 C E •5 5 R % 3 .1 .g. . oc oc ° . ,- c
O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 O O O O O c O co O •5 0a
w w w w w 004. w w w w w w r
w w w w w U w
'ta w w
J « J E ' J J 4 J 4 3 0 4 J 4 4 4 4 t 4 3
0 :S
C C C C C > C C C C C C C Z• C C C C C C C C C p c c c c c O c c c c c C C c c c C c y C _ O O C O O 0 0 O > O O O O O O O Q O O O 0 0 rOO • p VU U U U * U U U U U U U U U U .) •° �C.) U a) U C) U
Q < Q Q < co Q Q Q Q Q < Q .6 Q Q Q Q Q b Q b Q Q U 3,0p g0
4) M •-•+ N N 0 c0 M .-4 00 N 00 00 M co 00 '.0 8 N cs
U — 00 ••. Ow t- M l w N oo t w •-4 . N cn V' of r- r to •�t
N O\ V•) 00 c0 Y1 0 '� M ... '.0 c0 M 0. h O d 8
VI
w
M
Q
b
.
-
A g .0
X -,t
c a c �' o
vs. E ° °' c C
a a) E °' a3
'0 o C aEi > aEi [
0
N M 7 > O C
> ° ° ). o O C C
W ,. . a c E a. °' ° o o
° y 8 E ••°o E E 3 `� . 3
1 1:4 W w 'b •G 'd t%) c
• no 0 y O U 0 cS '� ..+ Q 8 .y+ C N
-� p 3 e g .Cv g) C N
Q 0 g u O O c >� 8 .g h � x cn 2cn � V v) u
a. w •v •o a •o
Oa Oa c
3 a v)
�C w o �' c oo ea w 0 a'0G o a; 0 eo 5 "" 0 b
O .1 5 8 C C •1 V ._ 4 ' ' ' , W. • ,
p
fr. 5 wao � ig v � � > a ddddd d n
A
c) c�i � u W
. •
" CITY OF BAYPORT AND CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
COMMUNITY CONSOLIDATION ANALYSIS Schedule 27
1994/1995 NET TAX CAPACITY CALCULATION
Bayport Oak Park Heights Combined
Category(1) Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount Percent
Real Estate:
Residential homestead $0 0.0%
Agricultural - 0.0%
Commercial and industrial:
Public utility - 0.0%
Railroad operating prop. - 0.0%
All other comm/ind - 0.0%
Non-homestead residential - 0.0%
Commercial&residential seasonal/rec. - 0.0%
Other - 0.0%
Total real estate 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Personal property - 0.0%
Total real and personal 0 0.0% 0 0.0% - 0.0%
Less:
Captured tax increment - 0.0%
10%of 200KV trans lines - 0.0%
Fiscal disparity contribution - 0.0%
Subtotal: local tax rate determination 0 0 - 0.0%
Plus:
Fiscal disparity distribution - 0.0%
Total adjusted taxable net tax capacity $ - $ - $ - 0.0%
Data Source: Washington County Auditor-Treasurer Taxation Division
l
a
• •
CITY OF BAYPORT AND CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS '"
COMMUNITY CONSOLIDATION ANALYSIS Schedule 28
Historical Valuation and Population
Valuation History-1989-1995
Bayport Oak Park Heights Combined
Levy Payable Tax Tax Tax
Year Year EMV(1) Capacity EMV(1) Capacity EMV(1) Capacity
1994 1995 $208,632,600 $5,769,706 $208,632,600 $5,769,706
1993 1994 114,091,300 2,827,211 205,301,600 5,813,839 319,392,900 8,641,050
1992 1993 112,839,100 2,935,489 200,082,500 5,814,530 312,921,600 8,750,019
1991 1992 111,124,000 3,169,442 200,073,600 6,032,525 311,197,600 9,201,967 .
1990 1991 96,176,000 2,753,929 195,807,600 6,258,623 291,983,600 9,012,552
1989 1990 92,034,100 2,676,939 196,515,200 6,817,747 288,549,300 9,494,686
1988 1989 84,995,100 2,903,137 185,913,700 7,106,159 270,908,800 10,009,296
(1)Estimated Market Value
Data Source: Washington County Auditor-Treasurer Taxation Division
Population History-1980-1990
Oak Park
Census Bayport Heights Combined
1980 Total 2,932 2,591 5,523
1990 Total 3,200 3,486 6,686
Incarcerated (1,472) (375) (1,847)
Net 1,728 3,111 4,839
Change (In Total) 268 895 1,163
%Change _ (In Total) 9.141% 34.543% 21.057%-
Data Source: U.S.Census Bur eau(Note: Inclues Prison population)
I
III
I._
L..
'i
11111 II,
z
/dh _
PAYMENT SCHEDULE - PHASE 1 - CONSOLIDATION STUDY
td- ,
y.,1 y ,t„,- i "d
CITY OF BAYTOWN CITY OF 7-
DATE BAYPORT TOWNSHIP OAK PARR HEIGHTS TOTAL
LOAN
APPLICATION FEE 1993. $54.92 $24.71 $81.37 $161.00
INITIAL PAYMENT 1993 $1,876.27 $844.07 $2,779.66 $5,500.00
LOAN PAYMENT 2/18/94':1 $1,876.27 $844.07 $2,779.66 $5,500.00
LOAN PAYMENT 2/18/95 $1,876.27 $844.07 $2,779.66 $5,500.00
LOAN PAYMENT 2/18/96 $1,876.27 $844.07 $2,779.66 $5,500.00
fig--.,
$7,560.00 $3,401.00 $11,200.00 $22,161.00 I r r
k
q)3 ofr." .
' av)}d 6'xi' :
•
l'
F
7 "5
A ,,o)5.
-6 ,ii ,
,.
CITY OF BAYPORT i J`
i JUL 294 No. 3rd Street i'1•` 2 l�r"`'`j
BAYPORT, MINNESOTA 55003 4]!
Council Meets the First Monday
of Each Month•7:00 P.M.
612/439-2530
FAX 439-7188
July 8, 1993
LaVonne Wilson
Administrator Treasurer
City of Oak Park Heights
P.O. Box 2007
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear LaVonne: -
The City of Bayport has been successful in acquiring a
$16,500.00 loan from the Metropolitan Council for the first phase
of the Consolidation Study. I have enclosed a copy of the Loan
- Agreement with this letter.
The City of Bayport is required to begin paying back the loan
in equal payments of $5,500.00 beginning on April 18, 1994, on
February 18, 1995 and on February 18, 1996.
The loan was for $16,500 .00 and the actual cost of the Study
was set at $22,000.00. Therefore, it is necessary for the Cities
to cover $5,500.00 of the difference between the loan and the Study
cost during this year's budget. Based on the Agreement signed
between Baytown Township, the City of Bayport and the City of Oak
Park Heights, your total share of the Study cost is $11,200.00.
For convenience sake, we have broken it down into 4 equal payments
of $2,779.66. This year's fee also includes Oak Park Height's
share of the Application Fee required by the Met Council which was
$81.37. The total payment for this year combines the Application
Fee of $81.37 and the initial payment of $2, 779.66 for a total of
$2, 861 .03. I have also included a copy of the Memorandum of
Understanding Between the Cities of Bayport, Baytown Township and
Oak Park Heights regarding each local government's contribution to
the Phase 1 Consolidation Study. For your information, I have also
included a payment schedule for the Phase 1 Consolidation Study.
The City of Bayport would appreciate receiving a check for
A2, 861.03 as soon as Springsted, Inc. and Tautges, Redpath, Ltd. ,
bill the City of Bayport for the Phase One Consolidation Study. I
will be contacting you informing you of their billing date, so that
you begin to process a check for your contribution. � `
. i
�t • S
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
The communities of Bayport and Oak Park Heights have agreed
to enter into a Grant Contract prepared by the State of Minnesota
and administered by the Board of Government Innovation and
Cooperation. As part of that Grant Contract, the cities will be
receiving approximately $41, 000. 00 of funding from the State of
Minnesota to be used for purposes of exploring opportunities for
cooperation and/or consolidation.
The Grant Contract as administered to the Board of Government
Innovation and Cooperation requires the formation of several plans
and studies to review these issues. However, both parties
acknowledge that the grant as provided is conditional upon the
determination of the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation
that the cities have performed their obligations under the terms
of the Grant Contract. Further, the Grant Contract provides that
if the Board does find that the grantees consisting of the cities
of Bayport and Oak Park Heights did not implement recommendation
of the Cooperation Plan to share services and/or staffing or, if
recommended and appropriate, did not consolidate the participating
governments according to the terms of the Grant Contract, the Board
may require both the cities to repay all or a portion of the Grant
Contract monies.
Based upon the foregoing and the desire of the cities to enter
into an agreement with regard to the contribution to be made back
to the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation in the event
that repayment of the grant is required in whole or part, the
•
•
communities now herewith enter into this Memorandum of
Understanding providing as follows:
AGREEMENT
Both communities of Bayport and Oak Park Heights herewith
acknowledge that their individual responsibility for financial
participation in the Grant Contract in the event that the Board of
Government Innovation and Cooperation should require repayment of
all or any portion of the grant proceeds, shall be limited to the
amount of fifty percent (50%) each of any payment required by the
Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation. Notwithstanding
the same, should any repayment be required by the Board of
Government Innovation and Cooperation for expenditures which are
not authorized under the terms of the Grant Contract, the party so
expending such unauthorized amount shall be solely and exclusively
responsible for the repayment of the unauthorized sum and any
consequential damages assessed as may be required by the Board of
Government Innovation and Cooperation.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set forth their
hands and seals this c7 day of ( 9-1/) , 1994.
CITY OF BAYPORT
� 7rel-
Beverl So ultz, ayor
n Har ung," Adm. istrator
2
•
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS(-9
A-e-4ea-L-61_ z Barbara H. O'Neal, Mayor
LaVonne Wilson, City Administrator
3
SPRINGSTED • •South Sixth Street
Suite 2507
h3„ PUBLIC FINANCE ADVISORS Minneapolis, MN 55402-1800
(612) 333-9177
Fax: (612) 349-5230
Home Office
85 East Seventh Place 16655 West Bluemound Road
Suite 100
Saint Paul, MN 55101-2143 Suite 290
(612) 223-3000 Brookfield, WI 53005-5935
Fax: (612) 223-3002 (414) 782-8222
Fax: (414) 782-2904
6800 College Boulevard
Suite 600
Overland Park, KS 66211-1533
(913) 345-8062
Fax: (913) 345-1770
1850 K Street NW
Suite 215
Washington, DC 20006-2200
(202) 466-3344
Fax: (202) 223-1362
AGREEMENT FOR FINANCIAL ADVISOR SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT is made as of the day of , by and between the City of Bayport
("Client") and the City of Oak Park Heights ("Client"), (collectively, "Clients") and Springsted
Incorporated ("Advisor"), and Tautges, Redpath and Company, Ltd. ("Advisor"), (collectively,
"Advisors").
WHEREAS, the Clients wish to retain the services of the Advisors on the terms and conditions
set forth herein, and the Advisors wish to provide such services;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Services. The tasks to be undertaken are outlined in Appendix A and are Tasks A, B, D,
E, F, G and H in Government Contract No. 6100-24530-01 between the Board of
Government Innovation and Cooperation and the City of Bayport.
2. Compensation. The Clients shall compensate the Advisors at the hourly rates set forth
in Appendix B with the total not to exceed $41,000. Bills will be submitted by the
Advisors to the Clients monthly.
3. Billing Agent. Springsted will act as billing agent for itself and Tautges, Redpath and
Company, Ltd.
4. paying Agent. Bayport will act as paying agent on behalf of both Clients.
5. Term and Termination. This Agreement shall commence as of the date hereof, and
shall continue until terminated by a party hereto by written notice given at least 60 days
before the effective date of such termination, provided that no such termination shall
affect or terminate the rights and obligations of the parties hereto with respect to any
service, whether or not complete, for which the Advisors have provided services prior to
the date that they received such notice.
6. Work Products.
Upon completion of each Phase II task, the Advisors shall furnish the Clients two bound
copies and shall provide ten unbound copies of the final report. The report shall
address those issues identified in Appendix A.
•
• r t
• •
7. Indemnification: Sole Remedy. The Clients and the Advisors each hereby agree to
indemnify and hold the others harmless from and against any and all losses, claims,
damages, expenses, including without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees, costs,
liabilities, demands and cause of action (collectively referred to herein as "Damages")
which the others may suffer or be subjected to as a consequence of any act, error or
omission of the indemnifying party in connection with the performance or
nonperformance of its obligations hereunder, less any payment for damages made to
the indemnified party by a third party. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no party hereto
shall be liable to the others for Damages suffered by the others to the extent that those
Damages are the consequence of: (a) events or conditions beyond the control of the
indemnifying party, including without limitation changes in economic conditions;
(b) actions of the indemnifying party which were reasonable based on facts and
circumstances existing at the time and known to the indemnifying party at the time the
service was provided; or (c) errors made by the indemnifying party due to its reliance on
facts and materials provided to the indemnifying party by the indemnified party.
Whenever the Clients or the Advisors become aware of a claim with respect to which it
may be entitled to indemnification hereunder, it shall promptly advise the others in
writing of the nature of the claim. If the claim arises from a claim made against the
indemnified party by a third party, the indemnifying party shall have the right, at its
expense, to contest any such claim, to assume the defense thereof, to employ legal
counsel in connection therewith, and to compromise or settle the same, provided that
any compromise or settlement by the indemnifying party of such claim shall be deemed
an admission of liability hereunder. The remedies set forth in this paragraph shall be the
sole remedies available to the party against the others in connection with any Damages
suffered by it.
8. Confi entiality: Disclosure of Information.
8.1 Client Information. All information, files, records, memoranda and other data of
the Clients which either Client provides to the Advisors or which the Advisors
become aware of in the performance of their duties hereunder ("Client
Information") shall be deemed by the parties to be the property of the Clients.
The Advisors may disclose the Clients' Information to third parties in connection
with the performance by them of their duties hereunder.
8.2 Advisor Information. The Clients and Advisors acknowledge that in connection
with the performance by the Advisors of their duties hereunder, the Clients or
Advisors may become aware of internal files, records, memoranda and other
data, including without limitation computer programs of an Advisor ("Advisor
Information"). The Clients and Advisors acknowledge that all Advisor
Information, except reports prepared by the Advisors for the Clients, is
confidential and proprietary to the Advisor, and agrees that the Clients or Advisor
will not, directly or indirectly, disclose the same or any part thereof to any person
or entity except upon the express written consent of the Advisor to whom the
information is proprietary.
9. Miscellaneous
9.1 Delegation of Duties. The Advisors shall not delegate their duties hereunder to
any third party without the express written consent of the Clients.
9.2 No Third Party Beneficiary. No third party shall have any rights or remedies
under this Agreement.
9.3 Entire Contract: Amendment. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement
between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all
-2 -
•
• •
prior written or oral negotiations, understandings or agreements with respect
hereto. This Agreement may be amended in whole or in part by mutual consent
of the parties, and this Agreement shall not preclude the Clients and the Advisors
from entering into separate agreements for other projects.
9.4 Governing Law. Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of Minnesota.
9.5 Severability. To the extent any provision of this Agreement shall be determined
invalid or unenforceable, the invalid or unenforceable portion shall be deleted
from this Agreement, and the validity and enforceability of the remainder shall be
unaffected.
9.6 Notice. All notices required hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed to
have been given when delivered, transmitted by first class, registered or certified
mail, postage prepaid and addressed as follows:
If to the Clients: If to the Advisors, to:
Springsted Incorporated
85 East Seventh Place
Suite 100
St. Paul, MN 55101-2143
Attention: Managing Principal
Tautges, Redpath and Company, Ltd.
