Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 08-21 CCPCITY OF GEM LAKE, MN Public Hearing Agenda - Annual NPDES Hearing August 21, 2007 CALL TO ORDER - By Mayor Emeott at PM CALL OF ROLL OF CITY COUNCIL Emeott, Artig-Swomley, Rasmussen, Schilling, Watson OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE (Attach list) PUBLIC NOTICE OF THIS HEARING Legal Publication: Published in 15 August 2007 White Bear Press Direct Mail Notification: Not Required STATEMENT OF NEED AND INTENT Need The purpose of this Public Hearing is to report to the public on Minimum Control Measures (MCM's) and Best Management Practices (BMP's) employed by the City on behalf of it's citizens and businesses to work toward elimination of pollution in storm water discharges into impaired water called the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program- abbreviated as SWPPP) Intent To report on efforts already implemented and receive comments or recommendations from the public on alternative efforts and concerns which may be incorporated in the BMP's defined in the SWPPP for management of the City's Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Phase II permit. PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA Overview of Law and explanation of storm water flow in City of Gem Lake Report of Activity — BMP's employed as part of the City's SWPPP in accordance with the law Public Education and Outreach Public Involvement & Participation Illicit Discharge detection elimination Construction site storm water controls Post construction storm water controls Pollution prevention / Good housekeeping for Municipal operation Report of 2007 plans — BMP's to be employed and incorporated into the City's SWPPP PUBLIC COMMENTS Report of written public comments received — None to date Public Comment from those present ADJORNMENT LEGEND OF TERMS USED IN THIS HEARING NPDES — Nation al Pollution Discharge Elimination System MCM — Minimum Control Measures BMP — Best Management Practice SWPPP — Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program MS4 - Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System CITY OF GEM LAKE, MN City Council Agenda August 21, 2007 CALL TO ORDER - By Mayor Emeott at PM CALL OF ROLL Emeott, Artig-Swomley, Rasmussen, Schilling, Watson OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE (Attach list) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AND AGENDA A) Minutes of City Council meeting of July, 2007 B) City Council Agenda for this meeting PUBLIC NOTICES US Census — 2010 (someone interested in volunteering as city contact) (identify new residents, new roads, new houses, new street addresses) PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR 15 minutes maximum allowed for this part of meeting COMMITTEE REPORTS Planning Commission report — (Accept report) Building Committee progress report (City Hall) — Craig Rafferty or alternate NEW BUSINESS A) City 2008 Budget — Preliminary levy amount (Deadline Sept 15, 2007) B) Resolution 2007- 11 Certify PRELIMINARY city levy for 2008 C) Approval of payment of claims for July -Aug 2007 D) RFP (request for proposal) — City Financial Audit process for next 5 years - Send out ? E) City Hall value engineering change order for a $34,581.00 credit - Accept ? F) City Hall Building financial report — amount spent to date $ 289.985.67 G) Approval on small City Hall expenses — alarms & low voltage wiring H) VLAWMO proposed joint powers agreement (JPA) amendment - OLD BUSINESS A) Gem Lake 2006 SWPP and MS4 report — Chuck Watson FUTURE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS Next City Council workshop Monday Sept 3, 2007 7 PM (Labor Day Holiday) or Other time Next City Council meeting — Tuesday, Sept 18, 2007 7 PM or Other time ADJORNMENT CITY OF GEM LAKE 4707 Hwy 61 #253 White Bear Lake, MN 55110-3227 Minutes of Gem Lake City Council Meeting 21 August 2007 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Gem Lake was called to order by Mayor Emeott on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 7:15 pm in the first floor meeting room of Tousley Ford. Mayor Emeott, Councilors Rasmussen, Schilling, Artig-Swomley, and Watson were present. Also present was City Attorney Trevor Oliver. Other members of the public were also in attendance per the sign in sheet sent around the room. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND MEETING MINUTES Minutes of City Council meeting of July 2007: Minutes from the July 2007 City Council meeting were discussed. Councilor Artig-Swomley stated that she intended the topic of when in the meetings to include the presentations from the floor to include all meetings, not just at the City Council Workshops. Council discussed leaving the minutes as they are, but to include this as a New Business topic on the agenda. Motion by Rasmussen, Second by Schilling to approve July 2007 minutes was unanimously approved. City Council Agenda for this meeting: Mayor Emeott called for additions, deletions and corrections to the agenda. Changes were made to the agenda as follows: 1) Under New Business, B) The resolution should read Resolution 2007-11.2) Under New Business, add I) Discussion of when in all City meetings to put the section on Presentations from the Floor. Motion by Watson, Second by Artig-Swomley to approve agenda with additions was unanimously approved. PUBLIC NOTICES Mayor Emeott announced he is looking for a volunteer to be the city contact for the 2010 US Census. The tasks include identifying new residents, new roads, new houses, and new street addresses. The Council recommended asking Jim Lindner. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Bob Uzpen stated that he has asked the council to provide to attendees during meetings a copy of all documents discussed, and that his request has been denied. Mayor Emeott reminded attendees that anyone can request to be included in the mailing list for documents sent out to the Councilors and can print their own copies to bring to meetings. Uzpen went on to state that under Statute 13D:Oi=, the council must provide a minimum of one copy of all documents to attendees to review during the council meeting. Councilor Watson suggested that an addition to the agenda, under New Business address this issue. Topic is added to the agenda for further discussion. COMMITTEE REPORTS Planning Commission report: Jim Lindner was not present. Mayor Emeott and the Council stated concern that the Planning Commission report endorsed incorporating the City Planner recommendation for zoning in the Tom Hanson parcel which is in direct conflict with the City Zoning Ordinance for density. Motion by Schilling to Reject the Planning Commission report because of this inconsistency, Seconded by Artig-Swomley. The report was unanimously rejected by the Council. Building Committee (City Hall) report: Mayor Emeott reported that work continues on the new City Hall. The schedule is about two week behind because of incorrect window dimensions. Look for us on the World Wide Web at gemlakemn.org NEW BUSINESS A) City 2008 Budget -Preliminary levy amount - Tom Kelly: Tom Kelly presented to the council a recommended preliminary levy amount for the 2008 budget. This proposal includes $384,148 for the Tax Levy and $53,900 for the Bond Levy for a total preliminary City budget of $438,048. The amount that the council votes on tonight will be a cap or maximum dollar amount that can be levied in 2008. The line items amounts can change, but the total amount levied can not exceed this amount. The Council stated that it is their intent to lower the actual 2008 budget as low as is feasible as they continue to work on the 2008 budget. B) Resolution 2007-11 Certify Preliminary levy for 2008: Motion by Schilling, Seconded by Artig-Swomley to set a 2008 budget preliminary levy amount of $438,048 was unanimously approved by voice vote. C) Approval of payment of claims for July -August 2007: Motion by Watson, Seconded by Rasmussen for approval of payment of claims for July -August 2007 was unanimously approved by voice vote. D) Request for Proposal (RFP) suggested for City Financial Audit - Tom Kelly: Mr. Kelly recommended to the Council that a request for proposal (RFP) for gap auditing services be put out for bid. Because of the small size of the city, only a cash audit is currently being performed. Our bond issuance states the city needs a gap audit. This RFP will allow for bidding by various vendors for a 3-5 year contract for gap auditing services. After receipt of bids, all may still be rejected and a cash audit continued if the Council so decides. Motion by Schilling, Seconded by Rasmussen for a RFP was unanimously approved by voice vote. E) City Hall Value Engineering Change Order Credit for $34,581: Mayor Emeott stated because of choosing an alternative window instead of the Pella brand and by asking the VFW to put up a flag pole for the city, a change order credit could be receive by the city. Motion by Schilling, Seconded by Artig-Swomley to accept a change order credit for $34,581, unanimously approved by voice vote. F) City Hall Building