Loading...
CR 2000-192 Cooperation Planning Grant Agreement-School and Public Transportation Study \ y \ 0 V .<- ~ ..y Co . November 16, 2000 o P K \ '" Council Report 2000-192 Cooperation Planning Grant Agreement- School and Public Transportation Study Proposed Action Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move to approve the Grant Contract between the State of Minnesota Board of Innovation and Cooperation and the City of Hopkins. Adoption of this motion will result in the completion of a study of transportation issues by the City of Hopkins and the Hopkins School District 270 to look for ways of improving transportation systems used by public and school uses. Overview The School District and City of Hopkins have entered into a joint application to the Board of Innovation and Cooperation for funds which will be used to study ways in which the public and school transportation systems may be improved through better utilization of existing resources. . The $50,000 grant will be used to hire a transportation consultant who will review existing issues and resources with the desired outcome of better utilization of both. A planning committee has been formed for the purpose of guiding the consultant's efforts. Assuming passage of the contract, staff will formalize the work effort that will result in a completed study by July 2001. Staff is recommending approval of the agreement. Primary Issues to Consider . What issues have brought about the grant request? . What is the timeline for grant completion? . Does the grant require repayment? Supportina Information . 1999 Cooperation Planning Grant Application . Draft Grant Contract ~-- --:: ! J - ~ Steven C Mielke City Manager . Financial Impact $_None Budgeted: Y/N _N_ Source: Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): None Notes: ---- .,--.---- -- Council Report 97- Page 2 e Primary Issues to Consider . What issues have brought about the grant request? The school bus system is experiencing a number of complicated and expensive transportation problems. The schools transportation provider is having difficulty recruiting and retaining drivers. The Community Education Department is spending a large amount of money transporting students from disparate locations to its adult classes. At the same time, the City's Hop-a-ride provider is working to fill needs for the school system and Met Transit is preparing for significant changes to the Hopkins bus system. It is hoped that an analysis of these issues may result in possible changes that would increase efficiency and duplication. . What is the timeline for grant completion? The grant time line anticipates: . January 15, 2001 - Consultant hired July 15, 2001 - Review of feedback distributed to stakeholder groups October 15, 2001 - Design of a draft transportation plan begun January 15, 2001 - Completed study and implementation plan in-hand. March 15, 2001 - Closeout of Grant with findings. . Does the grant require repayment? A requirement of the grant is a repayment of the grant if efficiencies and savings are derived. If none are found, then no repayment is required. SupportinQ Information . 1999 Cooperation Planning Grant Application . Draft Grant Contract . . - ---- ~ MINNESOTA BOARD OF GOVERNMENT . INNOVATION AND COOPERATION - State Use Only - 1999 COOPERATION PLANNING GRANT Date Recei ved: FINAL APPLICATION COVER PAGE 1. Grant Number Indicate the grant number assigned by the Board to your pre-application. CP-99-30 2. Abstract Describe your proposed project by completing the following sentence. Indicate the service or program for which you propose to develop a budget management model. This application requests funding to develop a budget management model for a project designed to determine the feasibility of creating a new transportation system that facilitates year-round, full- time employment for bus drivers thereby reducing the turn over and reducing tangible costs associated with constantly training new bus drivers; provides greater access to school and community educational and recreational programs; acts as a "feeder" to existing Metro Transit routes to better serve cormnunity members; and minimizes duplication of services. 3. Grant Request Indicate the amount of funding you are requesting from the Board. $ 50,000 ($50,000 maximum) . 4. Applicant Name(s) List all applicants; they may differ from the applicants listed on your pre-application. 1. City of Hopkins 2. Hopkins School District. Independent School District 270 3. 4. 5. Indicate which applicant will act as the project's fiscal host if you are awarded a grant: City of Hopkins 5. Contact Person The contact must be able to respond to questions regarding this application. Name: Steve Mielke Address: ] 010 First Street South Title: City Manager Hopkins, MN 55343 Agency: City of Hopkins Telephone Number: 612.939.1326 Fax Number: 612.935.1834 . '6. Exclusive Representatives You must provide a copy of this application to any exclusi ve . ! representJtive l union) certified under M.S. 179A.12 to represent employees who provide the service or program who may be affected by the application. Are the employees of any apphcJ.nt J.gency who provide the service or program affected by the application represented by an exclusive representative (union)? Yes :';0 X If you answer "yes" to this question. indicate which applicant agencies have exclusive representatives and to \vhich exclusive representatives you are sending a copy of this application. Attach an additional page if necessarv. 