4810 White Bear Parkway
White Bear Lake, MN 55110
Attention: Managing Partner
The foregoing Agreement is hereby entered into on behalf of the respective parties by signature
of the following persons each of whom is duly authorized to bind the parties indicated.
FOR CLIENT SPRINGSTED Incorporated
of Bayport
AireAg2 A 4.■.17,1°—...2V , Po61--
one • :dung Robert D. Thistle
Administrator Vice President
Beverly Ht Schultz, Mayor
City of Oak Park Heights Tautges, Redpath and Company, Ltd.
Robert G. Tautges, CPA
4 mu• • . • e Managing Partner
•n Title
arbara H. O'Neal, Mayor - 3 -
•
• •
APPENDIX A OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN
the City of Bayport, Minnesota
and
the City of Oak Park Heights, Minnesota
AND
Springsted Incorporated
and
Tautges, Redpath and Company, Inc.
Effective as of , 1994
Grant Contract No. 6100-24530-01 between the Board of Government Innovation and
Cooperation and the City of Bayport.
Task A
By March 1, 1995, analyze the following service functions of the participating governments:
accounting, administration, community development, fire, parks and recreation, planning and
inspections, police, and public works. The total cost to each participating local government for
providing each type of service and the level of service provided to each local government will be
documented, and possible economies of scale from combining services will be evaluated. The
following data will be collected for each service function:
1. Expenditures by program;
2. Service levels and demand, e.g., fire calls, miles of streets, sewer and water mains,
maintenance levels and practices, demand for recreational programs and services;
3. Personnel by function;
4. Employment conditions, e.g., salary, fringe and retirement benefits, recruitment, and
selection practices;
5. Equipment, facilities, buildings and motor vehicles;
6. Operational structure of the function; and
7. Forms of government.
Task B
By October 1, 1995, identify and evaluate mutual issues. With respect to services,
expenditures, revenue structures, and community characteristics and attitudes, the following
determinations will be made:
1. Whether all necessary services are carried out by each participating local government, or
otherwise provided to the citizens of the local government;
2. Whether the services are carried out at the levels demanded;
3. Whether the quality of the services meet modern technical management standards;
4. Whether any services are being duplicated;
5. The degree of compatibility among the participating local governments of quality, scope,
and the nature of each service, and whether their personnel, salary, facilities, equipment
and other features are compatible with cooperation or consolidation;'
6. The degree of compatibility of the revenue structures of the participating local governments;
and
7. The degree of compatibility of the expenditure pattern of the communities.
A-1
• •
Task D
By June 1, 1996, assess the potential for cooperation and consolidation among the participating
local governments. Options for cooperation will be identified for each service function, including
joint powers agreements, contracting for services, cooperation, and consolidation. The
feasibility of consolidating the participating local governments will also be assessed.
Task E
By October 1, 1996, document the savings that could be expected from the implementation of
g P p
the cooperation options identified in Item C above. Budget and expenditure data from 1993 will
be used to compare the actual costs of current service delivery methods to the estimated costs
of cooperative service delivery methods.
Task F
By March 1, 1997, produce a cooperation report that identifies areas for potential cost savings
by sharing services and/or consolidating the participating local governments. The report will:
1. Document the current service functions of the participating local governments, including
service levels and costs;
2. Identify the policy issues related to service delivery cooperation and consolidation of the
participating local governments;
3. Evaluate the service functions of the participating local governments and assess the
compatibility of service delivery among them;
4. Identify opportunities and recommend strategies for improving services to the citizens of the
participating local governments through cooperative service delivery and/or consolidation of
the participating local governments, and document the rationale for each recommendation;
and
5. Document the estimated costs and savings that would result from the implementation of the
recommended strategies.
Task G
By May 1, 1997, submit to the Cities for their submission to the BOARD a written summary of
the GRANTEE's activities in identifying operational efficiencies that can be achieved through
sharing services and/or consolidating the participating local governments.
Task H
If the conclusion of the cooperation report is that operational efficiencies can be achieved
through sharing services and/or consolidating the participating local governments by
September 1, 1998, submit the report's recommendations to the governing boards of the
participating local governments for consideration of adoption.
-A-2 -
APPENDIX B OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN
the City of Bayport, Minnesota
and
the City of Oak Park Heights, Minnesota
AND
Springsted Incorporated
and
Tautges, Redpath and Company, Inc.
Effective as of , 1994
ADVISORS' COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES
Section 1. Schedule of Hourly Rates:
Tautges, Redpath and Company, Ltd.
Partner $94
Manager 85
Supervisor 71
Senior 59
Semi-Senior 48
Junior 39
Statistical Typists and Report Processors 26
Springsted Incorporated
Senior Officer $150
Project Manager 125
Other Officers 115
Other Professional Staff 90
Support Staff 40
For services provided under the Scope of Services in Appendix A, the Client
shall be billed on an hourly basis at the rates set forth above, provided however,
that the fee for such services shall not exceed $41,000. Additional Services
requested for implementation will be provided on an hourly basis at the rates set
forth above.
Section 2. Expenses:
The Client shall be responsible for service-related expenses.
Section 3. The maximum fee and expenses stated above cover only the Scope of Services
outlined in Appendix A. In the event that the Client wishes to change the Scope
of Services so as to expand the tasks before completion, or in the event
assigned tasks have to be repeated due to no fault of the Advisors, then the
Client and Advisors shall negotiate in good faith an increase from the maximums
stated above.
Section 4. Due Dates:
Invoices for 'work completed will be billed monthly. All payments due the
Advisors shall be due upon Client's receipt of the billing.
B-1
410
ra O ECITY OF BAYPORT ' 6 4
294 No.3rd Street
BAYPORT, MINNESOTA 55003
Council Meets the First Monday
of Each Month-7:00 P.M.
612/439-2530
FAX 439-7188
September 15, 1994
LaVonne Wilson
Clerk Administrator
City of Oak Park Heights
14168 No. 57th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082-2007
Dear LaVonne:
Please find enclosed a draft contract by and between the
. City of Bayport and the City of Oak Park Heights and Springstad
Inc. and Tautges, Redpath and Co. , Ltd. The contract specifies
the financial advisor's services to be performed by Springstad
and Tautges, Redpath associated with the Cooperation Agreement.
This contract must be reviewed and approved by both the City of
Bayport and the City of Oak Park Heights. I am forwarding the
contract to you for your review and comment.
I will be out of town for an International City Manager's
Conference until Friday, September 23, 1994. I would appreciate
a call from you on September 23rd or Monday, September 26th
indicating any concerns and/or changes you would to see initiated
in the contract.
Sinc yours,
nneth H. Har &Wm"'
'ity Administrator
09/14/94 08:44 FAX 612 223 3002 SPRINGSTID INC. X001/007
• •
SPRINGSTED
Public Finance Advisors
85 East Seventh Place,Suite 100
Saint Paul, MN 55101-2143
(612) 223-3000
(81 223-3002(Fax)
September 14,1994
TELECOPY INFORMATION
We are sending 7 pages, jgghilling this cover page. If you do not receive all of these
pages, please call (812) 223.3000 for assistance. Thank you.
To:
City Bavcort,
Minnesota
Attention: Ken Hartung
Fax#: 439-7188 Phone#: 439-2530
To:
Attention:
Fax#: Phone#:
To:
Attention:
Fax#: Phone#:
From: Barry W. Fick Phone#: 612223-3042
??_3-3042
Subject: Draft Contract
NOTES:
Client Number: Admin
Original Material Will:
Be sent via same-day courier
Be sent via overnight delivery
Be sent by regular mail
_ Not be sent RC WP AUTH
09/14/94 08:44 FAX 612 223 3002 SPRINGSTED I li002/007
AGREEMENT FOR FINANCIAL ADVISOR SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT is made as of the day of , by and between the City of Bayport
and the City of Oak Park Heights CClienf"y and Springsted Incorporated, and Tautges, Redpath
and Company, Ltd. ("Advisor").
WHEREAS, the Client wishes to retain the services of the Advisor on the terms and conditions
set forth herein, and the Advisor wishes to provide such services;
NOW, THEREFORE,the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Services, The tasks to be undertaken are outlined in Appendix A and are Tasks A, B. D,
E, F, G and H in Government Contract No. 6100-24530-01 between the Board of
Government Innovation and Cooperation and the City of Bayport.
2. Compensation. Bills will be monthly at the rates outlined in Appendix B with the total not
to exceed$41,000.
3. Billing Agent. Springsted will act as billing agent for itself and Tautges, Redpath and
Company, Ltd.
4. Paying Agent. Bayport will act as paying agent on behalf of both communities.
5. Term and Termination. This Agreement shall commence as of the date hereof, and
shall continue until the completion of Phase II of the study or until terminated by either
party by written notice given at least 60 days before the effective date of such
termination, provided that no such termination shall affect or terminate the rights and
obligations of each of the parties hereto with respect to any Obligation, whether or not
complete, for which the Advisor has provided services prior to the date that it received
such notice.
6. Work Products.
Upon completion of each Phase II task,the Advisor shall furnish the Client 2 copies and
shall provide 10 copies of the final report. The report shall address those issues
identified in Appendix A.
' 09/14/94 08:45 FAX 612 223 3002 SPRINGSTED INC. ib003/007
• •
7. Indemnification: Sale Remedy. The Client and the Advisor each hereby agree to
indemnify and hold the other harmless from and against any and all losses, claims,
damages, expenses, including without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees, costs,
liabilities, demands and cause of action (collectively referred to herein as "Damages")
which the other may suffer or be subjected to as a consequence of any act, error or
omission of the indemnifying party in connection with the performance or
nonperformance of its obligations hereunder, less any payment for damages made to
the indemnified party by a third party. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no party hereto
shall be liable to the other for Damages suffered by the other to the extent that those
Damages are the consequence of: (a)events or conditions beyond the control of the
indemnifying party, including without limitation changes in economic conditions;
(b) actions of the indemnifying party which were reasonable based on facts and
circumstances existing at the time and known to the indemnifying party at the time the
service was provided; or(c) errors made by the indemnifying party due to its reliance on
facts and materials provided to the Indemnifying party by the indemnified party. Neither
party shall be entitled to indemnification under this Agreement for Damages related to
any Debt Obligation issued by the Client more than three years prior to the date on
which a claim for indemnification is first asserted in writing and delivered to the party
from which indemnification is asked. Whenever the Client or the Advisor becomes
aware of a claim with respect to which it may be entitled to indemnification hereunder, it
shall promptly advise the other in writing of the nature of the claim. If the claim arises
from a claim made against the indemnified party by a third party, the indemnifying party
shall have the right, at its expense, to contest any such claim, to assume the defense
thereof, to employ legal counsel in connection therewith, and to compromise or settle
the same, provided that any compromise or settlement by the indemnifying party of such
claim shall be deemed an admission of liability hereunder. The remedies set forth In this
paragraph shall be the sole remedies available to either party against the other in
connection with any Damages suffered by it.
8. Confidentiality: Disclosugiof Information.
5.1 Client Information. All information, files, records, memoranda and other data of
the Client which the Client provides to the Advisor or which the Advisor becomes
aware of in the performance of its duties hereunder ("Client Information") shall
be deemed by the parties to be the property of the Client. The Advisor may
disclose the Client Information to third parties in connection with the performance
by it of its duties hereunder.
5.2 Advisor information. The Client acknowledges that in connection with the
performance by the Advisor of its duties hereunder, the Client may become
aware of internal files, records, memoranda and other data, including without
limitation computer programs of the Advisor ("Advisor information'). The Client
acknowledges that all Advisor Information, except reports prepared by the
Advisor for the Client, is confidential and proprietary to the Advisor, and agrees
that the Client will not, directly or Indirectly, disclose the same or any part thereof
to any person or entity except upon the express written consent of the Advisor.
9. Miscellaneous
6.1 Delegation of Dukes. The Firms shall not delegate its duties hereunder to any
third party without the express written consent of the Client.
6.2 No Third Partly Beneficiary. No third party shall have any rights or remedies
under this Agreement.
-2 -
09/14/94 08:46 FAX 612 223 3002 SPRINGSTED I 81004/007
•
6.3 Fntire Contract: Amendment. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement
between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all
prior written or oral negotiations, understandings or agreements with respect
hereto. This Agreement may be amended in whole or in part by mutual consent
of the parties, and this Agreement shall not preclude the Client and the Advisor
from entering into separate agreements for other projects.
6.4 Governing_ Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota.
•
6.5 Several. To the extent any provision of this Agreement shall be determined
invalid or unenforceable, the invalid or unenforceable portion shall be deleted
from this Agreement, and the validity and enforceability of the remainder shall be
unaffected.
6.6 Notice. All notices required hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed to
have been given when delivered, transmitted by first class, registered or certified
mail, postage prepaid and addressed as follows:
If to the Client:
If to the Advisor,to:
Springsted Incorporated
85 East Seventh Place
Suite 100
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-2143
Attention: President
•
3-
09/14/94 08:46 FAX 612 223 3002 SPRINGSTED INC. 2006/007
r •
APPENDIX A
Grant Contract No. 6100-24530-01 between the Board of Government Innovation and
Cooperation and the City of Bayport.
Task A
By March 1, 1995, analyze the following service functions of the participating governments:
accounting, administration, community development, fire, parks and recreation, planning and
inspections, police, and public works. The total cost to each participating local government for
providing each type of service and the level of service provided to each local government will be
documented, and possible economies of scale from combining services will be evaluated. The
following data will be collected for each service function:
1. Expenditures by program;
2. Service levels and demand, e.g., lire calls, miles of streets, sewer and water mains,
maintenance levels and practices, demand for recreational programs and services;
3. Personnel by function;
4. Employment conditions, e.g., salary, fringe and retirement benefits, recruitment, and
selection practices;
5. Equipment, facilities, buildings and motor vehicles;
6. Operational structure of the function; and
7. Forms of government
Task B
By October 1, 1995, Identify and evaluate mutual issues. With respect to services,
expenditures, revenue structures, and community characteristics and attitudes, the following
determinations will be made:
1. Whether all necessary services are carried out by each participating local government, or
otherwise provided to the citizens of the local government;
2. Whether the services are carried out at the levels demanded;
3. Whether the quality of the services meet modem technical management standards;
4. Whether any services are being duplicated;
5. The degree of compatibility among the participating local governments of quality, scope,
and the nature of each service, and whether their personnel, salary, facilities, equipment
and other features are compatible with cooperation or consolidation;'
6. The degree of compatibility of the revenue structures of the participating local governments;
and
7. The degree of compatibility of the expenditure pattern of the communities.
Task D
By June 1, 1996, assess the potential for cooperation and consolidation among the participating
local governments. Options for cooperation will be identified for each service function, including
joint powers agreements, contracting for services, cooperation, and consolidation. The
feasibility of consolidating the participating local governments will also be assessed.
-5-
09/14/94 08:47 FAX 612 223 3002 SPRINGSTED INC. lJ007/007
•
Task E
By October 1, 1996, document the savings that could be expected from the implementation of
the cooperation options identified in Item C above. Budget and expenditure data from 1993 will
be used to compare the actual costs of current service delivery methods to the estimated costs
of cooperative service delivery methods.
Task F
By March 1, 1997, produce a cooperation report that identifies areas for potential cost savings
by sharing services and/or consolidating the participating local governments. The report win:
1. Document the current service functions of the participating local governments, Including
service levels and costs;
2. Identify the policy issues related to service delivery cooperation and consolidation of the
participating local governments;
3. Evaluate the service functions of the participating local governments and assess the
compatibility of service delivery among them;
4. Identify opportunities and recommend strategies for improving services to the citizens of the
participating local governments through cooperative service delivery and/or consolidation of
the participating local governments, and document the rationale for each recommendation;
and
5. Document the estimated costs and savings that would result from the implementation of the
recommended strategies.
Task(3
By May 1, 1997, submit to the BOARD a written summary of the GRANTEE's activities in
identifying operational efficiencies that can be achieved through sharing services and/or
consolidating the participating local governments.