Financial Report: The City has spent $289,985.67 to date on the new City Hall Building. Because some of the bills have not been itemized, additional audits are planned to determine if all of the expenses should have been billed to Gem Lake or if any belong to White Bear Township. G) Approval for small City Hall expenses —alarms and low voltage wiring: Mayor Emeott stated that alarms and low voltage wiring for phones and data will need to be installed in the City Hall building within the next week. These items are not included in the contractors bid. Discussion occurred around trying to plan ahead for more of these types of items should be done so that it can be determined if bids should be taken. Motion by Schilling, Seconded by Watson to go ahead and sign contracts for alarm installation and low voltage wiring was unanimously approved by voice vote. H) VLAWMO proposed joint powers agreement amendment: Mayor Emeott reviewed VLAWMOs proposed joint powers agreement amendment to bill residents and businesses for storm water utility based on the size of the property and the amount of water that it is anticipated they will contribute, instead of at a flat rate. This is intended to get residents and businesses to look at how they can minimize their storm water generation. Motion by Watson, Seconded by Rasmussen to support VLAWMO joint powers agreement amendment was unanimously approved. Discussion continued about how the city can bill this to residents. It can be done during the first quarter of the year with the first water/sewer bill. Those that do not have water/sewer are billed at the beginning of the year in a separate billing. Further discussion on this topic is proposed. I) Agenda order for "Presentations from the floor" - After discussion, Councilors decided that 10 minutes will be included at the beginning of the agenda and 5 minutes at the end will be left for "Presentations from the floor". This will allow residents to provide agenda items and discussion up front, and also provide some time for discussion or reflection on the topics discussed during the meeting. Look for us on the World Wide Web at gemlakemn.org J) Providing a copy of handouts to attendees - Councilor Rasmussen volunteered to make one extra copy of all handouts to each city council meeting for attendees to review. OLD BUSINESS A) Gem Lake 2006 SWPP and MS4 report — Chuck Watson: Council Watson stated that from all the work he has done on the 2006 SWPP and MS4 report, that the biggest deficiency he sees is lack of understanding about what this is all about and how residents and business can impact it. The city needs to start educating residents and the planning commission needs to be aware of the issues on how buildings can impact the water. Landscaping and roof surfaces can greatly impact water run off. Watson indicated he will be working with the council on an education plan on this topic. FUTURE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS: CANCELLED: Next City Council Workshop — Monday, September 3, 2007 at 7:00 p.m in the first floor meeting room of Tousley Ford has been cancelled due to the Labor Day Holiday. Next City Council Meeting — Tuesday, September 18, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the first floor meeting room of Tousley Ford. Suggestion made from the Council to review the rest of the City Council Workshops and Meeting dates for the year and reschedule them in advance when they conflict with holidays or schedules. Also suggestion by Watson to change the Gem Lake web site to say that to the best of our ability, the city will publish a one week notice of meeting cancellations or, if unable to do that because of publishing deadlines, a notice will be posted on the meeting room door. ADJOURN: The August 2007 regular meeting of the City Council was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. AUTHORIZED: August 28, 2007 APPROVED: September 18, 2007 ATTEST: Teresa Tice, Recording Secretary Certified Copy. ATTEST: 4 Paul R. Emeott, Mayor Look for us on the World Wide Web at gemlakemn.org Attendance List for Gem Lake City Council Meeting: August 21, 2007 Tom Kelly Teresa Tice Trevor Oliver Robert Uzpen Kim Anderson-Uzpen Jack Hoeschler Brian Hansen Christine Cammack Huck Cammack Past Finance Officer Secretary City Attorney Big Fox Road Big Fox Road Goose Lake Road County Road E. County Road E. Look for us on the World Wide Web at gemlakemn.org CITY OF GEM LAKE 4707 Hwy 61 # 253 White Bear Lake, MN 55110-3227 _ z— Telephone 651-747-2790 P.u.l Es�•eo� H,� PUBLIC NOTICE NO.2007-08 DATE: 23 July, 2007 FROM: Paul Emeott - Mayor TO: Press Publications, Legal Publications @ legals presspubs.com RE: Legal Notice To Be Published To Whom It May Concern, The following Legal (Public) Notice is to be published in the Legal Notices Sections of the 15 August edition of the White Bear Press. Please confirm receipt and verify content is in acceptable form for use. CITY OF GEM LAKE PUBLIC NOTICE NO.2007-08 ANNUAL MEETING STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM The Gem Lake City Council will hold a public meeting at 7:00 PM August 21, 2007, in the first floor meeting room of Tousley Ford located at 1493 East County Rd E. in the City of Gem lake to review its Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) for 2006. This public meeting will comply with the City's Phase II Storm Water Permit (#MN R0400000). The city will make a short presentation of the past years accomplishments and accept comments and concerns from the public. /s/ Paul Emeott Mayor of Gem Lake -� CITY OF GEM LAKE 4707 Hwy 61 #253 White Bear Lake, MN 55110-3227 - .�au�ii�ealt, ✓tfa� Minutes of Gem Lake Annual NPDES public hearing 21 August 2007 The August 2007 City of Gem Lake annual NPDES public hearing was called to order by Mayor Emeott on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 7:04 pm in the first floor meeting room of Tousley Ford. Mayor Emeott, Councilors Rasmussen, Schilling, Artig-Swomley, and Watson were present. Also present was City Attorney Trevor Oliver. Other members of the public were also in attendance per the sign in sheet sent around the room. Mayor Emeott reported the public notice for this meeting was published in the 15 August 207 White Bear Press. This meeting purpose is 1) to report on Minimum Control Measures and Best Management Practices (MCM) employed by the City on behalf of its citizens and businesses to eliminate pollution of storm water discharges into the Mississippi River and 2) to report on efforts already implemented and receive comments or recommendations from the public which may be incorporated into the City's Best Management Practices Program (BMP). Abbreviations were defined at the bottom of the agenda. Mayor Emeott explained that the City's Local Water Management Plan identifies where outflows of water exist from within the city. In summary, while the center part of the city's water flows into Gem Lake, the outlying portion of the city's water flows into the Mississippi River through various means. Councilor Watson briefly highlighted the recommended best management practices in the plan. These include Public Education and Outreach, Public Involvement and Participation, Illicit Discharge detection elimination, Construction site storm water controls, Post Construction storm water controls, and Pollution Prevention. He indicated that there were many areas regarding public education, involvement and participation that could be improved upon. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mayor Emeott reported no written public comments received. In addition, there was no public comment from those present. ADJOURN: The public hearing for the annual NPDES was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. AUTHORIZED: August 28, 2007 APPROVED: September 18, 2007 ATTEST: Teresa Tice, Recording Secretary Certified Copy ATTEST: Paul R. Emeott, Mayor CITY OF GEM LAKE, MN 4707 Hwy 61 # 253 _ White Bear Lake, MN 55110-3227 _ Z- Telephone 651-747-2790 Planning Commission Minutes, 8-7-2007 Planning Commission Chair Jim Lindner opened the June meeting at 7:OOPM. Commissioners Lindner, Craig Rafferty, and alternate member Beth Herzog were present. Also present were Councilwoman Gretchen Artig-Swomley, Bob Uzpen, Mr. and Mrs. Gardner, Mr. and Mrs. Cammack, Dick Arcand, Todd Kirschammer, Jack Hoeschler, Steve Herzog, and Mayor Paul Emeott. Comprehensive Plan The purpose of tonight's meeting was to test the waters on some of the more volatile issues. We briefly discussed land use and the possibility of Jim McNulty asking the city for rezoning or re -platting a portion of Hillary Far. But no formal discussions or applications have occurred. Then the conversation centered on Parks and Trails. Nearly everyone present is not sold on the need for a city park. If we did agree on a potential location, we learned the land will likely not be available. However, a trail network does appear to have wide popular appeal, especially if it incorporates existing roadways such as Goose Lake Road, Otter Lake Road, Scheuneman Road, and LaBore Road. The