7. Commitment Identify the minimum length of time you and all participating parties are I committed to im lemenring the lan once it has been develo ed. 3 years 8. Willingness To Repay The Grant Does the model have the potential to reduce the ongoing I operating costs of the local unit! s) of government? ~ yes no. If the model has the - potential to reduce operating costs. is the applicant willing to repay the grant based on a percentage of the actual savings achieved? X yes no \ Your response will be binding; you may, however, opt to change the response made on your pre-application. ) . The percentage of the savings to be repaid to the state shall equal the percentage of project costs paid with grant funds. not to exceed the total amount awarded. Three additional points will automatically be awarded to applicants that are willing to agree to re ay the grant if the roject is successful in reducin on oin 0 erating costs. This application is submitted to the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation pursuant to M.S. ~65.799. To the best of our knowledge. the information contained in this application is accurate and complete. We understand that. if this application is funded, the Board may require the grantees to repay :.111 or a portion of the grant if the proposal is not implemented according to the terms of the grant contract. ~/~~- - ;-Iof-/c''-' t'~ Ajr 3-2(- 2:000 tAirUU'Ji (Title) (Date) ~rl:--J -z.11J rwrv:..J(?~t 5/-z.., ( 0::. I /( -, . , ignature l (Title) (Date I (Signature) (Title) (Date) {Signature I (Title) (Date) . I The cover page must be signed by the senior elected or administrative official of each applicant agency. I . PROPOSED PRO.JECT Focused on safely and efficiently transporting passengers of all ages, the City of Hopkins (City) and Hopkins School District, Independent School District 270 (District) utilize traditional resources and methodology to service its constituents resulting in a system that is not maximized at any level. The City works with Metro Transit to determine needed routes and those routes requiring modifications to better serve the community. Forthcoming routes and route changes will improve east-west service within Hopkins but minimally impacts north-south service between municipalities. Neither at this time nor in the foreseeable future do any effective service routes traverse municipal boundaries or complement District services. The District, on the other hand, purchases blocks of time from local transportation providers to serve 75 routes. A majority of these routes are operated during peak times of 7:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and 2: 15 and 4:45 p.m. Additional routes occur between 11 :00 a.m. and 1 :00 p.m. Of the mid-day runs, 13 .. serve kindergarteners and 33 serve special needs children and are assigned to the most senior drivers, leaving approximately 40 drivers and buses idle for nearly five hours per day. The District does run field trips and atWetic trips between peak times but these events are sporadic and can range from zero to an average of fifteen per day. Idle time is one of the District's challenges with current transportation options. Another is high turn over among drivers as a result of the part-time, seasonal employment associated with school transportation. High turnover creates unstable conditions thereby . . the system's mcreasmg . inefficiencies. Inconsistent service leads to poor public perception of school transportation, potentially impacting the safety of children (e.g. drivers' decreased familiarity with students' normal routines and increased discipline problems on the bus) and reducing the use of school transportation when in reality school buses are the safest form of transportation. The District serves seven municipalities: Ninety-five percent of Hopkins and parts of Edina, Plymouth, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, 5t. Louis Park and Golden Valley. However, in spite of its expansive service area, the District provides limited services for community education and after school programming because these services are not reimbursed by the State. Insufficient service directly affects Community Education' s Adult Basic Education classes such as English as a Second Language (ESL), GED and Family Learning along with parenting and early childhood readiness programs. classes essential for adults of diverse socio-economic and cultural backgrounds trying to successfully integrate into the suburban environment. How readily individuals in need of Adult Basic Education classes as well as services provided through programs such as the Hopkins Family Resource Center can access programming ultimately impacts the long-term health of communities. To insure that the opportunity to learn is equally available to all adults, Adult Basic Education provides transportation to class participants who are unable to provide their own or unable to afford public transportation. When City transportation is insufficient, the programs uses alternative transportation modes such as taxis, increasing program cost substantially. Other alternatives such as the City- subsidized Hop-A-Ride share the same limitations as other modes - limited service areas and limited hours of operation - minimizing flexibility to meet ever-increasing diverse needs of the adult education . learner. Money needed to expand programming is being used to meet the transportation needs, exacerbating the situation. . For the past six months. the School and Communities in Partnership tSCIP) of which the City and District are members have diligently worked to identify major areas of need within the west metropolitan suburbs. The Partnership acquired information from city and county representatives, the District and various agencies supporting families in the various communities. Throughout aU presentations, inadequate transportation was repeated as a major barrier to families and children receiving the services they need. Reviewing the entire situation, it is apparent to the City and District that through cooperative planning an innovative transportation design could alleviate issues discussed above. Therefore, the applicants respectfully request a cooperative planning grant to develop a program that revises the utilization of City and District transportation resources to reduce