Task H
If the conclusion of the cooperation report is that operational efficiencies can be achieved
through sharing services and/or consolidating the participating local governments by
September 1, 1998, submit the report's recommendations to the governing boards of the
participating local governments for consideration of adoption.
-6-
09114/94 08:48 FAX 612 223 3002 SPRINGSTID INC. Rb005/007
•
The foregoing Agreement is hereby entered into on behalf of the respective parties by signature
of the following persons each of whom is duly authorized to bind the parties indicated.
FOR CLIENT SPRINGSTED Incorporated
Cr r 7;p,wti,rM)T4
Kenneth Hartung Robert D. Thistle
Administrator Vice President
Tautges, Redpath and Company, Ltd_
Rob Tautges
CS,sr Oak Park Heights, Minnesota
Title
Title
_4_
• • 1
Grant Contract No. 6100-24530-01 between the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation
and the City of Bayport
STATE OF MINNESOTA
GRANT CONTRACT
THIS GRANT CONTRACT, which shall be interpreted pursuant to the laws of the State of
Minnesota between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Board of Government Innovation
and Cooperation (hereinafter BOARD),
And: City of Bayport
Address: 294 North Third Street
Bayport, Minnesota 55003
Soc. Sec. or MN Tax ID No.: 8020401
Federal Employer ID No. (if applicable): 41-6004958
(Notice to grantee: you are required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 270.66, to provide your social security number or
Minnesota Tax identification number if you do business with the State of Minnesota. This information may be used in
the enforcement of federal and state tax laws. Supplying these numbers could result in action to require you to file state
tax returns and pay delinquent state tax liabilities. This grant contract will not be approved unless these numbers are
provided. These numbers will be available to federal and state tax authorities and state personnel involved in the payment
of state obligations.)
on behalf of the City of Bayport and the City of Oak Park Heights (hereinafter GRANTEE),
witnesseth that:
WHEREAS, the BOARD, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 465.799, is authorized to award
Cooperation Planning grants;
AND WHEREAS, the BOARD has awarded a Cooperation Planning grant to the GRANTEE;
AND WHEREAS, the GRANTEE represents that it is duly qualified and willing to perform the
duties set forth herein, NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed:
I. GRANTEE'S DUTIES. The GRANTEE, who is not a state employee, shall determine
whether there are operational efficiencies that can be achieved through sharing services
and/or consolidating the participating local governments. As described in the Cooperation
Planning grant application submitted by the GRANTEE and hereby incorporated by
reference, the GRANTEE shall:
Page 1of11
S •
•
Grant Contract No. 6100-24530-01 between the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation
and the City of Bayport
A. By March 1, 1995, analyze the following service functions of the participating
local governments: accounting, administration, community development, fire,
parks and recreation, planning and inspections, police, and public works. The total
cost to each participating local government for providing each type of service and
the level of service provided to each local government will be documented, and
possible economies of scale from combining services will be evaluated. The
following data will be collected for each service function:
1. Expenditures by program;
2. Service levels and demand, e.g., fire calls, miles of streets, sewers and
water mains, maintenance levels and practices, demand for recreational
programs and services;
3. Personnel by function;
4. Employment conditions, e.g., salary, fringe and retirement benefits,
recruitment, and selection practices;
5. Equipment, facilities, buildings, and motor vehicles;
6. Operational structure of the function; and
7. Forms of government.
B. By October 1, 1995, identify and evaluate mutual issues. With respect to services,
expenditures, revenue structures, and community characteristics and attitudes, the
following determinations will be made:
1. Whether all necessary services are carried out by each participating local
government, or otherwise provided to the citizens of the local government;
2. Whether the services are carried out at the levels demanded;
3. Whether the quality of the services meet modern technical management
standards;
4. Whether any services are being duplicated;
5. The degree of compatibility among the participating local governments of
quality, scope, and the nature of each service, and whether their personnel,
salary, facilities, equipment, and other features are compatible with
cooperation or consolidation;
6. The degree of compatibility of the revenue structures of the participating
local governments; and
7. The degree of compatibility of the expenditure pattern of the communities.
C. By April 1, 1996, review the ordinances, policies, procedures, and penalties for
violations of the participating local governments, including government structure,
Page 2 of 11
•
• •
Grant Contract No. 6100-24530-01 between the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation
and the City of Bayport
personnel policies, finance policies, development improvement policies, licenses,
permits, and regulatory policies. The differences and similarities among the
participating local governments will be assessed, and the opportunities and
difficulties for combining service functions and governance will be identified.
D. By June 1, 1996, assess the potential for cooperation and consolidation among the
participating local governments. Options for cooperation will be identified for
each service function, including joint powers agreements, contracting for services,
cooperation, and consolidation. The feasibility of consolidating the participating
local governments will also be assessed.
E. By October 1, 1996, document the savings that could be expected from the
implementation of the cooperation options identified in item D. above. Budget and
expenditure data from 1993 will be used to compare the actual costs of current
service delivery methods to the estimated costs of cooperative service delivery
methods.
F. By March 1, 1997, produce a cooperation report that identifies areas for potential
cost savings by sharing services and/or consolidating the participating local
governments. The report will:
1. Document the current service functions of the participating local
governments, including service levels and costs;
2. Identify the policy issues related to service delivery cooperation and
consolidation of the participating local governments;
3. Evaluate the service functions of the participating local governments and
assess the compatibility of service delivery among them;
4. Identify opportunities and recommend strategies for improving services to
the citizens of the participating local governments through cooperative
service delivery and/or consolidation of the participating local governments,
and document the rationale for each recommendation; and
5. Document the estimated costs and savings that would result from the
implementation of the recommended strategies.
G. By May 1, 1997, submit to the BOARD a written summary of the GRANTEE's
activities in identifying operational efficiencies that can be achieved through
sharing services and/or consolidating the participating local governments. The
written summary shall include:
Page 3 of 11
• •
Grant Contract No. 6100-24530-01 between the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation
and the City of Bayport
1. A copy of the cooperation report;
2. A description of the process used to create the cooperation report, including
a list of the parties involved, the timeline, and a description of the
involvement of community residents;
3. A description of how the cooperation report will be used to achieve
operational efficiencies through sharing services and/or consolidating the
participating local governments; and
4. A description of the problems encountered in the planning process, a
description of how the GRANTEE addressed those problems, and ideas of
how those problems could have been prevented.
H. If the conclusion of the cooperation report is that operational efficiencies can be
achieved through sharing services and/or consolidating the participating local
governments, by September 1, 1998, submit the report's recommendations to the
governing boards of the participating local governments for consideration of
adoption.
By December 1, 1999, implement shared services and/or consolidation of the
participating local governments, in accordance with the recommendations of the
cooperation report as adopted by the governing bodies of the participating local
governments.
J. By March 1, 2000, submit to the BOARD a written summary of the GRANTEE's
activities in the implementation of operational efficiencies achieved through sharing
services and/or consolidating the participating local governments. The written
summary shall include:
1. A description of the process used to implement shared services and/or
consolidation of the participating local governments;
2. An assessment of the GRANTEE's success in achieving shared services
and/or consolidation;
3. A description of the GRANTEE's plans for future improvements in the
cooperation and consolidation of service delivery among the participating
local governments; and
4. A description of the problems encountered in the implementation process,
a description of how the GRANTEE addressed those problems, and ideas
of how those problems could have been prevented.
Page 4 of 11
• ( Si
Grant Contract No. 6100-24530-01 between the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation
and the City of Bayport
II. CONSIDERATION AND TERMS OF PAYMENT.
A. Consideration for all services performed and goods or materials supplied by the
GRANTEE pursuant to this grant contract shall be paid by the BOARD as follows:
1. The total obligation of the BOARD for all compensation and
reimbursements to the GRANTEE shall not exceed forty-one thousand
dollars ($41,000.00).
2. Reimbursement for travel and subsistence expenses actually and necessarily
incurred by the GRANTEE's performance of the grant contract shall not
exceed zero dollars ($0.00), provided that the GRANTEE shall be
reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses in the same manner and in
no greater amount than provided in the current "Non-managerial
Unrepresented Employees Plan" promulgated by the Commissioner of
Employee Relations. The GRANTEE shall not be reimbursed for travel
and subsistence expenses incurred outside the State of Minnesota unless it
has received prior written approval for such out-of-state travel from the
BOARD.
3. Compensation shall be consistent with the Project Line Item Budget below.
The GRANTEE shall not seek, nor shall the BOARD pay, compensation
to the GRANTEE for any indirect, overhead, or administrative costs not
otherwise included as an expense within the Project Line Item Budget.
Project Line Item Budget
The GRANTEE shall adhere to the following project budget in performing
its duties and responsibilities as specified in this grant contract:
Grant Grantee Total
Consultants $41,000 $41,000
(Springsted Public Finance Advisors)
Bayport Staff Costs $3,910 3,910
Bayport Administrative Costs 200 200
Oak Park Heights Staff Costs 1.690 1.690
Total $41,000 $5,800 $46,800
Page 5 of 11
• r •
Grant Contract No. 6100-24530-01 between the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation
and the City of Bayport
Modifications of the "Grant" column in the above line item budget of less
than 10 percent of any line item are permitted without prior approval by the
BOARD, so long as notification of such modifications is made through the
submitted quarterly expenditure reports. Provided, however, that the total
obligation of the BOARD for all compensation and reimbursements to the
GRANTEE shall not exceed forty-one thousand dollars ($41,000.00). The
GRANTEE may modify any line item in the "Grantee" column without
notification to or approval by the BOARD.
B. TERMS OF PAYMENT
1. A lump-sum payment of forty-one thousand dollars ($41,000.00) shall be
made by the BOARD promptly after this grant contract is executed.
2. The GRANTEE shall submit a quarterly financial report listing
expenditures for services performed under this grant contract. The
GRANTEE shall maintain documentation of its expenditures through
receipts, invoices, travel vouchers, and time sheets. Financial reports shall
be submitted in a form prescribed by the BOARD. The GRANTEE agrees
to provide the BOARD with financial reports that are due on the dates listed
below:
October 15, 1994
January 15, 1995
April 15, 1995
July 15, 1995
October 15, 1995
January 15, 1996
April 15, 1996
July 15, 1996
October 15, 1996
January 15, 1997
April 15, 1997
III. CONDITIONS OF PAYMENT. All services by the GRANTEE pursuant to this grant
contract shall be performed to the satisfaction of the BOARD, as determined in the sole
discretion of its authorized agent, and in accord with all applicable federal, state, and local
law, ordinance, rule, or regulation.
Page 6 of 11
• •
Grant Contract No. 6100-24530-01 between the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation
and the City of Bayport
IV. TERM OF GRANT CONTRACT. This grant contract shall be effective on
September 1, 1994, or upon such date as it is executed as to encumbrance by the
Commissioner of Finance, whichever occurs later, and shall remain in effect until April 1,
2000, or until all obligations set forth in this grant contract have been satisfactorily
fulfilled, whichever occurs first.
A. The GRANTEE shall have ninety (90) days immediately following the end of the
grant contract period to liquidate all unpaid obligations related to the project
incurred prior to the end of the grant period and to submit a detailed accounting of
these cumulative expenditures to the BOARD.
B. The GRANTEE will return to the BOARD all funds provided by the BOARD that
are not expended for allowable project costs within ninety (90) days following the
end of the grant contract period.
C. Should the BOARD find that the GRANTEE did not implement operational
efficiencies through sharing services and/or consolidating the participating local
governments according to the terms of this grant contract, the BOARD may require
the GRANTEE to repay all or a portion of the grant contract monies.
V. CANCELLATION.
A. Upon the GRANTEE's failure to comply with any provision of this grant contract,
the BOARD may terminate this grant contract. The termination shall be effective
upon the BOARD giving the GRANTEE written notice at its last known address.
Should the GRANTEE fail to comply with the provisions of this grant contract, the
GRANTEE shall refund to the BOARD all grant monies previously paid.
B. The BOARD or the GRANTEE may cancel this grant contract at any time, with
or without cause, upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. In the
event of such cancellation, the GRANTEE shall be entitled to payment, determined
on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed.
C. Should this grant contract be terminated prior to the scheduled date, the
GRANTEE shall refund to the BOARD all remaining unexpended grant contract
monies within forty-five (45) days of the date of effective termination.
VI. • BOARD'S AUTHORIZED AGENT. The BOARD's authorized agent for the purposes
of administration of this grant contract is Pati Maier, Executive Director, or her successor
Page 7 of 11
• ( •
Grant Contract No. 6100-24530-01 between the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation
and the City of Bayport
in office. Such agent shall have the authority to accept the GRANTEE's services and if
such services are accepted as satisfactory, shall so certify on each quarterly financial report
submitted pursuant to Section II, paragraph B.
VII. ASSIGNMENT. The GRANTEE shall neither assign nor transfer any rights or
obligations under this grant contract without the prior written consent of the BOARD.
VIII. AMENDMENTS. Any amendments to this grant contract shall be in writing, and shall
Y g g�
be executed by the same parties who executed the original grant contract or their
successors in office.
IX. LIABILITY. The GRANTEE agrees to indemnify and save and hold the BOARD, its
agents, and employees harmless from any and all claims or causes of action arising from
the performance of this grant contract by the GRANTEE or the GRANTEE's agents or
employees. This clause shall not be construed to bar any legal remedies the GRANTEE
may have for the BOARD's failure to fulfill its obligations pursuant to this grant contract.
X. AUDIT REQUIREMENTS. The books, records, documents, and accounting procedures
and practices of the GRANTEE relevant to this grant contract shall be subject to
examination by the BOARD, the legislative auditor, and the state auditor. Records shall
be sufficient to reflect all costs incurred in performance of this grant contract. The
GRANTEE also agrees to make all its financial records to the grant contract available to
the BOARD upon request during normal working hours and to provide, upon request, a
copy of any report, completed by an independent auditor, to the BOARD.
XI. ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS. The BOARD shall have access to any reports, studies,
photographs, negatives, videotapes, software, or other work products prepared by the
GRANTEE in the performance of its obligations under this grant contract upon
completion, termination, or cancellation of this grant contract. The GRANTEE shall
provide a copy of such materials to anyone who requests it at no cost other than the cost
of preparing the copy.
XII. WORKER'S COMPENSATION. In accordance with the provisions of Minnesota
Statutes, Section 176.182, the GRANTEE has provided acceptable evidence of compliance
with the worker's compensation insurance coverage requirement of Minnesota Statutes,
Section 176.181, subdivision 2.
XIII. ANTITRUST. The GRANTEE hereby assigns to the State of Minnesota any and all
claims for overcharges as to goods and/or services provided in connection with this grant
• Page 8 of 11
• • r
Grant Contract No. 6100-24530-01 between the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation
and the City of Bayport
contract resulting from antitrust violations that arise under the antitrust laws of the United
States and the antitrust laws of the State of Minnesota.
XIV. VOTER REGISTRATION. The GRANTEE shall provide nonpartisan voter registration
services and assistance, using forms provided by the BOARD, to employees of the
GRANTEE and the public, as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 201.162.
XV. USE OF GRANT CONTRACT FUNDING. The GRANTEE certifies that no funding
provided under this grant contract will be used to support religious counseling or partisan
political activity.
• XVI. OTHER PROVISIONS.
A. The GRANTEE agrees to utilize competitive bidding and other procedures required
by federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, or regulations governing purchasing
and fiscal procedures.
B. The GRANTEE agrees to provide the BOARD with grant contract status reports,
which are due on the dates listed below:
October 15, 1994
January 15, 1995
April 15, 1995
July 15, 1995
October 15, 1995
January 15, 1996
April 15, 1996
July 15, 1996
October 15, 1996
January 15, 1997
July 15, 1997
January 15, 1998
July 15, 1998
January 15, 1999
July 15, 1999
January 15, 2000
C. The BOARD shall, during the course of this grant contract, evaluate the
GRANTEE's progress towards the goals and objectives of the grant contract and
compliance with any special conditions. The BOARD reserves the right to request
additional information from the GRANTEE to carry out its evaluation.