big challenge is linking east and west along County Road E, which currently has no bike path along the north side. This section is dominated by the Hansen parcels, and it is likely any development of these parcels would give the City the opportunity to require park dedication land which could be used as the linking trail. This would keep bicycle traffic off of County Road E and possibly include some berming and vegetative buffers. Cyclists could proceed to Big Fox Road and reconnect to LaBore via Little Fox Lane. The other challenging portion of the "Gem Lake Circuit" would be Highway 61 near Tousley Ford. Our Comprehensive Plan should state something that would have the City cooperate with the county for some type of bike path in the right-of- way that would allow cyclists to avoid Highway 61 on their journey to the Hansen parcels and points beyond. Discussions of private trails along easements or property lines amount to agreements between individuals and are not to be considered part of a formal trails network, and will NOT be included in the Comprehensive Plan. We then discussed in brief Mark Putman's planning presentation from the previous night's City Council workshop. For the comprehensive plan, the LDB concept may be considered for a future goal. The wording of such a goal should give the City maximum flexibility as it negotiates with a prospective developer so we might offer incentives to achieve goals such as our circuitous bicycle trail route. Along these lines we may want to build flexibility into our plan for Bryan Hansen's LDB parcel that may provide for medium density housing per the Metropolitan Council's definition of medium density housing. Again, the key word is flexibility with the intent to offer incentives for achieving other goals. Look for us on the World Wide Web at gemlakemn.org The final discussion topic involved adopting Mark Putman's plan into the comprehensive plan to give the comp plan the versatility and adoptability the Met Council will likely look for when approving plans. There being no further discussion of merit, the meeting adjourned at 8:56PM. Our next meeting will be rescheduled for Tuesday, September 4 at 7PM. Jim Lindner Planning Commission chair Look for us on the World Wide Web at gemlakermorg CITY OF GEM LAKE, MN 4707 Hwy 61 # 253 _ z— White Bear Lake, MN 55110-3227 _ z- Telephone 651-747-2790 IL/_, f Planning Commission Minutes, 8-7-2007 Planning Commission Chair Jim Lindner opened the June meeting at 7:OOPM. Commissioners Lindner, Craig Rafferty, and alternate member Beth Herzog were present. Also present were Councilwoman Gretchen Artig-Swomley, Bob Uzpen, Mr. and Mrs. Gardner, Mr. and Mrs. Cammack, Dick Arcand, Todd Kirschammer, Jack Hoeschler, Steve Herzog, and Mayor Paul Emeott. Comprehensive Plan The purpose of tonight's meeting was to test the waters on some of the more volatile issues. We briefly discussed land use and the possibility of Jim McNulty asking the city for rezoning or re -platting a portion of Hillary Far. But no formal discussions or applications have occurred. Then the conversation centered on Parks and Trails. Nearly everyone present is not sold on the need for a city park. If we did agree on a potential location, we learned the land will likely not be available. However, a trail network does appear to have wide popular appeal, especially if it incorporates existing roadways such as Goose Lake Road, Otter Lake Road, Scheuneman Road, and LaBore Road. The big challenge is linking east and west along County Road E, which currently has no bike path along the north side. This section is dominated by the Hansen parcels, and it is likely any development of these parcels would give the City the opportunity to require park dedication land which could be used as the linking trail. This would keep bicycle traffic off of County Road E and possibly include some berming and vegetative buffers. Cyclists could proceed to Big Fox Road and reconnect to LaBore via Little Fox Lane. The other challenging portion of the "Gem Lake Circuit" would be Highway 61 near Tousley Ford. Our Comprehensive Plan should state something that would have the City cooperate with the county for some type of bike path in the right-of- way that would allow cyclists to avoid Highway 61 on their journey to the Hansen parcels and points beyond. Discussions of private trails along easements or property lines amount to agreements between individuals and are not to be considered part of a formal trails network, and will NOT be included in the Comprehensive Plan. We isct` t� M in rie ark Putman's planning presentation from the previous nl ght's City Council workshop. The Tom Hansen parcel currently zoned for R1 may be considered for LDB with corresponding PUD, but for now it is likely best to leave it as is. For the comprehensive plan, the LDB concept may be considered for a future goal. Thg/ -wording of such a goal should give the City maximum flexibility as it negotiate lra prospec -i-v"ev er so we mi-lir offer-inseFa+ves-i goa s s cu h as our circuitous bicycle trail route. Along these lines we may want to build flexibility into our plan for Bryan Hansen's LDB parcel that may provide for medium density housing per the Metropolitan Council's definition of medium density housing. Again, the key word is flexibility with the intent to offer incentives for achieving other goals. Look for us on the World Wide Web at gemlakemn.org The final discussion topic involved adopting Mark Putman's plan into the comprehensive plan to give the comp plan the versatility and adoptability the Met Council will likely look for when approving plans. There being no further discussion of merit, the meeting adjourned at 8:56PM. Our next meeting will be rescheduled for Tuesday, September 4 at 7PM. Jim Lindner Planning Commission chair Look for us on the World Wide Web at gemlakermorg MEMORANDUM Date: July 5, 2007. To: City Council. From: Tom Kelly. Re: RFP for Audit Services. Attached is a draft for request for proposal for audit services for the City. Also attached is a list of possible audit firms to mail the RFP to and have governmental auditing experience. The action is to review and discuss RFP and if approved authorize sending out the RFP. Audit Firms The request for audit services could be sent to the following firms: Smith, Schafer & Associates, LTD 2035 E County Road D Suite A Maplewood, MN 55109 HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd 4810 White Bear Parkway White Bear Lake, MN 55110 Kern DeWenter Viere Ltd 200 Park Avenue South — Box 1304 St. Cloud, MN 56302 Abdo Eick & Meyers, LLP 5201 Eden Avenue - #370 Edina, MN 55436 KPMG, Public Accountant 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 MMKR & Company 5353 Wayzata Blvd. Suite 410 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Eide Bailly 5601 Green Valley Drive - #700 Bloomington, MN 55437 Larson Allen Weishair & Co. 200 South Sixth Street - #300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Deloitte & Touche 120 South Sixth Street - #400 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Virchow Krause & Co. 7900 Xerxes Avenue S - #2400 Minneapolis, MN 55431 All of these firms perform a number of local municipal audits within Minnesota, with the exception of Virchow Krause & Co which has a few Minnesota clients, but has a strong presence in Wisconsin. Smith, Schafer & Associates only has a few Minnesota municipalities, but is the City's current firm. CITY OF GEM LAKE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES August, 2007 Bill sort City Clerk City of Gem Lake 4707 Hwy 61 #253 White Bear Lake MN 55110-3227 (651) 747-2790 (651) 426-2258 Fax City@gemlakeMN.org CITY OF GEM LAKE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TABLE OF CONTENTS I. GENERAL INFORMATION (Page 3) A. Term of Engagement B. Subcontracting II. NATURE OF SERVICES REQUIRED (Page 3) A. General B. Scope of Work to be Performed C. Auditing Standards to be Followed D. Reports to be Issued E. Working Paper Retention and Access to Working Papers III. DESCRIPTION OF GOVERNMENT (Page 5) A. Principal Contacts B. Background Information C. Pension Plans D. Magnitude of Finance Operations IV. TIME REQUIREMENTS (Page 5) A. Proposal Calendar B. Schedule for 2007 Fiscal Year Audit V. ASSISTANCE TO BE PROVIDED TO THE AUDITOR - REPORT PREPERATION (Page 6) A. Finance Division Assistance B. Work Area, Telephone, Photocopying and FAX Machines C. Report Preparation VI. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS (Page 6) VII. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (Page 7) A. General Requirements B. Independence C. License to Practice in Minnesota D. Firm Qualifications and Experience E. Partner, Supervisory and Staff Qualifications and Experience F. Similar Engagements with Other Government Entities G. Specific Audit Approach Vill. DOLLAR COST PROPOSAL (Page 8) A. Total All -Inclusive Maximum Price IX. EVALUATION PROCEDURES (Page 9) A. Review of Proposal B. Evaluation Criteria C. Oral Presentation APPENDICES (Page 11) A. Proposer Guarantees B. Fee Schedule 2 CITY OF GEM LAKE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL I. GENERAL INFORMATION The City of St. Gem Lake is requesting proposals from qualified firms of certified public accountants to audit its financial statements for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2007, with the option of auditing its financial statement for each of the four subsequent fiscal years. These audits are to be performed in accordance with the generally accepted auditing standards and the standards for financial audits set forth in the U.S. General Accounting Office's (GAO) Government Auditing Standards (1988) and State Legal Compliance audit requirements. There is no expressed or implied obligation for the City of Gem Lake to reimburse responding forms for any expenses incurred in preparing proposals in response to this request. To be considered, six copies of a proposal must be received by Bill Short, City Clerk, at White Bear Township offices by 4:00 PM, September 5, 2007. The City of Gem Lake reserves the right to reject any or all proposals submitted. The City of Gem Lake reserves the right, where it may serve the City's best interest, to request additional information or clarifications from the proposers, or to allow corrections of errors or omissions. At the discretion of the City, firms submitting proposals may be requested to make oral presentations as part of the evaluation process. The City of Gem Lake reserves the right to retain all proposals submitted and to use any ideas in a proposal regardless of whether that proposal is selected. Submission of a proposal indicates acceptance by the firm of the conditions contained in this request for proposals, unless clearly and specifically noted in the proposal submitted and confirmed in the contract between the City of Gem Lake and the firm selected. A. Term of Engagement A five-year contract is contemplated, subject to the annual review by the Gem Lake City Council and the annual availability of an appropriation. B. Subcontracting No subcontracting will be allowed without the express prior written consent of the City of Gem Lake. II. NATURE OF SERVICES REQUIRED A. General The City of Gem Lake is soliciting the services of qualified firms of certified public accountants to audit its financial statements for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2007, with the option to audit the City's financial statements for each of the four subsequent fiscal years. The audit is to be performed in accordance with the provisions contained in this request for proposal. B. Scope of Work to be Performed The City of Gem Lake desires the auditor to express an opinion on the fair presentation of its general purpose financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. The auditor shall also be responsible for performing certain limited procedures involving required supplementary information required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) as mandated by generally accepted auditing standards. 3 The auditor shall complete all forms mandated to be sent in to the stat for reporting purposes. There is a possibility of additional auditing for cities in joint ventures and/or joint boards. This shall not be included in the base price. The City of Gem Lake will request these services at a later date, if deemed necessary. C. Auditing Standards to be Followed To meet the requirements of this request for proposal, the audit shall be performed in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards as set forth by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the standards for financial audits set forth in the US General Accounting Office's Government Auditing Standards (1994), the provisions of the Single Audit Act of 1996 and the provisions of US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133. D. Reports to be Issued Following the completion of the audit of the fiscal year's financial statements, the auditor shall issue: 1. A report on the fair presentation of the financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. 2. A report on compliance and on internal control over financial reporting based on an audit of financial statements performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards. 3. A report on compliance with applicable laws and regulations. In the required report(s) on internal controls, the auditor shall communicate any reportable conditions found during the audit. A reportable condition shall be defined as a significant deficiency in the design or operation of the internal control structure which could adversely affect the organization's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data consistent with the assertions of management in the financial statements. Reportable conditions that are also material weaknesses shall be identified as such in the report. Non -reportable conditions discovered by the auditors shall be reported in a separate letter to management which shall be referred to in the report(s) on internal controls. Auditors shall be required to make an immediate, written report of all irregularities and illegal acts or indications of illegal acts of which they become aware to the mayor of Gem Lake. Auditors shall assure themselves that the City of Gem Lake's City Council is informed of each of the following: 1. The auditor's responsibility under generally accepted auditing standards 2. Significant accounting policies 3. Managements judgments and accounting estimates 4. Significant audit adjustments 5. Other information in documents containing audited financial statements 6. Disagreements with management 7. Management consultation with other accountant 8. Major issues discussed with management prior to retention 9. Difficulties encountered in performing the audit E. Working Paper Retention and Access to Working Papers All working papers and reports must be retained, at the auditor's expense, for a minimum of three (3) years, unless the firm is notified in writing by the City of Gem Lake of the need to extend the retention period. The auditor will be required to make working papers available, upon request, to the following parties or their designees: 2 City of Gem Lake, State Auditor, US General Accounting Office (GAO), parties designated by the federal or state governments or by the City of Gem Lake as part of an audit quality review process. In addition, the firm shall respond to the reasonable inquiries of successor auditors and allow successor auditors to review working papers relating to matters of continuing accounting significance. III. DESCRIPTION OF GOVERNMENT A. Principal Contacts The auditor's principal contacts will be the City Accountant, and City Clerk, who will coordinate the assistance to be provided by the City of Gem Lake to the auditor. B. Background Information The City of Gem Lake is located in Northeastern Ramsey County. Current population is estimated to be 468. The city operates under Minnesota Statutes "Plan B" form of government. The City's governing body consists of a Mayor and four Council members, all elected at large. Council members serve overlapping terms of office. The City contracts with White Bear Township for administrative, financial, and building inspection services. The City is currently constructing a City Hall/Meeting facility that will be jointly used for meetings and polling locations for the City of Gem Lake and White Bear Township. The City's fiscal year is the calendar year. The City of Gem Lake has had a cash audit in the past. The City does not have an Economic Development Authority. If you wish to receive a copy of the latest audit of the City of Gem Lake, please contact the City at (651)-747-2790. C. Pension Plans The City of Gem Lake currently has no employees and therefore currently do not participate in any pension plans. Any future employees would participate in the Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota. D. Magnitude of Finance Operations The City Treasurer, an employee of White Bear Township performs certain financial functions and acts as Finance Director. The department also consists of an Accounting Clerk. IV. TIME REQUIREMENTS A. Proposal Calendar The following is a list of key dates up to and including the date proposals are due to be submitted: August 22, 2007 Request for proposal issued September 21, 2007 Due date for proposals September/October, 2007 Interviews with selected firms October 16, 2007 Notification of selected firm B. Schedule for the 2007 Fiscal Year Audit (A similar time schedule will be developed for audits of future fiscal years if the City exercises its option for additional audits.) In November or December, 2007 a preliminary meeting will be held to discuss any potential audit problems and the interim work to be performed. The City of Gem Lake will have all records ready for audit and all management personnel available to meet with the firm's personnel in March of 2008. The auditor shall complete all field work by April 30, 2008. 