operating costs and increase service and performance to the community, students and Adult Basic Education learners. The proposed project's purpose is to determine the feasibility of creating a new transportation system that: . Facilitates year-round, full-time employment for bus drivers thereby reducing the turn over and reducing tangible costs associated with constantly training new bus drivers; . Provides greater access to school and community educational and recreational programs; . Acts as a "feeder" to existing Metro Transit routes to better serve community members; and . Minimizes duplication of services The proposed project's goal is to detennine how existing methods, resources and systems can be creatively modified or enhanced to serve - safely and efficiently - the majority of needs. At the . project's completion, the applicants will have a design plan ready for implementation once funding is secured. The proposed project specifically addresses the following issues: . Limited transportation options that only serve a portion of those needing or interested in using public transportation; . Appropriate service of a suburban, multi-municipality district; . Employment situation inadequate to promote longevity and consistency III school transportation; . Increasing costs for both City and District transportation and limited financial resources to meet those costs; . Lack of affordable, efficient transportation to serve Adult Basic Education learners, after school programming, family recreational opportunities and summer programming; and . Inefficiencies in each system previously discussed (i.e. school routes for secondary students that operate at 50% capacity or transporting multiple adult learners residing in one area by multiple taxis). Current Spending. District spending is expected to increase 18% in the 2000-2001 school year for an expected total spending of 3.65 million dollars. For 2000, the City estimates its Hop-A-Ride will require $74,000 to operate a system that experiences a 5% (average) increase per year and requires an 18% City subsidy to keep fares reasonable ($5.00 regular and $1.75 low income). The Hop-A-Ride . currently serves approximately 12,000 riders per year, 99% of which are low income. Historically, ridership negatively correlates with fare. As the fare increases, ridership decreases. A goal of the Transit Final Application March 31, 2000 Page 2 of 10 . proposed project is to cap or reduce the fares and increase ridership of the Hop-A-Ride as a result of changes in the transportation system. Adult Basic Education, Learning Readiness and Family Learning expend $20,000 to serve its learner population. Resources for transporting learners currently come directly from programming dollars. Some of the current spending will be used in the implementation phase as part of general operating cos ts. Any additional startup costs identified during the planning project will need to be acquired through alternative sources. Other Programs. The City and District are familiar with programs that are currently operating in Minneapolis and Duluth. As the result of a 1997 legislative mandate, the Minneapolis Public Schools, St. Paul Public Schools, Metro Transit and Metropolitan Council developed a school transportation plan focused on transporting students in grades 9 through 12 using transit buses. Duluth has provided public transit to high school and middle school students for 20 years. The primary difference between current programs and the proposed project is the City and District are not looking to Metro Transit to alleviate District transportation issues. Rather. the applicants voluntarily want to review all components of existing programs to determine whether or not there is a more feasible manner in which to provide service to a number of client groups. Transporting students is one facet of the problem with its own inherent issues, and service to adult learners and the community is another. However, instead of each entity continuing to operate in isolation to solve their . respective issues, the City and District decided to cooperatively develop a plan intended to benefit all stakeholders. Additionally, neither the Minneapolis nor the Duluth program addresses a suburban model that serves multiple municipalities where challenges such as low population density are common. Part of Duluth's success is attributed to the city's linear design. Transit buses are able to start from the city's fringes and proceed toward the center of the city. Suburbs, generally, have more dispersed patterns creating less opportunities for uncomplicated, efficient routes. ProjecT Team. The team for this project will be composed of the following members: . Project Consultant - responsible for data collection, analysis, some technical work and general guidance; external to involved organizations . Project Coordinator - primary point of contact for Project Consultant and liaison between Project Consultant and other team members; central administration and communication contact . Design Team Members - Appropriate municipal representatives - Metro Transit representative - Dave Tripp, Director of Transportation Services - Hopkins School District - Transportation providers - Ted Sauer, Director of Community Education - Hopkins School District - Hop- A-Ride representative . Transit Final Application March 31, 2000 Page 3 of 10 . A project consultant will be selected during the first quarter of planning. The City and District seek a consultant with experience managing projects of similar scope and duration. The primary leaders for this project include: . Hopkins City Manager - ten years experience in planning and administration; . Hopkins City Council - varied experience and expertise; . Hop-A-Ride Coordinator - fifteen years experience with City and responsible for directing this program's service . District's Director of Transportation - seven years with