Page 9 of 11
•
Grant Contract No. 6104-24530-01 between the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation
and the City of Bayport
D. IF the GRANTEE decides to fulfill any of its obligations and duties under this
grant contract through a subcontractor to be paid for by funds received under this
grant contract, the GRANTEE shall not execute a contract with the subcontractor
or otherwise enter into a binding agreement until it has first received written
approval from the BOARD. The BOARD will respond to requests from the
GRANTEE for authorization to subcontract within ten (10) working days of
receiving the request. The GRANTEE's payment to the subcontractor shall be
made within the time limits, subject to the interest penalty payments, and subject
to all other provisions of Minnesota Statutes section 16A.1245.
There are no further substantive provisions to this contract; the signatures of the authorized
representatives of the parties to this grant contract who are executing it on their behalf appear on
the next page.
Page 10 of 11
•
Grant Contract No. 6100-24530-01 between the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation
and the City of Bayport
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this grant contract to be duly executed,
intending to be bound thereby.
(1) GRANTEE: (3) ATTORNEY GENERAL:
By: /&L4 X By: altAAAta- ,�
Title: Title: a. a &
Date: gam/7-9 I! Date: ' a 3_0
By % -e7e,
IN/ - (4) COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE
Till,• . ..L���'.� By: cJQ-Anti 1�� &I,
Date: B Title:
Date:
$/3t (q4i
(2) BOARD:
By:
Title:
Date: • Z ��
Page 11 of 11
g6/3O/94 06:59 ECKBERG LAW F M OPH N0.842 P002
1'=✓29/94 16:41 612 282 2391
06/29/94 1 :41 STATE AUDITORS OFF ICE• 001
State of Minnesota
Board of
Government inno vation and Cooperation
Sails 400 • 525 Pi1K Shoat
• 5alnt P*U .MIngospta 56103 • 6121232-23ao • Fax B12 23 1
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL
°'o Plait, U ter hrtq
j FROM: Pali Maier
,'HONE: Li y). 26-15 PHONE: 612/282-2390
!AX: 43, 2.. 2.3 j FAX: 6]2!282-2391 i
lumber of pages including this cover sheet:
.7..'z.„.„,,,,-----
l..
/lease call iediately if you did not recee
number of pages we transmitted or if there \i.� x,,, > w
thenum p 8
was a problem with the transmission of this 4' ~�.�'`" �,
document. q;r���1l til a
COMMENTS: __A.cst7n tali.fa1 l o. lJ►• • -
0E/30/94 07:00 ECKBERG LAW F -> OPH NO.842 P003
'29/94 16:41 612 282 2391 S
06/29/94 1 7:41 STATE AUDITORS OFFICE 002
state of Minnesota
Board of Government innovation and Cooperation
'i.ri • 525 PIM street • W l N 610 • es 824 • it 61
aline 29, 1994
•_,. Mark J. Vierling
.:xbcrg, Lammers, Briggs, Wolff and Vierling
35 Northwestern Avenue
6lwatcr, Minnesota 55082
'ar Mr.Vierling:
' am responding to your letter of June 16, 1994, concerning the grant contract the Board of
!overnment Innovation and Cooperation is attempting to negotiate with the cities of Bayport
;,. d Oak Park Heights. You suggested several revisions to the draft contract.
ti you probably are aware,the Board's flexibility in negotiating contract language is somewhat
:nstrained by its authorizing statute and the State of Minnesota's standard contract
quirements. The language 1 used in the draft contract corresponded to the language used in
c other contacts signed by the Board. If that language is not acceptable to Oak Park Heights,
le draft contract language could be revised to reflect the language used in the grant
,plication.
I ne suggestions you made for several items seem to imply that the activities funded under this
want might be followed by a subsequent planning process that might be used to consider
::rvice sharing or consolidation. You should be aware that the Board's authorizing statute
-':rtes that, "If the board finds that the grantee has failed to implement the plan, it may require
:e grantee to repay all or a portion of the grant." It is the Board's position that, by accepting
e grant, a grantee is committing to develop and implement a plan.
rtached are draft revisions to the draft contract language that reflect the accommodations I am
v
Ile to make to the issues you have raised. Please contact me after you have had a chance to
. ;view them.
sincerely,
F64.; lisAak..e'
'.ati Maier
xecutive Director
I __
06/30/94 07:00 ECKBERG LAW 511M OPH N0.842 P004•/29/94 16:41 612 282 2391
06/29/94 17:41 STATE AUDITORS OFFICE 003
Grant Contract 6100-24530-01
Proposed Revision Language
June 29,1994
GRANTEE'S DUTIES. The GRANTEE, who is not a state employee, shall determine
whether there are operational efficiencies that can be achieved through sharing services
and/or consolidating the participating local governments. As described in the Cooperation
Planning grant application submitted by the GRANTEE and hereby incorporated by
reference, the GRANTEE shall:
A. By December 1, 1994, analyze the following service fbnctions of the participating
local governments: accounting, administration, community development, fire,
parks and recreation, planning and inspections, police, and public works. The total
cost to each participating local government for providing each type of service and
the level of service provided to each local government will be documented, and
possible economies of scale from combining services will be evaluated. The
following data will be collected for each service function:
1. Expenditures by program;
2. Service levels and demand, e.g., fire calls, miles of streets, sewers and
water mains, maintenance levels and practices, demand for recreational
programs and services;
3. Personnel by function;
4. Employment conditions, e.g., salary, fringe and retirement benefits,
recruitment, and selection practices;
5. Equipment, facilities, buildings, and motor vehicles;
6. Operational structure of the function; and
7. Forms of government.
B. By August 1, 1995, identify and evaluate mutual issues. With respect to service,
expenditures, revenue structures, and community characteristics and attitudes, the
following determinations will be made:
1. Whether all necessary services are carried out by each participating local
government, or otherwise provided to the citizens of the local government;
2. Whether the services are carried out at the levels demanded;
3. Whether the quality of the services meet modern technical management
standards;
4. Whether any services are being duplicated;
5. The degree of compatibility among the participating local governments of
quality, scope, and the nature of each service, and whether their personnel,
salary, facilities, equipment, and other features are compatible with
cooperation or consolidation;
6. The degree of compatibility of the revenue structures of the participating
local governments; and
7. The degree of compatibility of the expenditure pattern of the communities.
06/30/94 07:00 ECKBERG LAW FIRM 4 OPH N0.842 P005
1 /29/94 16:42 11,612 282 2391
06/29/94 1 STATE AUDI TORS OFF I CE• 084
C. By November 1, 1995, review the ordinances, policies, procedures, and penalties
for violations of the participating local governments, including government
structure, personnel policies, finance policies, development improvement policies.
licenses, permits, and regulatory policies. The differences and similarities among
the participating local governments will be assessed, and the opportunities and
difficulties for combining service functions and governance will be identified.
1). By April 1, 1996, assess the potential tbr cooperation and consolidation among the
participating local governments. Options for cooperation will be identified for
each service function, including joint powers agreements, contracting for services.
cooperation, and consolidation. The feasibility of consolidating the participating
local governments will also be assessed.
E. By August 1, 1996, document the savings that could be expected from the
implementation of the cooperation options identified in item D. above. Budget and
expenditure data from 1993 will be used to compare the actual costs of current
service delivery methods to the estimated costs of cooperative service delivery
methods.
F. By January 1, 1997, produce a cooperation report that identifies areas for potential
cost savings by sharing services and/or consolidating the participating local
governments. The report will:
1. Document the current service functions of the participating local
governments, including service levels and costs;
2. Identify the policy issues related to service delivery cooperation and
consolidation of the participating local governments;
3. Evaluate the service functions of the participating local governments and
assess the compatibility of service delivery among them;
4. Identify opportunities and recommend strategies for improving services to
the citizens of the participating local governments through cooperative
service delivery and/or consolidation of the participating local governments,
and document the rationale for each recommendation; and
5. Document the estimated costs and savings that would result from the
implementation of the recommended strategies.
G. By March I, 1997, submit to the BOARD a written summary of the GRANTEE'S
activities in identifying operational efficiencies that can be achieved through
sharing services and/or consolidating the participating local governments. The
written summary shall include:
1. A copy of the cooperation report;
2. A description of the process used to create the cooperation report, including
a list of the parties involved, the timeline, and a description of the
involvement of community residents;
06/30/94 07:00 ECKBERG LAW FIRM 4 OPH NO.842 P006
- '29/94 15142 612 282 2391
1W 91
STATE AUDITORS OFFICE• 005
3. A description of how the cooperation report will be used to achieve
operational efficiencies through sharing services and/or consolidating the
participating local governments; and
4. A description of the problems encountered in the planning process, a
description of how the GRANTEE addressed those problems, and ideas of
how those problems could have been prevented.
H. If the conclusion of the cooperation report is that operational efficiencies can be
achieved through sharing services and/or consolidating the participating local
governments, by July 1, 1998, submit the report's recommendations to the
governing boards of the participating local governments for consideration of
adoption.
By October 1, 1999, implement shared services and/or consolidation of the
participating local governments, in accordance with the recommendations of the
cooperation report as adopted by the governing bodies of the participating local
governments.
J. By December 31, 1999, submit to the BOARD a written summary of the
GRANTTEF's activities in the implementation of operational efficiencies achieved
through sharing services and/or consolidating the participating local governments.
The written summary shall include:
1. A description of the process used to implement shared services and/or
consolidation of the participating local governments;
2. An assessment of the GRANTEE'S success in achieving shared services
and/or consolidation;
3. A description of the GRANTEB's plans for future improvements in the
cooperation and consolidation of service delivery among the participating
local governments; and
4. A description of the problems encountered in the implementation process,
a description of how the GRANTEE addressed those problems, and ideas
of how those problems could have been prevented.
-.1. CONDITIONS OF PAYMENT.
The language in the original draft contract is standard state contracting language. I do not
have authority to modj)'this language. Please be assured, however, that the concepts of
°reasonable"and "good faith"are consistent with the Board's decision-making process.
its. TERM OF GRANT CONTRACT. This grant contract shall be effective on July 15,
1994, or upon such date as it is executed as to encumbrance by the Commissioner of
Finance, whichever occurs later, and shall remain in effect until December 31, 1999, or
until all obligations set forth in this grant contract have becn satisfactorily fulfilled,
whichever occurs first.
06/30/94 07:00 ECKBERG LAW FIRM 4 OPH NO.842 P007
3/29/94 16:43 41,612 282 2391
06/29/94 1 STATE AEJD I TORS OFF I CE` �6
C. Should the BOARD find that the GRANTEE did not implement operational
efficiencies through sharing services and/or consolidating the participating local
governments according to the terms of this grant contract, the BOARD may require
the GRANTEE to repay all or a portion of the grant contract monies.
XVI. OTHER PROVISIONS.
B. The GRANTEE agrees to provide the BOARD with grant contract status reports,
which are due on the dates listed below:
October 15, 1994
January 15, 1995
April 15, 1995
July 15, 1995
October 15, 1995
January 15, 1996
April 15, 1996
July I5, 1996
October 15, 1996
January 15, 1997
July 15, 1997
January 15, 1998
July 15, 1998
January 15, 1999
July 15, 1999
06/17/94 09:31 ECKBERG LAW I. 3 4390574 • N0.464 P002
s
LAW OFFICES Of FI
ECKBERG, LAMMERS BRIGGS, WOLFF & VIERLING CO�
1835 NORTHWESTERN AVQNU£
STILLWAT€R, MINNESOTA 55088
LYLE J. EG(BERG (812)439-2870
JAMES F. LAMMERS FAX(612)439-2923
ROBERT G. BRIGGS
PAUL A.WOLFF
MARK J.VIERLING
GREGORY G.GALLER
KEVIN K.SItiOEBERG
THOMAS J.WEIDNER
SUSAN D.OLSON
June 36, 1994
VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
MS PATI MAIER
BOARD OF GOV'T INNOVATION AND COOPERATION
STATE OF MINNESOTA
SUITE 400
525 PARK STREET
ST PAUL MN 55103
RE: State of Minnesota Grant Contract
Dear M5. Maier:
As City Attorney for the City of Oak Park Heights, I have been
directed by the Oak Park Heights City Council to review a copy of
the proposed Grant Contract, which was originally forwarded to Mr.
Kenneth H. Hartung at the City of Bayport.
The city Council requested my review on its behalf to
determine whether or not the language contained within the contract
is appropriate for the City's needs.
Upon reviewing that contract I have determined that there are
several areas that require some slight modification in order to be
compatible with the interests of the City of Oak Park Heights,
those areas are as follows:
1. Page 1, GRANTEE'S DUTIES, should be modified to read
',GRANTEE'S DUTIES. The Grantee who is not a
state employee, shall study the feasibility of
the implementation of shared services and
staffing, and shall evaluate the feasibility
of consolidating the participating local
governments. As described in the Cooperation
Planning Grant Application submitted by the
Grantee and incorporated herein by reference,
the Grantee shall:"
06/17/94 09:31 ECKBERG LAW 4110 4 4390574
• N0.464 P003
MS PATI MAIER
Page Two
June 16, 1994
2. Page 3, subparagraph F, should be modified to read as
follows:
"By January 7, 1997, produce a cooperation
study that evaluates the opportunities for
shared services and/or staffing and recommends
strategies or options that my be utilized in
implementing same, and if found feasible, in
the evaluation phase, strategies and options
for consolidating the participating local
governments. The plan will:"
3. Page 3, subparagraph G, should be modified to read as
follows:
"By March 1, 1997, submit to the Board a
written report of the Grantee determining
feasibility within the communities to implement
shared services and/or staffing and to provide
further for the method to be utilized in
planning same and further evaluating the
potential feasibility of consolidating the
participating local governments. The written
summary shall include:
1. A copy of the study (1.F. ) ;
2. A description of the process contemplated to
potentially to be used to create a plan of
cooperation including a list of parties involved,
the timeline and a description of the involvement
of the community residents;
3. A description of how a cooperation plan could be
used to achieve shared services and staffing, and,
if appropriate, the feasibility of consolidation of
the participating local governments; and
4. A description of the anticipated problems to be
encountered in the planning process, and a
description of how the Grantee would address those
problems, and ideas of how those problems could have
been prevented."
4 . Further suggest modification to paragraph H, page 4 to
read:
"By January 1, 1999, implement shared services
and/or staffing if deemed appropriate by the
participating communities, and further, by the
06/17/94 09:32 ECKBERG LAW le -> 4390574 N0.464 P004
MS PATI MAIER
Page Three
June 16, 1994
same date, if deemed appropriate and feasible
by the participating communities, commencement
of the necessary statutory procedures to pursue
consolidation of the participating local
governments."
5. Further modification need be made to III. , page 6,
CONDITIONS OF PAYMENT to provide as follows:
"CONDITIONS OF PAYMENT. All services by the
Grantee pursuant to this grant shall be
performed to the reasonable satisfaction of the
Board, as determined by its authorized agent,
and in accordance with all applicable, federal,
state, local law, ordinance, rule or
regulation. All services performed by the
Grantee and reasonably pursued by the Grantee
in good faith, shall be deemed to be
satisfactorily provided under the terms and
provisions of this agreement."
6. Page 7, subparagraph C, should read as follows:
"Should the Board determine that the Grantee did not
attempt in good faith to conduct the study and carry
forward recommendations for shared services,
staffing and/or efforts towards consolidation as
deemed appropriate by the Grantee, the Board may
then require the Grantee to repay all or a portion
of the Grant Contract monies."