5 The auditor shall have drafts of the audit report(s) and recommendations to management available for review by the Finance Department by May 31, 2008. The Finance Department will complete their review of the draft reports as expeditiously as possible. It is not expected that this process should exceed two weeks. During that period, the auditor should be available for any meetings that may be necessary to discuss the audit reports. Once all issues for discussion are resolved, the final signed report shall be delivered to the City of Gem Lake within ten working days. The exit meeting with City Council will be in June, 2008 and no later. V. ASSISTANCE TO BE PROVIDED TO THE AUDITOR AND REPORT PREPERATION A. Finance Division Assistance The finance staff and responsible management personnel will be available during the audit to assist the firm by providing information, documentation and explanations. The preparation of confirmations can be performed by finance staff or the auditor. B. Work Area, Telephones, Photocopying and FAX machines The City of Gem Lake will provide the auditor with reasonable workspace, table and chairs. The auditor will also be provided with access to a telephone, photocopying facilities and a FAX machine. C. Report Preparation Report preparation, editing and printing shall be the responsibility of the auditor. The City of Gem Lake will require 20 copies of the final report. VI. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS Inquiries concerning the request for proposal may be made in writing to: City of Gem Lake 4707 Hwy 61 #253 White Bear Lake MN 55110 The following material is required to be received by 4:00 on Tuesday, September 5, 2007 for a proposing firm to be considered: A master copy (so marked) of a Technical Proposal and six copies to include the following: 1. Title Page Title page showing the request for proposal subject; the firm's name, address, and telephone number of the contact person; and the date of the proposal. 2. Table of Contents 3. Transmittal Letter A signed letter of transmittal briefly stating the proposer's understanding of the work to be done, the commitment to perform the work within the time period, a statement why the firm believes itself to be best qualified to perform the engagement and a statement that the proposal is a firm and irrevocable offer for 60 days. 4. Detail Proposal The detailed proposal should follow the order set forth in Sections VII and VIII of this request for proposals. 5. Executed copies of Proposer Warranties, attached to this request for proposal (Appendix A). The Proposer shall submit an original and five copies of the completed proposal to Bill Short, Gem Lake City Clerk White Bear Township 1281 Hammond Road White Bear MN 55110 VII. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL A. General Requirements The purpose of the Technical Proposal is to demonstrate the qualifications, competence and capacity of the firms seeking to undertake an independent audit of the City of Gem Lake in conformity with the requirements of this request for proposal. The Technical Proposal should demonstrate the qualifications of the firm and of the particular staff to be assigned to this engagement. It should also specify an audit approach that will meet the request for proposal requirements. The Technical Proposal should be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward, concise description of the proposer's capabilities to satisfy the requirements of the request for proposal. While additional data may be presented, the following subjects, Item Nos. B through G must be included. They represent the criteria against which the proposal will be evaluated. B. Independence The firm should provide an affirmative statement that it is independent of the City of Gem Lake as defined by generally accepted auditing standards of the US General Accounting Office's Auditing Standards (1994). The firm should also list and describe the firm's professional relationships involving the City of Gem Lake or any of its agencies for the past five years, together with a statement explaining why such relationships do not constitute a conflict of interest relative to performing the proposed audit. In addition, the firm shall give the City of Gem Lake written notice of any relevant professional relationships entered into during the period of this agreement. C. License to Practice in Minnesota An affirmative statement should be included that the firm and all assigned key professional staff are properly licensed to practice in Minnesota. D. Firm Qualifications and Experience The proposer should state the size of the firm, the size of the firm's governmental audit staff, the location of the office from which the work on the engagement is to be performed and the number and nature of the professional staff to be employed in this engagement on a full-time basis and the number and nature of the staff to be so employed on a part-time basis. The firm shall also provide information on the results of any federal or state desk reviews of its audits during the past three years. In addition, the firm shall provide information on the circumstances and status of any disciplinary action taken or pending against the firm during the past three years with state regulatory bodies or professional organizations. E. Partner, Supervisory and Staff Qualifications and Experience Identify the principal supervisory and management staff, including engagement partner, managers, other supervisors and specialists, who would be assigned to the engagement. Indicate whether each such person is licensed to practice as a certified public accountant in Minnesota. Provide information on the government auditing experience of each person. 7 Provide as much information as possible regarding the number, qualifications and experience of the specific staff to be assigned to this engagement. Indicate how the quality of the staff, over the term of the engagement, will be assured. Engagement partners, managers other supervisory staff and specialists may be changed if those personnel leave the firm, are promoted or are assigned to another office. Consultants and firm specialists mentioned in response to this request for proposal can only be changed with the express prior written permission of the City of Gem Lake, which retains the right to approve or reject replacements. Other audit personnel may be changed at the discretion of the proposer provided that replacements have substantially the same or better qualifications or experience. F. Similar Engagements with Other Government Entities For the firm's office that will be assigned responsibility for the audit, list the most significant engagements (minimum of 3, maximum of 5) performed in the last three years that are similar to the engagement described in this request for proposal. These engagements should be ranked on the basis of total staff hours. Indicate the scope of work, date, engagement partners, total hours, and the name and telephone number of the principal client contact. For city engagements, indicate whether or not the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report received the GFOA Certificate of Achievement for the most recent audit. G. Specific Audit Approach The proposal should set forth a work plan, including an explanation of the audit methodology to be followed, to perform the services required in Section II of this request for proposal. The proposal should include sample formats for required reports. VIII. DOLLAR COST PROPOSAL A. Total All -Inclusive Maximum Price The dollar cost proposal should contain all pricing information relative to performing the audit engagement as described in this request for proposal. The total all-inclusive maximum price to be bid is to contain all direct and indirect costs including all out-of-pocket expenses. The audit contract is to include telephone inquiries and other assistance related to the audit and future audits requiring a minimum amount of time. The City of Gem Lake will not be responsible for expenses incurred in preparing and submitting the technical proposal or the dollar cost proposal. Such costs should not be included in the proposal. The first page of the dollar cost proposal should include the following information: 1. Name of Firm 2. Certification that the person signing the proposal in entitled to represent the firm, empowered to submit the bid, and authorized to sign a contract with the City of St. Michael 3. A total all-inclusive Maximum Price for the 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 engagements. The second page of the dollar cost bid should include a schedule of professional fees and expenses, presented in the format provided in the attachment (Appendix B), that supports the total all-inclusive maximum price. Any out -of pocket expenses including those for firm personnel for its employees shall be included in the total all-inclusive maximum price submitted by the firm. If it should become necessary for the City of Gem Lake to request the auditor to render any additional services to either supplement the services requested in the RFP or to perform additional work as a result of the specific recommendation included in any report issued on this engagement, then such