District; and . District's Superintendent and Board of Education, each with extensive experience III administration, planning and implementation. BENEFIT As a result of designing and implementing a new mutli-faceted transportation program, the City and District anticipate benefits in a number of areas. The most tangible benefits expected are efficient use of transportation resources and increased quality of service. Ideally, more consistent, pre-planned routes resulting from expanded or improved service would reduce Adult Basic Education's need to use more costly transportation methods. Increased service coverage by City-operated transportation and appropriately designed "feeder" routes are expected to increase ridership, thereby increasing efficiency and containing costs. . Implementing a component that facilitates full-time, year-round employment benefits the District in a number of areas, including: . Drivers who intimately know their routes increasing timeliness and efficiency; ! I . Increased safety during transport as drivers know their students and their routines likely reducing the incidence of discipline issues in route; . Increased professionalism and improved perception on the part of parents (consistency builds trust with parents); . More flexibility in designing routes and creating programming because the quality and competence of driver is enhanced; . More efficient transportation services for adult learners thereby improving access to essential programs, reducing overall cost and facilitating expansion of programs by re-investing money saved; . Enhanced coordination of educational and recreational programs; and . Reduced cost per ride and ultimately serving more riders. Such a component would also provide the City and Adult Basic Education with additional transportation options during the times when drivers and equipment are not scheduled. Cost Benefit. The cost savings goal with an ingeniously revised transportation system is $375,000. The City and District's goal is to increase efficiency over the existing system by 10% and as a result of . increased efficiency, expect to reduce operating cost by the same percentage. The cost savings goal was calculated by multiplying current transportation spending on the City's Hop-A-Ride, District Transit Final Application March 31, 2000 Page 4 of 10 -- . transportation spending and Adult Basic Education costs by 10%. The City and District acknowledge initial implementation costs may delay demonstration of cost savings until after the first year of operation. Measuring Outcomes. Determining success of the new program requires evaluation of several areas. Perception/ s atis faction and tangible cost savmgs are two example areas. To measure the perception/satisfaction of provided service, the City and District will survey a representative sample of individuals within the District and municipalities to determine unmet needs. This will help the project team determine focus areas of a revised system and establish baseline data against which to measure future survey results. An attitudinal survey will be conducted six months after initial implementation, and an annual survey will be conducted for the first three years of operation with special emphasis on new phases implemented during a specific year. Measuring cost benefit will be accomplished by developing baseline data as part of the planning phase. During this phase, the project team will determine an average cost for current service patterns. Expenses incurred for defined areas will be monitored for the initial implementation and compared to baseline data after six months of service. A financial analysis of all components will be completed on an annual basis. As additional routes and services are added expense comparisons will be performed regularly to confirm expected cost savings. Baseline data will be updated on a yearly basis for ongoing monitoring of expenses. Overall use of new services and routes will be assessed according to the number of individuals served . by the new program versus baseline data established for existing services. This assessment will continue with phased implementation of the project and then reviewed annually. WORK PRODUCT Part of the proposed project's purpose is to develop a successful transportation model that can be replicated in other communities with expansive service areas. To promote replication, the City and District will develop a work product that contains the following components: 1. Summary of current school district service . Number of routes . Number of buses used . Number of runs made per day . Number of students served per route . Distance required in transporting students . Trip length . Vehide capacity . Start and end times of schools . Idle time and cost associated with part-time, seasonal drivers (calculation methods) . Service statistics (on-time routes, issues, common challenges) ') Summary of city alternatives . . Services available . Route schedules for MTC and city-operated programs Transit Final Application March 31, 2000 Page 5 of 10 . . Cost of current program . Need areas from city perspective . Methodology for data collection 3. Summary of need areas based on surveys (including copies of surveys used to determine need areas) 4. Copies of other documents used for determining course of action as well as documentation of outside resources used to gather data (i.e. Metro Transit ridership information) S. Documentation of revised routes/service to accommodate Adult Basic Education needs and facilitation of year-round drivers/service 6. Phased implementation plan 7. Documentation on toolslinformation to be reviewed regularly to determine effectiveness of new program/service 8. Potential funding sources for program implementation PLANNING PROCESS The proposed project will be accomplished according to the following timeline: TIME PERIOD TASKS RESPONSIBLE ]SI Quarter . Interview and hire consultant · City and District July through . Acquire District's and City's current Representatives . September 2000 program information (routes, service · Project Consultant areas and costs) . Review, analyze and summarize information collected . Develop surveys and identify representative sample for survey . Discuss needs with Adult Basic Education . Survey previous and present adult education participants . Survey dense population areas (apartment complexes) regarding transportation needs and wants . Begin discussions with transportation providers regarding opportunity and issues involved in developing year-round positions and use of equipment 2'ld Quarter . Distribute surveys · Project Consultant October through . Compile survey results, analyze . Project Coordinator December 2000 data, summarize and report to . Design Team . Prepare report of needs Transit Final Application March 31. 