7. The next paragraph that requires modification is XVI. ,
page 9, subparagraph B. It appears to me that the
listing of July 15, 1994, for a contract status report
to date is probably inappropriate given existing time
frames and should be stricken from the final version.
I would appreciate after you have had a chance to review the
enclosed comments if you would contact me so that we could discuss
these changes further.
Yours very truly,
Mark J. Vierling
MJV/smp
cc: The Honorable Barbara H. O'Neal
Mayor of City of Oak Park Heights
06/17/94 09:32 ECKBERG LAW F. 4 4390574 4110 NO.464 P005
LAW OFFICES Or
ECKBERG, L.AMMERS, BRIGGS, WOLFF a VIERLING 0/01,835 NORTI4WESTN AVENU
STILLWATER.MINNESOTA 55O8Z
LYLE J. ECKBERG (6127 439-2078
JAMES F. LAMMERS FAX(612)439-2923
ROBERT G. BRIGGS
PAUL A.WOLFF.
MARK J.VIERLING
GREGORY G.GALLER
KEVIN K.SI-IOESERG
THOMAS J. W£IDNER
SUSAN 0.OLSON June 15, 1994
MR KEN HARTUNG
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
CITY OF BAYPORT
294 NORTH THIRD STREET
BAYPORT MN 55003
RE: State of Minnesota Grant Contract - Board of Government
Innovation and Cooperation
Dear Mr. Hartung:
I have reviewed a copy of what I assume to be the most recent
Grant Contract that has been prepared by the State of Minnesota and
forwarded to the City of Bayport. My review, of course, is on
behalf of the City of Oak Park Heights, having been authorized by
the City Council at its June 13th meeting to conduct such review.
Upon reviewing the language of the contract I find that there
are several areas that require modification in order to be
compatible with the interests of the City of Oak Park Heights.
Those areas are as follows:
1. Page 1, GRANTEE'S DUTIES, should be modified to read
"GRANTEE'S DUTIES. The Grantee who is not a
state employee, shall study the feasibility of
the implementation of shared services and
staffing, and shall evaluate the feasibility
of consolidating the participating local
governments. As described in the Cooperation
Planning Grant Application submitted by the
Grantee and incorporated herein by reference,
the Grantee shall:"
2. Page 3, subparagraph F, should be modified to read as
follows:
• 06/17/94 09:32 ECKBERG LAW 0 a 4390574 N0.464 P006
MR KEN HARTUNG
Page Two
June 15, 1994
"By January 7, 1997, produce a cooperation
study that evaluates the opportunities for
shared services and/or staffing and recommends
strategies or options that my be utilized in
implementing same, and if found feasible, in
the evaluation phase, strategies and options
for consolidating the participating local
governments. The plan will:"
3 . Page 3, subparagraph G, should be modified to read as
follows:
"By March 1, 1997, submit to the Board a
written report of the Grantee determining
feasibility within the communities to implement
shared services and/or staffing and to provide
further for the method to be utilized in
planning same and further evaluating the
potential feasibility of consolidating the
participating local governments. The written
summary shall include:
1. A copy of the study (1.F. ) ;
2. A description of the process contemplated to
potentially to be used to create a plan of
cooperation including a list of parties involved,
the timeline and a description of the involvement
of the community residents;
3 . A description of how a cooperation plan could be
used to achieve shared services and staffing, and,
if appropriate, the feasibility of consolidation of
the participating local governments; and
4. A description of the anticipated problems to be
encountered in the planning process, and a
description of how the Grantee would address those
problems, and ideas of how those problems could have
been prevented. "
4. Further suggest modification to paragraph H, page 4 to
read:
"By January 1, 1999, implement shared services
and/or staffing if deemed appropriate by the
participating communities, and further, by the
same date, if deemed appropriate and feasible
by the participating communities, commencement
06/i7/94 09:32 ECKBERG LAW ID 4 4390574 NO.464 P007
MR KEN HARTUNG
Page Three
June 15, 1994
of the necessary statutory procedures to pursue
consolidation of the participating local governments."
5. Further modification need be made to III. , page 6,
CONDITIONS OF PAYMENT to provide as follows:
"CONDITIONS OF PAYMENT. All services by the
Grantee pursuant to this grant shall be
performed to the reasonable satisfaction of the
Board, as determined by its authorized agent,
and in accordance with all applicable, federal,
state, local law, ordinance, rule or
regulation. All services performed by the
Grantee and reasonably pursued by the Grantee
in good faith, shall be deemed to be
satisfactorily provided under the terms and
provisions of this agreement. "
6. Page 7, subparagraph C, should read as follows:
"Should the Board determine that the Grantee did not
attempt in good faith to conduct the study and carry
forward recommendations for shared services,
staffing and/or efforts towards consolidation as
deemed appropriate by the Grantee, the Board may
then require the Grantee to repay all or a portion
of the Grant Contract monies. "
7. The next paragraph that requires modification is XVI. ,
page 9, subparagraph B. It appears to me that the
listing of July 15, 1994, for a contract status report
to date is probably inappropriate given existing time
frames and should be stricken from the final version.
After you have had a chance to review the enclosed comments,
please contact me so that we can coordinate an appropriate
communication to the Board Representative, Pati Maier.
Yours very truly,
Mark J. Vierling
MJV/smp
06-41494 15:04 4111 282 2391 •
06/14/94 X16:02 STATE AUDITORS OF 'E 002
•
Grant Contract No, 6I00-245 30-01 between the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation
and the City of Baylor
STATE OF MINNESOTA
GRANT CONTRACT
THIS GRANT CONTRACT, which shall be interpreted pursuant to the laws of the State of
Minnesota between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Board of Government Innovation
and Cooperation (hereinafter BOARD),
And: City of Bayport
Address: 294 North Third Street
Bayport, Minnesota 55003
Soc. Sec. or MN Tax ID No.: 8020401
Federal Employer ID No. (if applicable): 41-6004958
(Notice to granter: you are required by Minnesota Statures, Section 274.66,to provide your social security number or
Minnesota Tax identification number if you do business with the State of Minnesota. This information may be used in
the embrcefl of ftdetal and state tau laws. Supplying these numbers could result in action to requite you to file state
tax realms and pay delinquent state tax liabilities. This grant contract will not be approved unless these numbers are
provided. 'lime numbers will be available to fbderal and state tax sutttontics and state personnel involved in the payment
of state obligations.)
on behalf of the City of Bayport and the City of Oak Park Heights (hereinafter GRANTEE),
witnesseth that:
WHEREAS, the BOARD, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 465.799, is authorized to award
Cooperation Planning grants;
AND WHEREAS, the BOARD has awarded a Cooperation Planning grant to the GRANTER;
AND WHEREAS, the GRANTEE represents that it is duly qualified and willing to perform the
duties set forth herein, NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed:
1. GRANTEE'S DUTIES. The GRANTEE, who is not a state employee, shall plan for the
implementation of shared services and staffing, and shall evaluate the feasibility of
consolidating the participating local governments. As described in the Cooperation
Planning grant application submitted by the GRAN'T'EE and hereby incorporated by
reference, the GRANTEE shall;
Page 1 of 10
E00d St V'ON Hdn E- WN T-1 MH•l r1NRR`'fl _ _IA 8 T PF,C1 T/c10
' . 06/14/94 15:05 J 82 2391
06/14/94 16:02 STATE AUDITORS OF' '8 003
Grist Contract No. 6100-2453O.O1 between the Board of Govenvrrent innovation and Cooperation
and the City of B aypo rt
A. By December 1, 1994, analyze the following service functions of the participating fire,
community development, ,
administration, cam ty
local governments: accounting,
parks and recreation, planning and inspections, polio, and public works. The total
cost to each participating local government for providing each type of service and
the level provided of service rovided to each local government will be documented, and
possible economies of scale fyrom combining services will be evaluated. The
following data will bee
collected for each service function:
1. Expenditures by program;
2. Service levels and demand, e.g., fire calls, miles of streets, Sewers and
water mains, maintenance levels and practices, demand for recreational
programs and services;
3. Personnel by function;
4. Employment conditions, e.g., salary, fringe and retirement benefits,
recruitment, and selection practices;
5. Equipment, facilities, buildings, and motor vehicles;
6. Operational structure of the function; and
7. Forms of government.
B. By August 1, 1995, identify and evaluate mutual issues. With respect to services,
expenditures, revenue structures, and community characteristics and attitudes, the
following determinations will be made:
1. Whether all necessary services are carried out by each participating local
government, or otherwise provided to the citizens of the local government;
2. Whether the services are carried out at the levels demanded;
3. Whether the quality of the services meet modern technical management
standards;
4. Whether any services are being duplicated;
5. The degree of compatibility among the participating local governments of
quality, scope, and the nature of each service, and whether their personnel,
salary, facilities, equipment, and other features are compatible with
cooperation or consolidation;
6. The degree of compatibility of the revenue structures of the participating
local governments; and
7. The degree of compatibility of the expenditure pattern of the communities.
C. By November 1, 1995, review the ordinances, policies, procedures, and penalties
for violations of the participating local governments, including government
Page 2 of 10
200d SbD'ON Hd0 F W �1d� / /
d I d OeJBHN33 TO:8T 8I b6 9I 90
06/14/94 15:05 •292 2391 •
06i14i94 16:03 STATE AUDITORS OFD "E 004
Grant Contract No. 6100-24530-01 between the Board of Government innovation and Cooperation
and the City of Bayport
structure,personnel policies,olicies, finance policies, development improvement policies,
licenses, permits, and regulatory policies. The differences and similarities among
the participating local governments will he assessed and the opportunities and
difficulties for combining service functions and governance will be identified.
D. By April 1, 1996, assess the potential for cooperation and consolidation among the
participating local governments. Options for cooperation will be identified for
each service function, including joint powers agreements, contracting for services,
cooperation, and consolidation. The feasibility of consolidating the participating
local governments will also be assessed.
E. By August 1, 1996, document the savings that could be expected from the
implementation of the cooperation options identified in item D. above. Budget and
expenditure data from 1993 will be used to compare the actual costs of current
service delivery methods to the estimated costs of cooperative service delivery
methods.
F. By January 1, 1997, produce a cooperation plan that recommends strategies to
implement shared services and staffing, and, if found feasible in the evaluation
phase, strategies for consolidating the participating local governments. The plan
will:
1. Document the current service functions of the participating local
governments, including service levels and costs;
2. Identify the policy issues related to service delivery cooperation and
consolidation of the participating local governments;
3. Evaluate the service functions of the participating local governments and
assess the compatibility of service delivery among them;
4. identify opportunities and recommend strategies for improving services to
the citizens of the participating local governments through cooperative
service delivery and/or consolidation of the government units, and
document the rationale for each recommendation; and
5. Document the estimated costs and savings that would result from the
implementation of the recommended strategies.
G. By March 1, 1997, submit to the BOARD a written summary of the GRANTER's
activities in planning for the implementation of shared services and staffing and
evaluating the feasibility of consolidating the participating local governments. The
written summary shall include;
Page 3 of 10
rood eve-nN I-7.-in F- I.I J T J MH1 nA=1,1-17 T M.O T _fmr—zO T,On
06/14/94 15:06 41112 282 2391
06/14/94 16:03 STATE AUDI'T'ORS C]F' 'E 005
Grant Contract No. 6100-24.530.01 between the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation
and the City of Bayport
3. A copy of the cooperation plan;
2. A description of the process used to create the cooperation plan, including
a list of the parties 'involved, the timeline, and a description of the
involvement of community residents;
3. A description of how the cooperation plan will be used to achieve shared
services and staffing, and, if appropriate, consolidating the participating
local governments; and
4. A description of the problems encountered in the planning process, a
description of how the GRANTEE addressed those problems, and ideas of
how those problems could have been prevented.
H. By January 1, 1999, implement shared services and staffing Zd, if appropriate,
Y rY , P d
consolidate the participating local governments.
I. By March 1, 1999, submit to the BOARD a written summary of the GRANTEE'S
activities in the implementation of shared servitxs and staffing, and, if appropriate,
in consolidating the participating local governments. The written summary shall
include:
1. A description of the process used to Implement shared services and staffing,
and, if appropriate, to consolidate the participating local governments;
2. An assessment of the GRANTEE'S succzsa In achieving shared services and
staffing, and, if appropriate, consolidation;
3. A description of the GRANTEE'S plans for future improvements in the
cooperation and consolidation of service delivery among the participating
local governments; and
4. A description of the problems encountered in the implementation process,
a description of how the GRANTEE addressed those problems, and ideas
of how those problems could have been prevented.
II. CONSIDERATION AND TERMS OF PAYMENT.
A. Consideration for all services performed and goods or materials supplied by the
GRANTEE pursuant to this grant contract shall be paid by the BOARD as follows:
1. The total obligation of the BOARD for all compensation and
reimbursements to the GRANTEE shall not exceed forty-one thousand
dollars ($41,000.00).
Page 4 of 10
AAAA cbb'nm urn yr MW-1 n17QV'1n____ �n•nT r .nr .nn
' 08/14/94 15:06 1,2 282 2391
06/14/94 16: STATE AUDITORS OFr -E 4 086
Grunt Contract No. 6100-24530-01 between the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation
and the City of f Bayport
2. Reimbursement for travel and subsistence expenses actually and necessarily
incurred by the GRANT1'E's performance of the grant contract shall not
exceed zero dollars ($0.00), provided that the GRANTEE shall be
reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses in the same manner and in
no greater amount than provided in the current "Non-managerial
Unrepresented Employees Plan" promulgated by the Commissioner of
Employee Relations. The URANTEE shall not be reimbursed for travel
and subsistence expenses incurred outside the State of Minnesota unless it
has received prior written approval for such out-of-state travel from the
BOARD.
3. Compensation shalt be consistent with the Project Line Item Budget below.
The GRANTEE shall not seek, nor shall the BOARD pay, compensation
to the GRANTEE for any indirect, overhead, or administrative costs not
otherwise included as an expense within the Project Line Item Budget.
1'roj , Line lten ,$ndget
The GRANTEE shall adhere to the following project budget in performing
its duties and responsibilities as specified in this grant contract:
Brar}t C
Consultants $41,000 $41,000
(Spsi+geted Public Pioat1o6 Advisors)
Bayport Staff Costs $3,910 3,910
Bayport Administrative Costs 200 200
Oak Park Heights Staff Costs 1.690
Total $41,000 $5,800 $46,800
Modifications of the "Grant" column in the above line item budget of less
than 10 percent of any line item are permitted without prior approval by the
BOARD, so long as notification of such modifications is made through the
submitted quarterly expenditure reports. Provided, however, that the total
obligation of the BOARD for all compensation and reimbursements to the
GRANTEE shall not exceed forty-one thousand dollars ($41,000.00). The
URANTEE may modify any line item in the "Grantee" column without
notification to or approval by the HOARD-
Page 5 of 10
900d Sbb'ON Nan i.w t a MN-1 t,G.o T/era
06/17/94 08:38 ECKBERG LAW 4 4390574 • N0.458 P003
. 06/14/94 15:06 1111812 282 2391
06/14/94 16:04 STATE AUDITORS OF' `"Z 00?
Grant Contract No. 610024530-01 between the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation
and the City of Bayport
B. TERMS OF PAYMENT
1. A lump-sum payment of forty-one t ib this grant dollars ( c41iA�e00) shall be
made by the BOARD promptly
2. The GRANTEE shall submit a quarterly financial report listing
expenditures for services performed under this grant contract. The
GRANTEE shall maintain documentation of its expenditures through
receipts, invoices, travel vouchers,and time sheets. Financial reports shall
be submitted in a form prescribed by the BOARD. The GRANTEE agrees
to provide the BOARD with financial reports that arc due on the dates listed
below:
October 15, 1994
January 15, 1995
April 15, 1995
July 15, 1995
October 15, 1995
January 15, 1996
April 15, 1996
July 15, 1996
October 15, 1996
January 15, 1997
111. CONDITIONS OF PAYMENT. All services by the GRANTEE pursuant to this grant
contract shall be performed to the satisfaction of the BOARD. as determined in the sole
discretion of its authorized agent, and in award with all applicable federal, state, and local
law, ordinance, rule, or regulation.