additional work shall be performed only if set forth in an addendum to the contract between the City of Gem Lake and the firm. Any such additional work agreed to between the City of Gem Lake and the firm shall be performed at the same rates set forth in the schedule of fees and expenses included in the dollar cost proposal. Progress payments will be made on the basis of hours of work completed during the course of the engagement incurred in accordance with the firm's dollar cost proposal. Interim billing shall cover a period of not less than a calendar month. Payment of final billing will be held pending delivery of the firm's final reports. Should the selected auditor not make any deadlines set forth in this proposal, payment shall also be held. IX. EVALUATION PROCEDURES A. Review of Proposal The City of Gem Lake reserves the right to retain all proposals submitted and use any idea in a proposal regardless of whether that proposal is selected. B. Evaluation Criteria Proposals will be evaluated using three sets of criteria. Firms meeting the mandatory criteria will have their proposals evaluated for both technical qualifications and price. The selection process will include, but not be limited to, the following criteria: 1. Mandatory Elements a) The audit firm is independent and licensed to practice in Minnesota. b) The firm has no conflict of interest with regard to any other work performed by the firm for the City of Gem Lake. c) The firm adheres to the instructions in this request for proposal on preparing and submitting the proposal. d) The firm submits a copy of its last external quality control review report and the firm has a record of quality audit work. 2. Technical Quality a) Expertise and Experience ➢ The firm's past experience and performance on comparable government engagements. ➢ The quality of the firm's professional personnel to be assigned to the engagement and the quality of the firm's management support personnel to be available for technical consultation. b) Audit Approach ➢ Adequacy of proposed staffing plan for various segments of the engagement ➢ Adequacy of sampling techniques ➢ Adequacy of analytical procedures 3. Price Cost will be a factor in the selection of an audit firm. However, price will not be the dominating factor in the selection process. C. Oral Presentation During the evaluation process, the City may, at its discretion, request one or all firms to make an oral presentation. Such presentation will provide firms with an opportunity to answer any questions the City may have on a firm's proposal. Not all firms may be asked to make such oral presentation. E D. Right to Reject Proposals Submission of a proposal indicates acceptance by the firm of the conditions contained in this request for proposal unless clearly and specifically noted in the proposal submitted and confirmed in the contract between the City of Gem Lake and the firm selected. The City of Gem Lake reserves the right without prejudice to reject any or all proposals. 10 APPENDIX A CITY OF GEM LAKE PROPOSER GUARANTEES Proposer warrants that it is willing and able to comply with State of Minnesota laws with respect to foreign (non -state of Minnesota) corporations. Proposer warrants that it is willing and able to obtain an errors and omissions insurance policy providing a prudent amount of coverage for the willful or negligent acts or omissions of any officers, employees or agents thereof. Proposer warrants that it will not delegate or subcontract its responsibilities under an agreement without the prior written permission of the City of Gem Lake. Proposer warrants that all information provided in connection with this proposal is true and accurate. The proposer certifies that it can and will provide and make available at a minimum, all services set forth in Section II, Nature of Services Required. Signature of Official: Name (typed or printed): Title: Firm; Date 11 011104:1 CITY OF GEM LAKE SCHEDULE OF PROFESSIONAL FEES AND EXPENSES FOR THE AUDIT OF THE 2007 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Standard Quoted Hourly Hourly Hours Rates Rates Total $ $ $ $ $ $ Partners Managers Supervisory Staff $ $ $ Other (Specify) $ $ $ Subtotal $ $ $ Other: Reports Prep/ Processing $ Single Audit Cost A-133 $ Fire Relief Association $ Out -of -Pocket Expenses $ Meals and Lodging $ Transportation $ Other (Specify) $ Total All- inclusive Price for 2007 Audit Services $ Total for 2008 Audit $ Total for 2009 Audit $ Total for 2010 Audit $ Total for 2011 Audit $ 12 TAX LEVY SUMMARY Preliminary 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 General Levy* 123,000 150,000 180,000 240,196 311,197 395,355 Debt Levy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76,600 0 Capital Improvement Plan Bonds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23,400 53,900 Total 0 0 0 0 123,000 150.000 180,000 240.196 411,197 449,255 PERCENTAGE CHANGE #DIV/0! #DIV/01 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 21.951% 20.000% 33.442% 71.192% 9.255% *General Levy for 1994 through 2001 includes current taxes, fiscal disparities and HACA revenues. Beginning in 2002 the General Levy includes current taxes, market value homestead credit and fiscal disparities. 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 IN General Levy* ®Capital Improv Plan Bonds El Debt Levy GEM LAKE VALUATIONS ESTIMATED 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 REAL PROPERTY 0 619,763 756,519 854,409 956,299 1,123,947 1,259,572 PERSONAL PROPERTY 0 9,242 9,316 9,792 10,158 10,548 10,238 TOTAL TAX CAPACITY 0 629,005 765,835 864,201 966,457 1,134,495 1,269,810 T.I. CAPACITY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F.D. CONTRIBUTION 0 -80,553 -90,172 -118,095 -102,632 -113,619 -134,082 NET TAX CAPACITY 0 548,452 675,663 746,106 863,825 1,020,876 1.135,728 PERCENTAGE CHANGE 23.195% 10.426% 15.778% 18.181% 11.250% NET TAX CAPACITY 1,200,000 1,000,000 - 800,000 600,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 GEM LAKE TAX RATE SUMMARY ESTIMATED 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 TAX CAPACITY RATE 21.516% 21.502% 23.483% 27.227% 39.558% 38.570% PERCENTAGE CHANGE -0.065% 9.213% 15.943% 45.290% -2.498% RAMSEY COUNTY LOCAL TAX RATES 2007 2008 ACTUAL PROPOSED RATES RATES NORTH OAKS (1) 7.623 7.623 TOWNSHIP 17.072 17.072 WHITE BEAR LAKE 17.706 17.706 VADNAIS HEIGHTS 18.174 18.174 FALCON HEIGHTS 18.599 18.599 ARDEN HILLS 20.206 20.206 NORTH ST. PAUL 20.904 20.904 LITTLE CANADA 21.167 21.167 ROSEVILLE 23.014 23.014 SHOREVIEW 23.299 23.299 LAUDERDALE 25.507 25.507 ST. PAUL 28.264 28.264 BLAINE 29.658 29.658 MAPLEWOOD 31.950 31.950 NEW BRIGHTON 33.017 33.017 MOUNDS VIEW 37.328 37.328 GEM LAKE 39.558 38.570 ST. ANTHONY 45.799 45.799 SPRING LAKE PARK 46.958 46.958 (1) TAX RATE DOES NOT INCLUDE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION DUES FOR STREET MAINTENANCE AND OTHER SERVICE. SPRING LAKE PARK ST. ANTHONY GEM LAKE MOUNDS VIEW NEW BRIGHTON MAPLEWOOD BLAINE ST. PAUL LAUDERDALE SHOREVIEW ROSEVILLE i LITTLE CANADA NORTH ST. PAUL ARDEN HILLS FALCON HEIGHTS VADNAIS HEIGHTS WHITE BEAR LAKE TOWNSHIP NORTH OAKS (1) 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 31 City of Gem Lake Interim Financial Report by Object Code (YTD) 08/17/2007 As of 08/31/2007 City Nall Construction Budget Actual Variance Receipts: Bond Proceeds $0.00 $850,000.00 $850,000.00 Total Revenues $0.00 $850,000.00 $850,000.00 Other Financing Sources: Sale of Investments $0 00 Transfers from other Funds $0.00 Disbursements: Construction Engineering $0.00 $1,313.50 ($1,313.50) Legal $0.00 $7,286.00 ($7,286.00) Administration $0.00 $1,443.00 ($1,443.00) Miscellaneous $0.00 $26,347.50 ($26,347.50) Conference Registrations $0.00 $25..00 ($25..00) Meeting Preparation $0.00 $50.00 ($50.00) Architect Fees $0.00 $76,264,52 ($76,264.52) Legal Notice Publication $0.00 $598.32 ($598.32) Construction $0.00 $175,950.30 ($175,950.30) Interest $0.00 $675.53 ($675.53) Fiscal Agents Fees $0.00 $32.00 ($32.00) Total Disbursements $0.00 $289,985.67 ($289,985.67) Other Financing Uses: Purchase of Investments $741,606.49 Transfers to other Funds $0.00 Beginning Cash Balance $0,00 Cash Balance as of 08/31/2007 ($181,492.16) Page 1 CITY OF GEM LAKE, MN _ 4707 Hwy 61 # 253 �— White Bear Lake, MN 55110-3227 LW E-mail CityQ_)gemlakeMN.or O RESOLUTION NO.2007-10 21 AUGUST 2007 WHEREAS, the City Treasurer has presented a (Proposed) Budget of $463,645.0 which includes a (Proposed) Tax Levy of $395,355.00 and a Debt levy of $53,900.00 for fiscal and calendar year 2008 based upon best estimates of costs for running the City of Gem Lake in 2008; and WHEREAS, these estimates were reviewed by the City Council on 21 August, 2007 and amended based upon best information received from outside contractors and input from the City Council, and revised by the City Council on 21 August, 2006; and WHEREAS, the City Council did review the (Proposed) Budget and Tax Debt for 2008, including all revisions thereto as of the date first written. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Gem Lake does formally adopt the 2008 Preliminary General Fund Budget of $463,645.00 which includes a Net Property Tax Levy of $375,355.00 and a Net Debt Levy of $53,900.00 for 2008 as prepared by the City Treasurer and amended by the City Council; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is charged with Certifying said Tax and Debt Levy to Ramsey County Property Taxation and other government bodies for whom this information is required. The foregoing Resolution was offered by Councilor and was supported by Councilor and was declared adopted based upon the following vote: NAME EMEOTT WATSON 'SCHILLING RASMUSSEN ARTIG- SWOMLEY Vote ATTEST I, WILLIAM F. SHORT, the duly qualified City Clerk of the City of Gem Lake, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and accurate representation of action taken by the City Council of the City of Gem Lake on the date first written. 22 August 2007 WILLIAM F. SHORT, City Clerk Look for us on the World Wide Web at gemlakemn.org AMENDMENT TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT TO PROTECT AND MANAGE THE VADNAIS LAKE AREA WATERSHED THIS AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of the last date of execution by and between the participating units of local government of the cities of Gem Lake, Lino Lakes, North Oaks, Vadnais Heights and White Bear Lake and the Township of White Bear (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Members"); and WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that it is reasonable, appropriate and in the best interests of the public to amend the Agreement as hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, said Agreement is amended, as follows: 1. Section VI is amended by adding new Subdivision 24 as follows: Subdivision 24. Storm Sewer Utility. 1) The Board may establish, operate and fund a storm sewer utility in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 444.075 and subject only to the limitations thereof and of this Agreement. The utility may include all storm sewer systems and facilities including ditch systems transferred to the Commission pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.211, Subd.l(a)(4), drainage systems conveying surface water between Member jurisdictional boundaries and any other activities and facilities authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 444.075. 2) The Board may enter into such contracts with Members, other units of government or other parties as the Board deems reasonable and necessary for the operation of the storm sewer utility, including but not limited to, contracts for construction, operation, repair and maintenance of facilities, and for collection of storm sewer charges. 3) The Board may not establish rates at an amount that will result in annual charges of more than the Total Maximum Utility Charges without the consent of a majority of the Members by resolution by their governing bodies. The Total Maximum Utility Charges for 2008 are $400,000; for 2009 is $425,000; for 2010 is $450,000 and, for 2011 is $475,000. 4) The Board may set and collect fees and charges for expenses of the utility in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 444.075. 5) The Board may adopt and enforce rules and regulations for the operation of the storm sewer utility. 6) Any Member may create, operate and maintain its own storm sewer utility and collect fees and charges for its own storm sewer facilities. Such utility may be operated independently by the Member or cooperatively by agreement between the Commission and the Member. 7) The Board is not authorized to issue and sell obligations to finance its utility. 2. Section VI is amended by adding new Subdivision 25 as follows: Subdivision 25. County Tax Levy. The Board shall have the authority to certify for payment by the counties all or any part of the cost of a capital project contained in the capital improvement program of the Watershed Management Plan, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.251. 3. Section VI is amended by adding new Subdivision 26 as follows: Subdivision 26. Funding of Capital Projects. Capital projects may be funded by Member contributions in accordance with Subdivision 6 of this Section, Storm Sewer Utility Charges in accordance with Subdivision 24 of this Section, a County Tax Levy in accordance with Subdivision 25 of this Section, by separate agreement between the Commission and all Members contributing to the cost of a project, or any combination of such means of funding. 4. Section VIII is amended in its entirety to read, as follows: VIII FINANCING VLAWMO Subdivision 1. Annual Operating Budget. On or before July 1" of each year, the Board shall prepare a proposed annual operating budget for the following calendar year. The budget shall provide funds to operate VLAWMO for the next calendar year. The annual operating budget may be funded by one or more of the following: 1) A special tax levy authorized by the State of Minnesota; 2) VLAWMO operated Storm Water Utility authorized by the State of Minnesota; 3) Annual payment from each governmental unit party to this agreement and other entities based on an annual assessment as determined in Subdivision 2 in this Section; and 4) Service fees, grants, interest or other funding sources as available. Each Member shall pay its annual assessment in the following manner: 1) The entire amount shall be due by January 31; or 2) One-half (1/2) of each Member's entire amount shall be due by January 31 and the second one-half (1/2) of the entire amount shall be due by August 31. Failure to pay the required amounts by the due dates will cause a one (1) percent per month service fee to be added to the unpaid amount due. Subdivision 2. Budget Meeting and Approval. The proposed annual Operating and Capital Improvement budgets for the next calendar year shall be prepared by July 1 of each calendar year. Each Member shall review the proposed operating budget and may make comments to the Board regarding the operating budget on or before October 150' of each year. After submission of comments by Members, the Board shall consider said comments and shall adopt a final operating budget on or before October 15 of each year. The Secretary shall certify and prepare a statement showing the approved operating budget and the assessed amount to be paid by each Member on or before October 31 each year. Subdivision 3. Annual Assessment for Services. The annual contribution of each Member or other entity shall be calculated upon the following formula: 1) Forty percent (40%) based upon the assessed valuation of all real property of each governmental unit within the Area; 2) Forty percent (40%) based upon the total area of the property within each governmental unit within the Area; and 3) Twenty percent (20%) based upon the population of each governmental unit within the Area. Subdivision 4. Capital Improvement Projects Program and Funding. On or before July 1 of each year the Board shall prepare a proposed capital improvements program and budget for projects to be started or completed in the following year as described in the Water Plan and shall submit the same for review and comment by the Members. Each proposed project shall be described and its estimated cost and time for completion shall be provided. Only projects described in the Watershed Management Plan or its amendments may be included in the capital improvement budget. Funding in the capital improvement budget shall be calculated as follows: 1) If money raised by the Special tax levy or by the Storm Water Utility is to be used for Capital Projects, the Members shall be provided the opportunity to review and comment on the amount of the tax levy that will be used for Capital Projects within sixty (60) days of receipt of the Board's Capital Improvement Budget; 2) If a capital project is to be funded wholly or in part by one or more governmental unit(s), they will be provided the opportunity to review and comment on the capital improvement budget within sixty (60) days of receipt of the Board's Capital Improvement Budget; and 3) If service fees, grants, interest or other funding sources are available the source and amounts of such funds shall be shown. If comments regarding the capital improvement program and budget are received, such comments will be considered by the Board when it approves the Capital Improvement Program and Budget. Each governmental unit shall contribute its budgeted share of the cost of constructing said capital improvement projects. Subdivision 5. Appeals. In the event a member objects to the allocation of the Members' share of the Operating and/or the Capital Improvement Budgets for the next calendar year, it may appeal the determination of the VLAWMO Board to final and binding arbitration by filing a written appeal with an officer of the Board, within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Board's determination of the allocation. The arbitration procedure set forth in Section VII, subdivision 8., shall be followed. Subdivision 6. Governmental Unit Financing. Members may establish a watershed management tax district