2000 Page 6 of 10 . . Summarize feedback from transportation providers and establish ongoing project relationship and forms of communication 3rl' Quarter . Begin design of transportation plan . Project Consultant January through . Identify phases of implementation · Project Coordinator March 2001 . Create draft of transportation plan · Design Team (included recommended phased approach) and submit to all involved parties for review 4'11 Quarter . Review feedback review on draft of . Project Consultant April through transportation plan · Project Coordinator June 2001 . Revise and finalize phased . Design Team transportation plan . Submit for final approval from invested parties I . Prepare for implementation . Planning milestones include: . Funds secured to undertake planning project . Consultant hired . Service and needs analysis completed . Preliminary plan developed and submitted for review . Formalized agreement reached between all parties . Final plan submitted, reviewed and approved Employees and Organizations Involved. As discussed previously, individuals anticipated to be involved in the proposed project include: . Project Consultant - an individual external to participating organization; will be expected to manage time accordingly to complete project tasks . Project Coordinator - existing employee to be designated by the City and District; estimated involvement will be .1 FfE . Design Team Members - representatives from the various organizations involved in the project; estimated involvement will be a minimum of 60 hours each (meeting attendance and information review) Client Groups. Client groups affected by this project include students, Adult Basic Education participants. community riders, Metro Transit, transportation providers, parents, District transportation . department and other municipalities. Participation expected from client groups includes representation on the project team; surveys; review and comment on proposed plans; and public hearings if necessary. Transit Final Application March 3] , 2000 Page 7 of 10 . Potential Difficulties. During the proposed project. the City and District anticipate few difficulties directly related to themselves, as there has been a long history of cooperative efforts. For example, Hopkins School District and the City of Hopkins joined forces to create the Hopkins Center for the Arts, a culture/arts center located in downtown Hopkins and home to Stages Theatre Company, which offers dramatic programming for youth. In addition the two organizations have collaborated on the Harley Hopkins Center, a family center focused on early education, and the Hopkins Family Resource Center, a clearinghouse for local and county services. Potential difficulties may arise, however, between transportation providers and the District as well as the City and Metro Transit simply because of inherent differences in public versus private motivations. Also, effectively communicating with all client groups may present some challenges. Keeping all parties appropriately informed is a necessary to prevent other difficulties from arising as a result of misunderstandings or miscommunication. Finally, a potential difficulty will be educating all client groups and general public about new services. The City and District have identified some strategies for overcoming these potential difficulties. The established working relationship between the District, City and transportation providers creates a foundation for minimizing difficulties. The project is designed to facilitate adequate opportunities for feedback from all involved and has goals mutually beneficial. School transportation providers will benefit from year-round employment and greater satisfaction and Metro Transit will likely see an increase in ridership with appropriately designed feeder routes. Creating an understanding of these points minimizes potential difficulties. . To facilitate effective communication, the City and District will schedule routine communication with invested parties. In addition, feedback received from surveys and group representatives wiII be shared with all primary client groups. Existing technologies will aid in disseminating appropriate information including project updates on City web sites and a list serv for all involved that have e-mail. Those with no e-mail access will be faxed the same information. Operating Relationship. Formalizing an operating relationship between the City and District can be easily established as joint powers agreements have been created with previous projects. The challenge to formalize an operating relationship occurs with the inclusion of transportation providers. Whether or not a formalized agreement with providers is necessary will be determined during planning. Implementation Funding. Until planning is complete, determining implementation cost is difficult. Once those costs are more clearly defined, the City and District will investigate city, county, state, federal and other non-government resources to fund the project's implementation. Part