IV. TERM OF GRANT CONTRACT. This grant contract shall be effective on June 30,
1994, or upon such date as it is executed as to encumbrance by the Commissioner of
Finance, whichever occurs later, and shall remain in effect until March 15, 1999, or until
all obligations set forth in this grant contract have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whicheve'
occurs first.
A. The GRANTEE shall have ninety (90) days immediately following the end of the
grant contract period to liquidate all unpaid obligations related to the project
incurred prior to the end of the grant period and to submit a detailed accounting of
these cumulative expenditures to the BOARD.
�'"° Page 6 of 10
06/17/94 08:38 ECKBERG LAW 0 4 4390574 N0.458 P004
06/14/94 15:07 612 282 2391 •
06/14/94 16:04 STATE AUDITORS OF/ME 008
Grant Contract No. 6100.2453001 between the Board of Government innovation and Cooperation
and the City of Bayport •
B. The GRANTEE will return to the BOARD all funds provided by the BOARD that
expended for allowable project costs within ninety (90) days following the
are not perxied .
contract
end of the grant period.
C. Should the BOARD find that the GRANTEb did not implement shared services and
s=wing,;or, if appropriate, did not consolidate the participating local gents
according to the terms of this grant contract, the BOARD may require the
GRANTEE to repay all or a portion of the grant contract monies.
V. CANCELLATION.
A. Upon the ORANTEE's failure to comply with any provision of this grant contract,
the BOARD may terminate this grant contract. The termination shall be effective
upon the BOARD giving the GRANTEE written notice at its last known address.
Should the GRANTEE fail to comply with the grant provisions of this grant a tract, the
GRANTEE shall refund to the BOARD all S previously
B. The BOARD or the GRANTEE may cancel this grant contract at any time, with
without cause, upon thirty (30) days written notice�to the other� payment, determined
event of such cancellation, the GRANTEE sha!
on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed.
C. Should this grant contract be terminated prior to the scheduled date, the
GRANTEE shall refund to the BOARD all remaining unexpended grant contract
monies within forty-five (45) days of the date of effective termination.
VI. BOARD'S AUTHORIZED AGENT. The BOARD'S authorized agent for the purposes
of administration of this grant contract is Pati Maier, Executive Director, or her successor
in office. Such agent shall have the authority to accept the GRANT= E's services and If
Such services are accepted as satisfactory, shall so certify on each quarterly financial report
submitted pursuant to Section II, paragraph B.
VII. ASSIGNMENT.
The GRANTEE shall neither assign nor transfer any rights or
obligations under this grant contract without the prior written consent of the BOARD.
VIII AMENDMENTS. Any amendments to this grant contract shall be in writing, and shall
be executed by the same parties who executed the original grant contract or their
successors in office.
Page 7 of 10
• 06/17/94 08:38 ECKBERG LAW 1110 4 4390574 N0.458 P005
06/24/94 15:07 612 282 2391
06/14/94 16:05 STATE AtJD I TORS OFD 7E 009
Government innovation and Cooperation
1 between the Board of Govern»u
i� Grant Comma No. 6t(X�2dS34dJ
and the City of Bayport
IX, LIABILITY. The GRANTEE agrees to indemnify and save and hold the BOARD, its
agents, and employees harmless from any and all claims or causes of action arising from
the performance of this grant contract by the GRANTEE or the GRANTEE'S agents or
employees. This clause shall not be construed to bar legal remedies this he GRANTEE
may have for the BOARD'S failure to fulfill its obligations pursuant
X. AUDIT REQUIREMENTS. The books, records, documents, and accounting procedures
and practices of the GRANTEE relevant to this grant contract shall be subject to
examination by the BOARD, the legislative auditor, and the state auditor. Records shall contract. The
be sufficient to reflect all costs incurred financial o to the this
available to
GRANTEE also agrees to make all its f request, a
the BOARD upon request during normal working hours and to prov ide, upon
copy of any report, completed by an Independent auditor, to the BOARD.
ga reports, studies,
The BOARD shall have access to any repol. ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS.
photographs, negatives, videotapes, software, or other work products prepared by the
GRANTEE in the performaitoe of its obligations under this grant contract upon
completion, termination, or cancellation of this grant contract. The GRANTEE shall
provide a copy of such materials to anyone who requests it at no cost other than the cost
of preparing the copy.
XII. WORKER'S COMPENSATION. In accordance with the bla provisions
f compliance
Minnesota
Statutes, Section 176.182, the GRANTEE has provided acceptable evidence
with the worker's compensation insurance coverage requirement of Minnesota Statutes,
Section 176.181, subdivision 2.
XIII. ANTITRUST. The UKANTEE hereby assigns to the State of Minnesota any and all
claims for overcharges as to goods and/or services provided in connection with this grant
contract resulting from antitrust violations that arise under the antitrust laws of the United
States and the antitrust laws of the State of Minnesota.
XIV. VOTER REGISTRATION, The GRANTEE shall provide nonpartisan voter r� the
services and assistance, using forms provided by the BOARD, to employees
GRANTEE and the public, as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 201.162.
XV. USE OF GRANT CONTRACT FUNDING. The GRANTEE certifies that no funding
provided utsitx this grant contract will be used to support religious counseling or partisan
political activity.
Page 8 of 10
• 06/17/94 08:38 ECKBERG LAW
410 4 4390574 • N0.458 P006
06/14/94 15:08 _ 612 282 2391
06/14/94 16:05 STATE AUDITORS OF'-''E 010
- Grant Contract No. 6140.24510.01 between the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation
and the City of Bayport
XVI. OTHER PROVISIONS.
to utilize competitive bidding and other procedures required
A•, The GRANTEE agrees p°tit
by federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, or regulations governing purchasing
and fiscal procedures.
B. The GRANTEE agrees to provide the BOARD with grant contract status reports,
which arc due on the dates listed below:
July 15. 1994 — '
October 15, 1994
January 15, 1995
April 15, 1995
July 15, 1995
October 15, 1995
January 15, 1996
April 15, 1996
July 15, 1996
October 15, 1996
January 15, 1997
July 15, 1997
January 15, 1998
July 15, 1998
January 15, 1999
C. The BOARD shall, during the course of this grant contract, evaluate the
GRANTEE'S progress towards the goals and objectives of the grant contract and
compliance with any special conditions. The BOARD reserves the right to request
additional information from the GRANTEE to carry out its evaluation.
D. IF the GRANTEE decides to fulfill any of its obligations and duties under this
•grant contract through a subcontractor to be paid for by funds received under this
grant contract, the GRANTEE shall nut execute a contract with the subcontractor
or otherwise corer into a binding agreement until it has first received written
approval from the BOARD. The BOARD will respond to requests from the
GRANTEE for authorization to subcontract within ten (10) working days of
receiving the request. The GRANTEE'S payment to the subcontractor shall be
made within the time limits, subject to the interest penalty payments, and subject
to all other provisions of Minnesota Statutes section 16A.1245.
`' Page 9 of 10
06/17/94 08:38 ECKBERG LAW a 4390574 N0.458 P007
Giant Corutat No. 6100.24330.01 between the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation
and the City of Bayport
There are no further substantive provisions to this contract; the signatures of the authorized
representatives of the parties to this grant contract who are executing it on their behalf appear
below.
IN WITNFSS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this grant contract to be duly executed,
intending to be bound thereby.
(I) GRANTEE; (3) ATTORNEY GENE AL:
By: By:
Title: Title:
Date: Date:
By: (4) COMMISSIONER OF
ADMINISTRATION
Title: By:
Date: Title:
Date:
(2) BOARD: (5) COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE
By: By:
Title: Title:
r"-\
Date: Date:
Page 10 of 10
TOO 9OI44O SZI011anu 3115 ST:9T PS/PT/90
T6£Z Z8Z ZT9 £T:ST PG/rT/90
p6/16/94 18:01 ECKBERG LAW 11, 4 OPH NO.445 P001
LAW OVViCSS Of
ECKBERG, LAMMERS, BRIGGS, WOLFF Sc VIERLING
1835 NORTHWE$TURN AVENUE
T1 WAT R M$NNESOTA 53002:5 LL L
LYLC J.=MICRO (6)2)439-Z87$
.}AMTS i.LAMMERS FAX(6121 439.2913
ROSZRT G_eRtGGS
PAUL A.WOLFF
MARS J.Y1gRuNG
GREGORY G.GALLER
K V N K.5WOC8 RC4
THOMAS J.WBIONER
SUSAN O.OLSON COVER W= • FACSIMIIX TRANSMISSION
DATE: /4:
Please deliver the following page(s) to:
FAX NO. :
NAME: LA to
PROM: �i rG1G
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES , INCLUDING COVER SHEET.
The information contained in this facsimile message may
be privileged and confidential. It is intended only for
the use of the individual or entity to whom it is sent.
If the recipient of this transmittal is not the intended
recipient, or an employee or agent responsible to deliver
it to the intended recipient, any dissemination, copying,
or distribution of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please immediately notify us by telephone and
return the original message to us at the above address
via the U.S. Postal Service.
XP YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF TEE PAGES, PLEASE CALL US
BACK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE" AT (612) 6392878-
CO S:
* * * * * * * * * * * *
HARD COPY (W } (WILL NOT) FOLLOW BY MAIL.
• .124 439 2923 0
411
6417/94 09:31 ECKBERG LAW 4390574 N0.464 P001
LAW OFFICES Or
ECKBERG, LAMMERS, BRIGGS, WOLFF 8c VIERLING
•83$ NQRTMWESTERN AVENUE
STILLWATER,MINNESOTA 55062
LYLE.3. ECKBERG (G12)439.2.373
JANE$F.LAMMERS FAA(612)439-2023
ROBERT G. BRIGGS
PAUL&WOLFF
MARK J.VIERLING
GREGORY G.GALLER
KEVIN K.SMOESERG COVER SHEET_. W FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
TMOMAS J.WEIDNER
SUSAN 0.OLSON
DATE: 6 /79
Please deliver the following page(s) to:
FAX NO. :
NAME: 2 a_Weir---,
FROM: 5/(14/./7t.,.-.
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES , INCLUDING COVER SKEET.
The information contained in this facsimile message may
be privileged and confidential. It is intended only for
the use of the individual or entity to whom it is sent.
If the recipient of this transmittal is not the intended
recipient, or an employee or agent responsible to deliver
it to the intended recipient, any dissemination, copying,
or distribution of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please immediately notify us by telephone and
return the original message to us at the above address
via the U.S. Postal Service.
IP YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OP TEE PAGES, PLEASE CALL US
BACK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AT (612) 439-2878.
COMMENTS:
* * * * * * * * * * * *
HARD COPY -f 44,2122:i -.ILL NOT FOLLOW BY MAIL.
Post-Itr"brand fax transmittal memo 7671 #0 pages►
•
To v1, V010
::m aJl.� g / r
Dept. Phone#
'1/39—9Y3 , GUT 4 9 1993
Fax# Fax# ll )j it
PAYMENT SCHEDULE — PHASE 1 — CONSOLIDATION STUDY
CITY OF BAYTOWN CITY OF
DATE BAYPORT TOWNSHIP OAK PARK HEIGHTS TOTAL y
LOAN co U\ A3
APPLICATION FEE 1993 $54.92 $24.71 $81.37 if ,ic!'‘ $161.00
INITIAL PAYMENT 1993 $1,445.17 $650.14 $2,140.99 1 ` $4,236.30
LOAN PAYMENT 2/18/94 $1,876.27 $844.07 $2,779.66 $5,500.00
LOAN PAYMENT 2/18/95 $1,876.27 $844.07 $2,779.66 d'Y ! $5,500.00
LOAN PAYMENT 2/18/96 $1,876.27 $844.07 $2,779.66 i!„;40' $5,500.00
$7,128.90 $3,207.06 $10,561.34 $20,897.30
tl"
13w
SPRINGSTED •
•SouttiSixthStreet
PUBLIC FINANCE ADVISORS Suite 25
Minneapolis, MN 555
402•]800
(612) 333-9177
Fax: (612) 349-5230
Home Office
85 East Seventh Place 16655 West Bluemound Road
Suite 100 Suite 290
Saint Paul, MN 55101-2143 Brookfield, WI 53005-5935
(612) 223-3000 (414) 782-8222
Fax: (612) 223-3002 Fax: (414) 782-2904
6800 College Boulevard
Suite 600
Overland Park, KS 66211-1533
(913) 345-8062
DATE: September 29, 1993 Fax: (913) 345-1770
TO: Mr. Ken Hartung, Administrator 180s t,s83lt NW
City of Bayport Washington, DC 20006-2200
Bayport City Hall (202) 466-3344
Fax: (202) 223-1362
294 North Third Street
Bayport, MN 55003
For Financial Advisory Services Performed from January 1, 1993 through September 10, 1993
RE: Community Consolidation Analysis for the Communities of City of Bayport, City of Oak
Park Heights and Baytown Township, Minnesota, Phase I
Senior Officer (16.00 hrs. @ $150/hr.) $ 2,400.00
Project Manager (75.60 hrs. @$125/hr.) 9,450.00
Officer (19.00 hrs. @$115/hr.) 2,185.00
Professional Staff (1.50 hrs. @ $90/hr.) 135.00
Support Staff (18.20 hrs. @$40/hr.) 728.00
Tautges, Redpath & Co. 8.301.25
Subtotal $23,199.25
Less Amount Over Contract Limit (3,199.25)
Plus Out-of-Pocket Expenses:
County Auditors' Certificates $ 450.00
Travel 54.60
Special Delivery and Copies 231.70
TOTAL DUE $20.736.30
I declare under penalty of law that this account is just and correct and that no part of it has
been paid.
SPRINGSTED Incorporated
BY: aA
BONNIE C. MATSON
Payment is due on receipt of this billing. After 30 days interest will be charged on any balance
at the rate of 1% per month.
TRANSMI ION REPORT
********************
•
:OAK PARK HEIGHTS ( JAH 20 f94 14: 7
4<**T.*******A******++******4,44**44:*+.4****** * * ****)y***-_4:,-***+*********4****+*****W***
44: *
E r■TORT FL wit-ET TERMINAL MODE TI1'1E RESULTS TOTAL DEPT
TIME I DENT tF I CH T I OM PAGES CODE.
.4 T+ 11 :o 14:t 405 E.,[104 no,46' OK Fl 1.
4,
4,
4,
44
44:
t •
****:****4******444.**-44444:4AA44.441-':+0::**3:44A,.-4, 4:+44J.-**:,4.K44:-;t44<.-..,i.4.4A44:1 ,4c4:4<A4:**it-****4<****
. 11,t
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
PREFACE
The communities of Bayport, Baytown Township and Oak Park
Heights have agreed to review the pros and cons of possible
4 g P P
consolidation, either in part or in whole between the three
communities. As a part of that process, an application has been
made to the Metropolitan Council for a local planning assistance
loan to assist the three communities in funding Phase I of the
consolidation study which is anticipated to cost Twenty Two
Thousand Dollars ($22, 000. 00) . The loan requested would provide
funding from the Metropolitan Council not to exceed Sixteen
Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($16,500. 00) . Additionally, the
1 terms of the loan are that it is to be repaid to the Metropolitan
Council over a period of three (3) without interest.
Each of the three communities have passed resolutions
authorizing the application for the loan to the Metropolitan
Council for the Phase I study of the consolidation proposal. Each
community has made a commitment to repay its fair share of the loan
and the cost of the consolidation study anticipated to be
approximately $22, 000.00 with the allocation of the expenses to the
communities being prorated among them based upon population (less
prison population) using the 1990 census.