in the Area for the purpose of paying costs of the engineering and planning required to develop a watershed management plan for the Area. After the plan is adopted and approved, a tax district may be established for the purpose of paying capital costs of projects described in the plan (including normal and routine maintenance of projects). If required, the tax district shall be established by ordinance adopted after a hearing by a local government unit, following provisions of Minn. Stat. Chapter 103B. Subdivision 7. Reserve Funds. The Board may accumulate reserve funds for the purposes herein mentioned and may invest funds of the Board not currently needed for its operations in the manner and subject of the laws of Minnesota applicable to statutory cities. Any and all reserve funds must be clearly indicated on the annual financial audit provided to the Members. Subdivision 8. Gifts; Grants; Loans. VLAWMO may, within the scope of this Agreement, accept gifts, apply for and use grants or loans of money or other property from the United States, the State of Minnesota, a unit of government or other governmental unit or organization or any person or entity for the purposes described herein; may enter into any reasonable agreement required in connection therewith, shall comply with any laws or regulations applicable thereto, and may hold, use and dispose of such money or property in accordance with the terms of the gift, grant, loan or agreement related thereto. This Amendment may be executed in several counterparts and all counterparts so executed shall constitute one agreement that is binding on all of the Members notwithstanding that all of the Members are not signatory to the original of the same counterpart. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the following parties have executed this Amendment on the day of last execution hereof by all parties: CITY OF GEM LAKE By: _ Mayor Dated: / / Attest: City Clerk CITY OF LINO LAKES By: Mayor Dated: / / Attest: City Clerk CITY OF NORTH OAKS By: Mayor Dated: / / Attest: City Clerk CITY OF VADNAIS HEIGHTS By: Mayor Dated: / / Attest: City Clerk CITY OF WHITE BEAR LAKE By: Mayor Dated: / / Attest: City Clerk WHITE BEAR TOWNSHIP By: Chair Dated: / / Attest: Document G701TM - 2001 0 Change Order PROJECT (Name and address): Heritage Hall 4200 Otter Lake Road White Bear Township, MN 55110 TO CONTRACTOR (Name and address): Lund Martin Construciton 3023 Randolph Street NE Minneapolis, MN 55418 CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 001 DATE: August 08, 2007 ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NUMBER: 0625.01 CONTRACT DATE: 22 May 2007 CONTRACT FOR: General Construction OWNER: ARCHITECT: ❑ CONTRACTOR: ❑ FIELD: ❑ :❑ THE CONTRACT IS CHANGED AS FOLLOWS: (Include, where applicable, any undisputed amount attributable to previously executed Construction Change Directives) 1. Modification 1, 2 & 3 / L 4 CI 007 a. Change all windows to commercial aluminum windows. (Value Engineering) b. Revise all operating windows to casement. c. Delete two windows and revise size of restroom windows. Deduct $22,313.00 2. Modification 8 / LM CI 010 a. Delete motorized shades at dormer windows. (Value Engineering) 3. Modification 9 / LM Cl 011 a. Delete flagpole. (Value Engineering) 4. Modificaiton 10 / LM Cl 012 a. Delete signage allowance. (Value Engineering) TOTAL The original Contract Sum was The net change by previously authorized Change Orders The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was The Contract Sum will be decreased by this Change Order in the amount of The new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be The Contract Time will be increased by Zero ( 0 ) days. The date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is November 1, 2007. Deduct $3,973.00 Dedut $2,295.00 Deduct $6,000.00 Deduct $34,581.00 801,700.00 0.00 801.700.00 (34,581.00) 767.119.00 NOTE: This Change Order does not include changes in the Contract Sum, Contract Time or Guaranteed Maximum Price which have been authorized by Construction Change Directive until the cost and time have been agreed upon by both the Owner and Contractor, in which case a Change Order is executed to supersede the Construction Change Directive. AIA Document G701 TM11 — 2001. Copyright © 1979, 1987, 2000 and 2001 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 09:11:34 on 08/13/2007 under Order No.1000283406_1 which expires on 1/31/2008, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1864885586) NOT VALID UNTIL SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT, CONTRACTOR AND OWNER. Rafferty Rafferty Tollefson Lindeke Architects 278 East 71h Street St. Paul, MN 55101 ARCHITECT (Finn name) ADDR S B (Signature) (Typed name) ?& DATE ' Lund Martin Construction 3023 Randolph Street NE Minneapolis, MN 55418 CONTRACTOR (Finn name) ADMES BY (Signature) e�F�-( i - CIA(si-F-IfQ (T ped name) (;-�j1y167 DATE City of Gem Lake 1281 Hammond Road OWNER (Finn name) AD/D/REE�SSSS/'���(/J �//////J BY (Signature) (Typed name) FA L DATE AIA Document G701 TM — 2001. Copyright © 1979, 1987, 2000 and 2001 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIAe Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA' Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 14:50:05 on 08/08/2007 under Order No.1000283406_1 which expires on 1/31/2008, and is not for resale. User Notes: (3928097483) Claims For Payment CITY OF GEM LAKE Period Ending: 8/21/2007 AP Paul Emeott, Mayor Chuck Watson, Council Hutch Schilling, Council Gretchen Artig-Swomley, Council Tom Rasmussen, Council Tom Kelly, Treasurer Fund Totals 1 1 $ Amount General Fund 32,274.77 Parks & Playgrounds 0.00 2004 Debt Service Fund 0.00 2006 Debt Service Fund 0,00 Street Improvement Fund 0.00 City Hall Construction Fund 127,098,26 Sewer Fund 1,860.65 Total All Funds 161,233,68 ti a 0 N e- 1� I O d Ln a co N vt M N .m. O M I�- CD N W L EI Q C 'm �a L � l J y E v z n) U U O «. N �W 02 ti 0 0 N oa or p 0 Olw J o e m E Z- �X m o m 12 � O V 0 0 O M N Gm CO N b'T u O C. L' m lQ a 2 Q. a L T .J E .cu 11-0 O CO p O tD O o o to N 000 mc)a 1O0osg Om O QoMoo to rtn N C vV) h rn o o 0 ,- m Ithp qq grnopo MCD O to In0tn0 w tDN trj trj p7cp to LO 0 6 (i 6 6 vwn mOONococo w0&�}aQ 46 0O Q �N4gd In fO-0 rd' MO Otnr tD lD v to r N 0 �- v tD m m M tN h G% m h h0wtl NN rWMrV}NN 0O c..�� M r MC&to ca r N 09 V) V! uj N to 4} N 2 6A FA u3 m W ce co'; w Vl ce to d3 tg c9 r r to to VT to V) co Nr M to Oh h M M r 9 OI N -*h� OM hr M07000 10 Nco N mmomm r r CD O O m r m 00 M 0-0 O M N #C ttVV tD dM MCO MrMN O t'? Mr N c7ONMo mM co MC?M M M M cMT9 NM 06 d opo 0 0 0 o 0 o o0o 00000aMdCb?oMo bm oM0' o3om 00 o pb o CD b 0 C. bpoo pb Obovor �_ Q 00oo o to 0 de-O-Or W0fN Nrw fDo co rrr w tN rrV N C7 a O O O N o o O o b O N co pp o N O O 0 0 0 0 QO O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O Q O O O b 0 0 0 0 0 O O Q O 0 0 rr r rrr r 'r co r r CD r rrp r rr r prrr rr r rrrtDw NIh tD O M 0 q7 O h w CT O O O O O N G! r N to cn r tY r to qi O to O N OD Cl) N t.ric� l!1 m O ri 0) In I� fU -e O C ~ M � M to N to r t�D Cl) C i La CD to M N 04 v N3 if1 VNa iA V 499 t 9 1Ml� 1{d �h} 00 to O N M d 0 0I� 1mn to(af00 co m Y c E Q w fA C m N � CO o w E U air rn 0)i g " u .� ° o C c o 0 lV U a Z rn 5 o -� oI O Z m h rn o�i v N at w m T m `� to to m a 0 3 � rn c a°ti p 0 li d J U 0 0. 0.' c o Ui a w o +v JC to c J � J If Z O h Y U > N l] O N O l9 0 m 3 a`No m 0 E c o s0 7 `° U �. m W m o h `0 3 O (L) a w Ii uEi m a10i m (D Ci ca W Y a m H a >U w w O W 2 a �- O X ti o h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h O O Cl O CD CD O O O O O b O O O 0)Q; O N O CDO O O O O CDO Cl O O O O 10 O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N CO m m co cu CC) CO O co Co to m tb co O O O O O O O O O O O p O O O �N d Im al a 0 0 N m e- �—bb1l70 C10 IUq ONO O mAAd Q �9C-013� V9 0 co O co N 4k 0M M. C 6 OOO C AO'.t� �IW f-T V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'I 4 co M M CD O C tf co M M �D Q O� d' w+ Q 0 c. a Q d a ti 0 0 N ti co O 0 ow N co 0 0 N N O N co 0 0 G City of Gem Lake As of 08131/2007 City Hall Construction Receipts: Bond Proceeds Total Revenues Other Financing Sources: Sale of Investments Transfers from other Funds Interim Financial Report by Object Code (YTD) 08/17/2007 Disbursements: Construction Engineering Legal Administration Miscellaneous Conference Registrations Meeting Preparation Architect Fees Legal Notice Publication Construction Interest Fiscal Agents Fees Total Disbursements Other Financing Uses: Purchase of Investments Transfers to other Funds Beginning Cash Balance Cash Balance as of 08/31/2007 Budget Actual Variance $0.00 $850,000.00 $850,000.00 $0.00 $850,000.00 $850,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,313.50 ($1,313 50) $0.00 $7,286.00 ($7,286.00) $0.00 $1,443.00 ($1,443.00) $0.00 $26,347.50 ($26,347.50) $0.00 $25..00 ($25.00) WOO $50.00 ($50. 00) $0.00 $76,264.52 ($76,264 52) $0.00 $598.32 ($598.32) $0.00 $175,950.30 ($175,950.30) $0.00 $675.53 ($675.53) $0.00 $32.00 ($32.00) $0.00 $289,985.67 ($289,985.67) Page 1 $741,506.49 $0.00 $0.00 ($181,492.16)