of the planning process and work product is identification of funding possibilities. . Transit Final Application March 31, 2000 Page 8 of 10 . PROJECT BUDGET INCOME EXPENSE Source Amollnt Source Amount Government grants $50.000 Salaries & benefits $13,923 · Board of Government Proj Coord: $35,000 x .235 fringe = $8,225 Innovation and $43,225 x .1FTE = $4.323 Cooperation Staff Meetings: $30 x 4 hr/mtg x 5 people x 16 mtgs :;: $9.600 In-kind 11.952 Consultants & expense 40.000 Total Income $61,952 Office supplies (Project CoordinatOr) 500 Office equipment (Project Coordinator) 2,500 Rent (for meeting rooms) 750 Postage (surveys, communications) 2,500 Telephone (Project Coordinator) 500 . Printing (initial and final plans) 1,000 Public meetings 0 Travel (900 miles x .31 == $279) 279 Total Expense $61,952 Monies received from a Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation grant will be used for consultant fees and expenses, postage, printing, supplies and travel. Remaining monies of $5,721 will be applied toward staff expenses. All other expenses listed above will be covered by in-kind contributions from the City and District. NEED FOR STATE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE A cooperative planning process requires dedicated resources to lead the project. State financial assistance provides the means to dedicate the resources necessary to successfully complete this project. . With existing systems demanding substantial subsidies to keep services operational, the City does not have the additional resources, other than in-kind, available to fund this project. The District, like most Transit Final Application March 31, 2000 Page 9 of 10 . . school districts, is cutting budgets while faced with the reality of an 18% increase in transportation costs next year. Demographic changes are increasing demands on Adult Basic Education currently facing the same budget cuts as the District and increasing transportation costs. The transportation issue is not just a local issue affecting one or two municipalities or a few school districts. Rising transportation costs have been an ongoing subject of concern during recent Legislative sessions, which have tried to facilitate effective management of school transportation costs by changing the way school transportation is funded. Historically school transportation was funded separate from the general operating fund for schools. Legislation within the last couple of sessions combined school transportation funding with the general operating fund. The 1997 Legislative mandate that led to the school transportation plan for Minneapolis and S1. Paul to use public transit systems to transport students further demonstrates that cost-effective, safe transportation is a significant issue statewide. Inadequate or inefficient transportation is repeatedly defined as an issue in our communities. Whether trying to serve community members or the school student, inherent challenges exist with current methods. A suburban, multi-municipality environment aggravates those inherent challenges. With state assistance, the City and District can potentially develop a model system that can be readily duplicated in other areas. increasing the efficiency of transit resources. increasing quality of service and reducing or containing rising transportation costs. . . Transit Final Application March 31. 2000 Page 10 of 10 . Grant Contract CP-99-30 between the Board of Govemment Innovation and Cooperation and the City of Hopkins STATE OF MINNESOTA DRAFT 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 Hopkins Address: 1010 First Street South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 Soc. Sec. or MN Tax 10 No.: 8022882 Federal Employer 10 No. (if applicable): 41-6005247 (Notice to grantee: you are required by MilUlesota Statutes, Section 270.66, to provide your social security number or MinnesoLa 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 Lax liabilities. This gran! contract will not be approved unless these numbers are . provided. These numbers will be available to federal and state tax authorities and staLe personnel involved in the payment of state obligations.) on behalf of the City of Hopkins hereinafter GRANTEE), witnesseth that: WHEREAS, the BOARD, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 465.798 is authorized to award grants; AND WHEREAS, the BOARD has awarded a Cooperative 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: 1. GRANTEE'S DUTIES. The GRANTEE, who is not a state employee, shall develop a program which revises the utilization of city and school district transportation resources to reduce operating costs and increase service and performance to the conununity, student, and Adult Basic Education. As described in the grant application submitted by the GRANTEE and hereby incorporated by reference, the GRANTEE shall: A. By January 15, 2001, have finalized contract with selected project consultants. B. By July 15, 2001, have completed review of feedback distributed to stakeholder groups. C. By October 15,2001, have bun the design of a draft transportation plan for a program which revises the utilization of city and school district transportation resources to . Page 1 of 8 . Grant Contract CP-99-30 between the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation and the City of Hopkins reduce operating costs and increase service and performance to the community, students, and Adult Basic Education learners for their review and comment. D.. By January 15, 2002, have competed and implemented a finalized, phased transportation plan for implementation which will revise the utilization of city and school district transportation resources to reduce operating costs and increase service and performance to the community, students, and Adult Basic Education learners. E. By March 15, 2002, have submitted to the BOARD a Final Financial Report and a Final Written