AGREEMENT
Based upon the foregoing, the communities herewith acknowledge
their individual responsibility for financial participation in the
Phase I study of the consolidation proposal in the following
amounts:
//r 411
BAYTOWN TOWNSHIP PORTION $ 3 , 401. 00
CITY OF BAYPORT PORTION $ 7, 560. 00
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS PORTION $11, 200.00
All such funds shall be paid when due to the City of Bayport
who shall accept administrative responsibility for processing
repayment of the loan to Metropolitan Council upon the terms
required pursuant to the loan application and award and also who
shall take responsibility for billing the communities and
collecting funds to pay the consultants and providers engaged by
the three communities as part of the Phase I Consolidation Study.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set forth
their hands and seals this 5-- C-- day of "47 , 1993 .
CITY OF BAYPORT
BY:
Mayor
BY:
Clerk
BAYTOWN TOWNSHIP
BY:
Its: Town Board Chairman
BY
Its: Township Clerk
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
BY: (A.A._ V\f-IN.0
Mayor
City Clerk
2
6r Svz_ r ,4--7/vim ()y
Fees Section E
Our compensation will be on an hourly basis according to the rates stated
below:
Springsted
Senior Officer $150 Other Professional Staff $90
Project Manager $125 Support Staff $40
Other Officers $115
Tautges, Redpath
Partner $88 Junior $37
Supervisor $67 Statistical Typists and
Senior $55 Report Processors $23
Semi-Senior $45
In no event will the total advisory fees exceed:
Phase 1 $20,000
Phase 2 $40,000
In addition to the advisory service fees, all associated direct out-of-pocket
expenses will be reimbursed.
These fees will cover all costs for both firms for both phases of the study.
The only additional cost will be for additional meetings beyond those
outlined in the study. The cost will be at standard hourly rates for each
person required to be in attendance at such extra meetings and their
necessary preparation time.
� orb- ectl � 7
�p
63. 02A- -7 r Wt-L-Lciiy
)V`y
E-1
DEC-15-1992 1E:20 FROM CITY H EYPORT TO 4390574 P.02
111
'-` CITY OF BAYPORT
OFFICE OF CITY ADMINISTRATOR
The Honorable Mayor Council Letter 92-160
and
City Councilmembers Agenda: Dec. 7, 1992
SUBJECT: Tr,i City Consolidation Study Approval
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The local governments of Oak Park Heights, Bayport and Baytown
Township have been meeting for a number of months on strategies to
consider a possible consolidation of local government operations
and services. On November 19, 1992, the Tri City Consolidation
Committee met to hear a proposal from Springstad, Inc. and Tautges,
Redpath, Ltd. , regarding a consolidation study. I had delivered
copies of the proposed consolidation study by Springstad, Inc. , and
Tautges, Redpath, Ltd. in the Council Information Packet of Friday,
November 13, 1992 .
During the presentation made by Springstad, Inc. ,' and Tautges,
Redpath, Ltd. , the presenters indicated the Study would be
conducted in two phases. Phase One would consist of a fiscal
comparison and analysis which would analyze fiscal data of the
three communities including:
1 . Property valuations.
2. Tax levies.
3 . LGA levels .
4. Debt levels and authorization.
5. Fiscal disparity positions.
6. State and Local tax impacts.
7. Homestead and Agricultural Credit Aids.
8. TIF status by community.
9. Demographics
A comparison of tax impacts will be developed for all three
communities based on their 1993 Budgets, individually and as an
aggregate, assuming they are were one community. These impacts
will include:
1. Impacts for certain valuations of regional, commercial
and industrial properties.
2. Impacts on State Aids.
3 . Impacts on fiscal disparity contributions.
4. Impacts on local tax levies and tax base.
5 . Impacts on Homestead and Agricultural Credit Aids.
6. Impacts on State Aid Road Funds.
The cost of conducting Phase One Study is ;20, 000.00.
Additionally, the Tri City Consolidation Committee is recommending
an additional $2, 000.00 for incidental costs such as copying,
telephone conversations and consultant out-uf-pvc:ktL expenses,
DEL-1E=199 15:21 FROM iITY OF BPYPORT TO 4390574 P.03
•
bringing the total cost of Phase One to $22,000.00.
Based on the results of the information assembled and analyzed
during Phase One, the Local Governing Boards of the respective
communities, will, make a decision as to whether to proceed with
Phase Two of the Study. 'Phase Two is designed to review and
determine if there are operational efficiencies that can be
achieved through consolidation of the communities. To analyze
those operational efficiencies, it will be necessary for the
consultant to gather information in the following areas:
1. Identify service areas to be studied.
2 . Identify expenditures by program.
3. Isolate service levels and demands; e.g. fire calls,
miles of streets, sewer and water lines; maintenance
levels and practices; demand for recreational programs
and services.
4 . Personnel by function.
5 . Employment conditions: salary, fringe/retirement
benefits, recruitment and selection practices.
6. Equipment and facilities: buildings, motor vehicles and
other equipment.
7 . Organizational structure of various service functions.
8 . Forms of government.
In addition to those items, the consultant will be looking at
policy issues associated with the Cities and Township governing
bodies. The cost of Phase Two is estimated to range between
$40,000 and $44,000. 00.
SUGGESTED FUNDING
At the Tri City Consolidation Committee Meeting of December 1,
1992, the Committee recommended funding for Phase One and Phase Two
of this project, based on the local government's population minus
prison populations for Oak Park Heights and Bayport. I have
constructed a graph below which lists local government's 1990
census along with local government's populations having subtracted
out prison populations.
1990 Population
Local Government Population Census Minus Prisoners
Baytown Township 900 900
Bayport 320 2100
Oak Park Heights 86 3 4D 3111
I have constructed for Councilmember review, a proposed cost
allocation for each local government for Phase One and Phase Two,
using local government populations, minus prisoners.
LG 1 1 1��l rI�U i _1-11 Ur ZNiYUNV IU 4-:ir ]Z r4 Y.U4
•
Phase 4n a Phase Two Total Cost
Local Government Population- Cost Allocation Cost Allocation Allocation
Baytown rwp. 900 $ 3,240.00 $ 6,480.00 $ 9,720.00
Bayport 2100 7,560.00� 15,120.00 22,680.00
Oak Park Heights 3111 11,200.00 22,400.00 33,600.00
Total Coat $22,000.00 $44,000.00 $66,000.00
BAYPORT FUNDING
The 1993 Proposed Budget does not have any expenditure utuney
identified for a Tri City Consolidation Study. Consequently, if
the City were to authorize the Tri City Consolidation Study, we
would need to take expenditure allocations from other areas of the
budget to fund the Study. Bayport' s total cost allocation for
Phase One and Phase Two of the Study is $22, 680 . 00. Given the
constraints of the 1993 Budget, I would' rec:unwtwnd that the City
only authorize Phase One of the Study for 1993. If the Cities
decide to go ahead with Phase Two, I would recommend that, that
Study be initiated in 1994 and that the 1994 Budget identify an
expenditure to cover the Study cost.
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL PLANNING ASSISTANCE LOAN
.1 have been in contact with Sharon _Klump, Executive Director
of the Metropolitan Council. Sharon has indicated, the
Metropolitan Council has a Planning Assistance Loan Program .
available to cities conducting consolidation studies. She noted,
the Program makes available a loan for 75% of the cost of
conducting such a Study. The loan is interest free and is paid
back over a three year period. If we were to secure the loan in
1993, we would begin paying back the loan in 1994, with the final
payment due in 1996.
Sharon Klump has indicated, the application should be
completed by one local government unit. She indicated that the Met
Council prefers this arrangement because initiating a loan
application, with three separate local government units, creates a
paperwork nightmare. If we are successful in obtaining the loan,
the loan would be made directly to the local government unit which
made the application. The local government receiving the loan,
would then be responsible for making all payments to Springstad and
Tautges, Redpath for services rendered on the Tri City Study.
Baytown, Bayport and Oak Park Heights would need to work out an
agreement to reimburse the local government which received the loan
j,. , and paid for the Study.
. •
WAN APPLICATION PROCESS
Oak Park Heights has indicated, they are willing to have Bob
Veto, complete the Metropolitan Council Planning Assistance Loan
Application for Oak Park Heights on behalf of Baytown, Bayport and
Oak Park Heights. If Oak Park Heights is successful in obtaining
the loan, it would mean they would responsible for paying all bills
associated with the Study. Consequently, Baytown, Bayport and Oak
Park Heights would need to reach an agreement as to how Oak Park
Heights would be reimbursed for the Study expenses.
COUNCIL ACTION
At tonight's meeting the Council will need to make a decision
regarding:
1 . Whether or not to proceed with the Tri City Consolidation
Study.
2. If. the Counc.i.l.. deci.dRs to proceed with the Consolidation
Study, the Council would need to authorize Springstad.
Inc. and Tautges, Redpath, Ltd. , to proceed with Phase
OnA e,f the Tri City Consolidation Study.
3. If the Council is interested in securing a Metropolitan
Council Planning Assistance Loan, the Council would also
need to authorize Oak Park Heights prepare the loan
application on behalf of the City of Bayport.
RECOMMENDATION
Since this is ` a policy decision, I do not have a
recommendation regarding how the Council should proceed in this
area. My only recommendation is the Council give staff 3pccific
direction as to how we are to proceed on this issue.
Respe tfu ly submitted,
/7 711077'
enneth H. Hartung
Clerk/Administrator
t)EC-15-1992 15:2 FROM CI TO BH`r'PORT TO • 4390574 P.06
CITY Or BAYPORT
294 No.3rd Street
BAYPORT, MINNESOTA 56003
Council Meets the First Monday
of Each Month. 7:00 P.M.
6121439.2$30
December 11, 1992
Barbara O'Neal, Mayor
6213 St. Croix Trail No.
Stillwater, M24 55082
Dear Ms. O'Neal:
The Bayport City Council at its December 7, 1992, meeting
voted to approve proceeding with Phase One of the Consolidation
Study and to fund Bayport's share of the $22,000.00 Study, at
$7, 560. 00.
Additionally, they authorized me to proceed with constructing
a contract between Springstad, Inc. and Tautges, Redpath, Ltd. , to
provide consolidation services. I see this contract as a joint
contract between Baytown, Oak Park Heights and the City of Bayport,
therefore, it will be necessary for me to meet with representatives
of Baytown, Oak Park Heights and Springstad, Inc. and Tautges,
Redpath, Ltd. , so that we can all agree on basic language for the
contract.
Finally, the City Council authorized Oak Park Heights to
prepare a loan application for Phase One and Phase Two of the
Consolidation Study on behalf of the City of Bayport.
l have enclosed, for your review, a copy of the December 7,
1992 Bayport City Council minutes, authorizing the Study along with
a copy of the guidelines and loan application for the Planning
Assistance Loan.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience to indicate how
you would like to proceed on this issue.
Sinc ,
•
enneth I. Hartung
City Administrator
Enc. (2)
DEC-15-1992 15:23 FROM CITr OF BAYPORT TO 4390574 P.07
• .
( Bayport City Council Minutes
December 7, 1992
Tri-City Consolidation Study Approval
Mayor Schultz indicated, local governments of Oak Park
Heights, Bayport and Baytown Township have been meeting for a
number of months on strategies to consider a possible consolidation
of local yoveLxunent operations and services. On November 19, 1992,
she indicated, the Tri-City Consolidation Committee met to hear a
proposal from Springstad, Inc. and Tautges, Redpath, Ltd. ,
regarding the cost and phasing of a Consolidation Study. She noted
the presentation made by Springstad, Inc. and Tautges, Redpath,
Ltd. , broke the study into two separate phases. She indicated
Phase One would cost approximately $20, 000 - $22, 000.00. She
noted, Phase Two of the study is estimated to cost $40, 000 -
$44, 000.00. She indicated, tonight the Council needs to make a
decision related to this issue regarding:
1. Whether to proceed with the Tri-City Consolidation
study, specifically with Phase One.
2. If the Council decides to proceed with the
Consolidation Study, the Council will need to
authorize the Administrator to work with
Springstad, Inc. and Tautges, Redpath, Ltd. , to
proceed with contract construction.
3. The Council would also need to authorize Oak Park
Heights to prepare a loan application for the Met
Council Planning Assistance Loan on behalf of the
City of Bayport.
Councilmember White indicated, he sees Consolidation Study as
being an effective vehicle to look at consolidating local
government services.
Motion by Member Newell, seconded by Member White to:
1 . Authorize proceeding with the Tri-City
Consolidation Study Phase One for a total cost of
$22 , 000 .00 of which the City of Bayport's share
will be $7,560.00.
2. To authorize the City Administrator to proceed with
constructing a contract between Springstad, Inc.
and Tautges, Redpath, Ltd. , to provide
consolidation study services.
3. To authorize Oak Park Heights to prepare a loan
application for Phases One and Two of the
13
I.0 4 L11 i Lr ZHrrU I IU Y.0 i
410
Bsycort City Council Minutes
December 7, 1992
Consolidation Study on the behalf of the City of
Bayport to the Metropolitan Council to secure a Met
Council Planning Assistance Loan.
Voting in favor: Beedle, Newell, White and Schultz.
Voting against: Hering.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S BUSINESS
Ken Hartung, City Administrator, reminded the Council of a
Special Council Meeting on December 28, 1992 to approve the end of
the year bills. He also indicated the Council has scheduled a
Workshop immediately following the Special Meeting to discuss
liaison and commission appointments for 1993.
ADJOURNMENT •
Motion by Member Newell, seconded by Member White to adjourn
the City Council Meeting of December 7, 1992.
Voting in favor: Newell, Beedle, Hering, White and Schultz.
Voting against: None.
The City Council Meeting wds adjourned at 10:32 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Kenneth H. Hartung
City/Administrator
14
LA _: /t-c t_Y('L\ 14k:uytt;
APPENDIX A
1991-1993 APPLICATION FOR
LOCAL PLANNING ASSISTANCE LOAN
1. Name of Community: Cities of Falcon Heights and Roseville.
2 . Name of Falcon Heights Contact Person: Janet R. Wiessner
Address: 2077 W. Larpenteur Avenue
Falcon Heights, MN 55113
Telephone: (612) 644-5050
Name of Roseville Contact Person: Steven R. Sarkozy,
Ili Address: 2660
Civic Center Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
Telephone: (612) 490-2202
3 . Description of Proposed Project
The cities of Falcon Heights and Roseville, originally part of
Rose Township, were incorporated as separate communities in the
late 1940 ' s. Both communities are fully developed, with
histories of preparing well for the future. The Metropolitan
Council's "Development and Investment Framework" describes fully
developed areas as:
"The fully developed area has a very large proportion of
the region's total investment in housing, streets and
highways, public utilities and parks, and contains the
most fully developed systems for the Y h delivery
andgovernmental „ li ery of social
g ntal services.
The cities of Roseville and Falcon Heights are
g prime examples of
areas of extensive investment in systems for the delivery of
services. Both communities recognize that the management of
resources in the delivery of services deserves the most compre-
hensive and competent of reviews.
The Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act begins "the Legislature
finds and declares that the local governmental units within the
metropolitan area are interdependent . . " This interdependency,
the extraordinary changes in the financing of city government,
and the increasing expectations of the citizenry have prompted
Falcon Heights and nd Roseville to closely assess how the existing
resources can best be managed.
The City Councils have had three joint meetings during the past
eight months, to probe the ossibilit'es
P i of cooperation tion in the
delivery of services. These discussions followed the implementa-
tion, in January, 1990, of an agreement for Roseville to provide
police service for Falcon Heights. The police service has been a
successful, endeavor, providing decreased costs for Falcon Heights
and increased service levels for Roseville.
•
• • _
The cities are in the process of retaining a consultant to con-
duct a "Study of Opportunities for Cooperation. " The 7
ro 'ect
will include:
P
o Historical background and influences,
o Demographic comparison,
o Service improvement and cost reduction assessment,
o Policy assessment.