Summary of the GRANTEE's activities in planning for and implementing a model city and school district transportation plan. The Final Written Summary shall include: 1. A description of the process used to develop a plan for developing the model, including a list of the parties involved in the planning, a timeline for the planning process, and a description of the involvement of potential users of the city and school district transportation plan; 2. A copy of the final report on developing and implementing a fully integrated city and school district transportation plan; 3. An assessment of the GRANTEE's success in achieving a model for city and . school district transportation resources plan to reduce operating costs and increase service and performance to the community, students, and Adult Basic Education learners; and 4. A description of the problems encountered in the development of develop a model city and school district transportation plan resources to reduce operating costs and increase service and performance to the community, students, and Adult Basic Education learners, and ideas of how those problems could have been prevented. II. CONSIDERATION AND TERMS OF PAYl\1ENT. 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 fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00). 2. 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. Proiect Line Item Budget . Page 2 of 8 . Grant Contract CP-99-30 betvveen the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation and the City of Hopkins The GRANTEE shall adhere to the following project budget in performing its duties and responsibilities as specified in this grant contract: Consultant(s) Services and Expenses $ 40,000 Project Coordinator Salary and Expenses 10 , 000 TOTAL $ 50,000 Modifications within each category of the above line item budget of less than 10 percent of the total budget amount are permitted without prior approval by the BOARD, so long as notification of such modifications is made through the submitted quarterly expenditure reports. Modifications within each category of the above line item budget of less than 20 percent of the total grant award are permitted only after receiving written approval from the BOARD I S authorized agent, Jim Gelbmann, Executive Director, or his successor's in office. Modifications of more than 20 percent of the total grant award will require an amendment to the grant contract through the execution of a formal grant amendment being to and approved by the BOARD. Provided, however, that the total obligation of the BOARD for all . compensation and reimbursements to the GRANTEE shall not exceed fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00). B. TERMS OF PAYMENT 1. A lump-sum payment of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) shall be made by the BOARD after the receipt of an initial invoice from the GRANTEE of at least five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) for payment of specific grant funded activities which have been completed. 2. A second lump payment of one thousand, four hundred dollars ($5,000) shall be paid to the GRANTEE upon the satisfactory performance of all grant conditions, including the submission of a Final Written Grant Sununary Report and a Final Financial Report. 3. 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: . Page 3 of 8 -------- - . Grant Contract CP-99-30 between the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation and the City of Hopkins October 15, 2000 January 15, 2001 April 15, 2001 July 15, 2001 October 15, 2001 January, 15, 2002 March 15, 2002 And quarterly until all grant funded activities are complete. 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 laws, ordinances, rules, or regulations. IV. REP A YMENT OF GRANT PROCEEDS A. In addition to the report required pursuant to Section I(E) of this contract, the GRANTEE shall prepare and submit to the BOARD, no later than March 15,2002, a report detailing the projected savings resulting from the operation of a model city . and school district transportation plan to reduce operating costs and increase service and performance to the community, students, and Adult Basic Education learners. When determining the projected savings, the GRANTEE shall estimate the savings resulting from the operation of the model city and school district transportation plan to reduce operating costs and increase service and performance to the annual operating costs through the continued reliance on a non-integrated transportation program model or other alternative configurations. All assumptions shall be clearly identified in the report. The BOARD through its authorized agent shall review and approve projections submitted by the GRANTEE. The BOARD may require the GRANTEE to revise its projections of cost savings based upon specific feedback from the BOARD or its authorized agent. B. By March 15, 2002, the GRANTEE shall submit to the BOARD its determination of the appropriate allocation of all grant dollars to each participating applicant. The allocation of gram dollars must be based on a reasonable analysis of the degree to which each applicant shall benefit from the implementation of the transportation plan. e. Each participating applicant shall annually repay to the BOARD an amount equal to its projected annual savings identified in section IV(A) multiplied by 1.00. The annual contributions shall begin one year after the implementation of the model city and school district transportation plan and shall continue for two additional consecutive years, provided that the total amount repaid to the BOARD shall not exceed the amount designated by the GRANTEE in its report pursuant to section . IV(B). Page 4 of 8 . Grant Contract CP-99-30 between the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation and the City of Hopkins D. If the actual savings realized as result of the implementation of the transportation plan are