The identification of service improvement and cost reduction
opportunities, including the potential benefits of merger, are
the major focus of this project. The increased efficiency and
effectiveness created by service improvements and cost reductions
directly relate to both cities' Comprehensive Plans, particularly
in the area of community facilities. There could be impacts on
parks, fire stations, city halls, and maintenance facilities.
Roseville and Falcon Heights are but two of the communities faced
with tough decisions in the future months and years. The
information garnered from this project should enable not only
Roseville and Falcon Heights to make knowledgeable decisions on
the use of resources in future years, but could also be of
value to the Metropolitan Council and other communities.
4 . Relationship of Proposed Project to Funding Criteria
(,
The proposed project relates to Criteria No. 1 by fulfilling the
expectations of the Development and Investment Framework as
described above.
The project also relates to Criteria No. 7. Roseville and Falcon
Heights have made numerous attempts to obtain grants to assist in
the funding of the project. Although various agencies and foun-
dations have expressed great interest in the study, unfortunately
no monies are available.
5. Work Program
See Attachment 1.
6 . Completion Date
Estimated completed date of the work program: September 30, 1991.
7. Other Financial Assistance
The remaining costs of the project will be funded by the cities
of Falcon Heights and Roseville.
8 . Loan Requested
$38, 100.
9. Resolutions, adopted by Falcon Heights and Roseville,
authorizing this application are attached.
' • •
ATTACHMENT 1
5. Work Program
TASK COST
Identify the issues and priorities Consultant
of each city. $5, 300
Historical background and influences City Staff
$1, 950
Demographic Comparison City Staff
o Population $3, 900
o Housing
o Income
o Employment
o Land Use
Service Improvement and Cost Reduction Consultant City Staff
Opportunities $26,000 $11,700
Service Areas
o Police
o Fire
o Public Works
o Administration
o Parks and Recreation
o Community Development
Financial Analysis
o Revenue Sources
o Expenditures
o Bond Ratings
o Tax Capacity
o Assets/Liabilities
o Infrastructure Investments/Needs
o Financial Trends
Policy Assessment City Staff
o Review of City Ordinances, policies, $ 1. 950
and procedures
TOTAL COST $50,800
• 111
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
* * * * * * *
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota was duly
held on the 25th day of February, 1991, at 7:30 p.m.
The o
e f Ilowing members were present: Thomas, Cushman, Johnson, Maschka,
and Rog, and the following were absent: None.
Member Cushman introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 8657
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION
TO THE METROPOLITAN COIINCIL
WHEREAS, the City of Roseville desires to join with the City of Falcon
Heights in a study of Opportunities for Cooperation; and
WHEREAS, the study is estimated to cost $50,800; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council offers local planning assistance
loans for such projects; : ~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Manager be authorized to
submit an application to the Metropolitan Council for a $38, 100 three
year loan which is 75 percent of the estimated cost.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by Member Johnson, and upon a vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof: Thomas, Cushman, Johnson, Maschka,
and Rog, and the following voted against the same: None.
WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
STATE OF MINNB&OP 3 -
__) SS
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City
of Roseville, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify
that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of
minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 25th day
of February, 1991, with the original thereof on file in my office.
WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 26th day of February,
1991.
Steven R. Sar zy, City anager
SEAL
• •
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
1991-1993 LOCAL
-.PLANNING ASSISTANCE
LOAN GUIDELINES
December 1990
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Mears Park Centre, 230 E. 5th St., St. Paul, MN 55101
Publication No. 620-90-181
4110 •
CONTENTS
Pare
Purpose 1
Authority i
Scope 1
Definitions 1
Fundin g Criteria
Eligibility for 1991-1993 Loans 4
Maximum Amount of Loan 4
Term of Loan 4
Submission of Loan Applications 4
Evaluation of Applications 4
Award of Loans 5
Participation by Women/Minority/Disadvantaged Business Enterprises 6
Execution of Contract 6
Amendment of Contract 7
Disagreements 7
Council Assistance 7
Notification 7
Term of Loan Program 7
Effective Date of Guidelines 7
APPENDICES
A. 1991-1993 Application S
• •
1991-1993 LOCAL PLANNING ASSISTANCE LOAN GUIDELINES
-
PURPOSE
The purpose of the loan program is to assist local governmental units in the Metropolitan Area in
conducting activities related to implementation of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. The loan
guidelines address the initiation, approval, drafting and execution of loans under the Act.
AUTHORITY
The Metropolitan Council is authorized to prepare and adopt guidelines establishing uniform
procedures for the award and disbursement of planning assistance loans under Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 473.854 and 473.867.
SCOPE
These guidelines govern the Council's administration and disbursement of planning assistance loans
funded by Minnesota Laws 1981, Chapter 356, Section 30.
DEFINITIONS
1. Available financial resources - resources available to a local governmental unit, including
revenues potentially available to a local unit through the local tax levy and revenues from
state or federal grant programs, for planning activities to resolve comprehensive plan-related
issues identified in the loan application.
2. Consultant - a qualified professional not a member of a local unit's staff, including but not
limited to planners, landscape architects, engineers and attorneys.
3. Executive Director - the,Council employee with that title or the chair-appointed employee
who performs the position's duties in the case of a vacancy.
4. Land Use Advisory Committee (LUAC) - the advisory committee established pursuant to
MSA 473.853 or the Metropolitan Loan Planning Act.
5. Loan - a subsidy of public temporary ublic funds on a tem ora basis not to exceed three years offered by
the Metropolitan Council to a local unit to aid in planning undertaken in accordance with
these guidelines.
6. Loan agreement - the contract negotiated between the Metropolitan Council and the local
unit for loan funds awarded in accordance with these guidelines.
7. Loan manager-the Council employee responsible for management and administration of the
Planning Assistance Loan Program.
8. Local governmental unit or local unit- any city,county or township lying in whole or in part
within the Metropolitan Area.
• •
9. Local share - the portion of a local unit's work program that is not eligible for Council
funding and will not be paid with other financial assistance.
10. Management Committee - The Council committee responsible for general internal
management of the organization,including Council investments and grants administration and
contract matters.
11. Metropolitan Area - the seven-county Metropolitan Area comprised of the counties of
Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Scott, Ramsey and Washington.
12. Metropolitan Council or Council - the administrative agency created by Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 473, for the purpose of coordinating the planning and development of the
Metropolitan Area.
13. Metropolitan Development Guide - the Council's major policy document on growth and
development for the region. The chapters provide direction to various Council programs and
the activities of other governmental units and the private sector.
14. Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework Chapter of the Metropolitan
Council's Metropolitan Development Guide-the Council's plan for guiding development and
change in seven-county region. The framework establishes guidelines for the policy plans for
metropolitan sewers, transportation, airports and parks systems; for the other chapters
contained, in the development guide; and for making investments in metropolitan facilities.
15. Metropolitan Land Planning Act - Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.851 - 473.872.
16. Metropolitan system plans - the aviation, transportation and wastewater treatment and
handling chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide and the policy plans, development
programs and capital budgets for metropolitan waste control, the Regional Transit Board and
regional recreation open space.
17. Official controls - ordinances and regulations prepared and adopted by the local unit after
the adoption of its comprehensive plan pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 473.175 and 473.176.
Official controls include zoning ordinances,subdivision controls,site plan regulations,official
maps and interim ordinances.
18. Other financial assistance - state or federal funds obtained from another grant program,
including but not limited to critical area grants, Department of Housing and Urban
Development grants, Community Development Block Grants and Farmers Home
Administration grants, that will be used to pay for the cost of a portion of the work program.
19. Staff - an employee of a local unit whose activities ar directly attributable to the work
program, excluding appointed or elected members of boards or commissions.
20. Total cost of work program -the total cost of carrying out the local governmental unit's work
program including:
-2-
•
a. The estimated amount to be paid for consultant services or the cash equivalent for
the services of staff (such as planning, attorney, engineer, clerk) employed by the
local governmental unit to carry out the work program. Per diem payments to
appointed or elected members of boards or commissions are not eligible costs.
b. Other costs associated with the work program, such as Iocal travel, overhead,rental
of space and equipment,purchase of supplies,printing and publishing. The purchase
of equipment, space, land or buildings is not an eligible cost.
c. The cost of activities that are part of the work program that will be paid with funds
obtained through contractual arrangements with other local governmental units, or
with the state or federal government.
21. Work program - a description and estimated cost of the projected effort needed in order to
address the comprehensive plan-related issue or matter identified in the loan application.
FUNDING CRITERIA
Loans will be awarded based on a local unit's demonstration of the following:
1. Need to resolve an issue or matter relating to a local comprehensive plan and involving
Metropolitan Development Guide policies,or resulting from a Council policy plan amendment,
a local plan amendment or other Council actions.
2. Intent to resolve an issue or matter regarding densities that are inconsistent with Council
policies in the Metropolitan Development Guide.
3. Intent to resolve an issue or matter regarding on-site or central sewer system management
when the solution would be consistent with Metropolitan Development Guide policies.
4. Need to resolve an issue or matter related to continuing preservation of a local unit's
agricultural land.
5. Need to resolve an issue or matter related to water resource management.
6. Intent to resolve inconsistencies with regional housing policies in the housing element of the
local unit's adopted comprehensive plan.
7. Unavailability of other assistance in handling the issue or matter.
ELIGIBILITY FOR 1991-1993 LOANS
A local unit is eligible to apply for a 1991-1993 loan if it has a locally approved comprehensive plan
and ordinances to enforce the plan on file at the Metropolitan Council.
-3-
•
. _ MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF LOAN
A local unit may apply for a loan of up to 75 percent of an eligible project's cost.
TERM OF LOAN
Loans will be interest-free and for a term not to exceed three years.
SUBMISSION OF LOAN APPLICATIONS
A local governmental unit will submit an application to the Metropolitan Council (see Appendix A),
along with the required non-refundable filing fee. For loan amounts of$15,000 or less, the fee will
be $100.00. For loan amounts over $15,000, the fee will be $150.00.
EVALUATION OF APPLICATIONS
Each application will be evaluated to ensure that it is satisfactory in the following respects:
1. The local governmental unit is eligible for the loan requested.
2. The proposed activities to be funded are eligible activities.
a cost 3. The planning costs to be funded by the loan do not exceed 75 percent of the total co of the
work program.
4. The local governmental unit's comprehensive plan is consistent with the Metropolitan
Development and Investment Framework, or the loan money being requested will be used to
help a local governmental unit make its comprehensive plan consistent with the framework.
5. Priority will be given to projects addressing system-related planning issues.
6. The application is complete.
7. The information contained in the application is sufficient for the Council to fulfill its legal
requirements under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. The Council may require any
additional information necessary for it to fulfill these requirements.
For all loans, staff will evaluate the application, determine eligibility and recommend approval to the
Management Committee. The Committee will recommend approval to the full Council. In all cases,
the council will make the final determination as to award of a loan.
In the event that a number of loan applications are submitted simultaneously and there is competition
for loan funds, the Management Committee may request that the LUAC consider the loan
applications and forward a recommendation to them prior to the Committee issuing its
recommendation.
-4-
• •
AWARD OF LOANS
TIMING
Loans will be awarded by the Council throughout the year following evaluation of an application as
satisfactory per the Evaluation of Applications section.
CONTRACTS
1. General. All loans will be awarded by contract between the Council and the local unit.
2. Contents. Contracts will contain the following:
a. A scope of work section containing:
1) The total work program contained in the application and the estimated
completion date.
2) The funded portion of the work program in which the loan recipient will
specify the major task(s) to be funded with the loan award and the completion
date(s) for those major task(s).
b. Assurances by the loan recipient that the loan award will not exceed 75 percent of
the total cost of the work program.
c. Assurances that the scope of work will be satisfactorily carried out.
3. Release of Funds. The Council will release funds based on a payout schedule negotiated with
the community.
4. Repayment Schedule. The repayment schedule will be negotiated between the Council and
the local unit and will be stipulated in the loan contract. A penalty fee of 10 percent of the
amount due on a particular date will be assessed in the case of late payment. This fee will
be levied 10 calendar days after the due date.
5. Progress Reports. Each local unit that has entered into a loan agreement with the Council
is required to submit a mid-point progress report and a final progress report.
a. Mid-point Progress Report. The timing and content of this report will be negotiated
with each local unit based on the length of the proposed project and the loan period.
The report may contain a short description of the utilization of loan funds to date,
projected future planning expenses, and any anticipated problems in meeting
completion dates.
b. Final Progress Report. After all activities in the loan agreement are completed, the
local unit will prepare and submit to the Council a final progress report, which will
be evaluated to determine the following:
-5-
• •
1) That the planning costs funded by the loan did not exceed 75 percent of the
total cost of the work program.
2) That the scope of the work was completed.
3) That the terms of-the loan were met.
6. Use of Funds. To carry out activities specified in the work program, loan funds may be used:
a. Pay existing staff.
b. Hire new staff.
c. Employ a qualified consultant.
d. Pay other costs attributable to the work program such as overhead, rental of space
and equipment, purchase of supplies and printing and publishing.
7. Records. The loan recipient will maintain a separate control account for loan funds received,
and will maintain accurate and complete accounts and records relating to the receipt and
expenditure of any and all loan funds. Such records will be maintained for auditing purposes
for at least three years following final loan payment. The Council will be afforded reasonable
access to the records for auditing purposes during business hours.
PARTICIPATION BY WOMEN/MINORITY/D
ISADVANTAGED BUSINESS
ENTERPRISES
ed to take affirmative action to utilize
Loan recipients and their contractors are encoura o f
P g
women/minority/disadvantaged businesses in their assisted planning activities.
EXECUTION OF CONTRACT
Following approval by the Council, the Executive Director is authorized to sign the loan contract.
AMENDMENT OF CONTRACT
Any contract amendment pertaining to a change in the loan amount or a change in the repayment
schedule must be approved by the Management Committee, which will make its recommendations
regarding the matter to the Council.
DISAGREEMENTS •
If the applicant does not agree with the Council regarding the awards of loans, it may request a
hearing of the Management Committee, which will make its recommendations regarding the matter
to the Council.
-6-
• •
COUNCIL ASSISTANCE
Staff from the Council will-be available to assist local units in the preparation of applications.
NOTIFICATION
All local units will be individually notified as to the application guidelines within 60 days of the
effective date of these guidelines.
TERM OF LOAN PROGRAM
The loan program will be in effect for a minimum of three years. After each three-year loan period,
the program will be evaluated and a determination will be made by the Metropolitan Council as to
whether the loan program should be continued.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF GUIDELINES
These guidelines will become effective immediately after their adoption by the Council.
•
tip +
1-45.90
-7-
• . •
APPENDIX A
19914993 APPLICATION FOR
LOCAL PLANNING ASSISTANCE LOAN
1. Name of Community
2. Name of Local Contact Person
Address
Telephone
3. Description of Proposed Project
4. Relationship of Proposed Project to Funding Criteria (refer to Funding Criteria, page 3 in
the guidelines)
5. Work Proeram
Outline on a separate sheet the major tasks that must be undertaken to complete the
proposed project and the costs for each task.
6. Completion Date
Estimated completed date of the work program
-8-
•
7. Other Financial Assistance
List amounts and sources of financial assistance other than this loan program that will be
used toward work program costs._
8. Loan Requested
a
Note: Total loan amount may not exceed 75 percent of the total cost of the work program.
9. Attach a copy of the resolution by the governing body transmitting this application.
Please submit to:
Tori Flood
Metropolitan Council, Mears Park Centre,
230 E. 5th St., St. Paul, MN 55101
Tel. (612) 291-6621
A filing fee must accompany this application. The fee is$100.00 for loan amounts of$15,000 or less.
For loan amounts over $15,000, the fee is $150.00. The filing fee is non-refundable.
125.90
-9-