less than the projected savings contained in the report required in IV(A), the GRANTEE may submit a written request to the BOARD to reduce the annual repayment requirements to an amount which ret1ects the actual savings multiplied by 1.00. The BOARD, through its authorized agent, will review the request and supporting documentation and will adjust the required repayment accordingly, unless it can be determined that the participates actual savings are greater than the amount claimed by the GRANTEE. V. TERM OF GRANT CONTRACT. This grant contract shall be effective on August 15, 2000, or upon such date as it is executed by all necessary parties and the State of Minnesota Account System shows an allotment or encumbrance balance for the full amount of the contract award, whichever occurs later, and shall remain in effect until March 15, 2005, 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 plan, development and implement a model city and school district transportation plan to reduce operating costs and increase service and performance 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. VI. 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. Page 5 of 8 -- ------- --- .- . Grant Contract CP-99-30 between the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation and the City of Hopkins 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. VII. BOARD'S AUTHORIZED AGENT. The BOARD's authorized agent for the purposes of administration of this grant contract is Jim Gelbmann, Executive Director, or his successors 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. VIII. ASSIGNMENT. The GRANTEE shall neither assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under this grant contract without the prior written consent of the BOARD. IX. 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. X. 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 I 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. XI. 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. XII. 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. XIII. WORKER'S COMPENSATION. In accordance with the provisions of MiIll1esota 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. . Page 6 of 8 . Grant Contract CP-99-30 between the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation and the City of Hopkins XIV. 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 contract resulting from antitrust violations that arise under the antitrust laws of the United States and the antitrust laws of the State of Minnesota. XV. 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 rel/uired by Minnesota Statutes, Section 201.162. XVI. 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. XVII. 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 Quarterly Grant Progress . Reports, which are due on the dates listed below: October 15, 2000 January 15,2001 April 15, 2001 July 15, 2001 October 15, 2001 January, 15, 2002 March 15, 2002 And quarterly until all grant funded activities are complete. 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 not execute a contract with the subcontractor or otherwise enter into a binding agreement until it has first received written approval from BOARD staff. The BOARD staff 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 Page 7 of 8 . Grant Contract CP-99-30 between the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation and the City of Hopkins 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 below: IN 'VITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this grant contract to be duly executed, intending to be bound thereby. (1) GRANTEE: By: Title: Date: . (2) GRANTEE: By: Title: Date: (3) BOARD OF GOVERNMENT INNOV A TION: By: Title: . Date: Page 8 of 8 . EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE State law forbids the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation from entering into any contract until the Board receives acceptable evidence of compliance with workers' compensation insurance coverage requirements from the contractor. The exception to this requirement is a self-employed contractor who has no employees. An employee, as defined by M.S. S 176.011, subd. 9, is any person who performs services for another for hire, including minors and family members. If you do not fall within the exception and you wish to enter into a contract with the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation, you should furnish acceptable evidence of compliance with workers' compensation coverage by anyone of the following four methods. Please circle the method you have chosen and return this form to the Board with the applicable attachments. l. Attach a Certificate of Insurance (supplied by your workers' compensation carrier) to this form; 2. If you are self-insured, attach to this form a written order from the Minnesota Commissioner of Commerce allowing you to self-insure; 3. If you are self-insured and you are a state agency or a municipal subdivision of the state, pursuant to M.S. S 176.81, subd. 2., and are not required to obtain a written order from the Commissioner . of Conm1erce, sign and date this form in the space provided below; or 4. Fill in the information for each item below and sign in the space provided: (a) Name of your insurance carrier (b) Address of your insurance carrier (c) Your insurance policy number (d) I affirm that all the employees of (Your agency's name) are covered by the workers' compensation policy listed above. Signed by; . Title: Date: . MODEL RESOLUTION FORM Type your resolution on )'our agency's letterhead or a separate sheet of paper. Note: Carefully read and follow the instructions contained on the accompanying sheet. The circled numbers below refer to instructions contained on that sheet. Proper completion of the resolution will help to expedite the processing of your grant contract. ._---------------~--------------------~--------------------------------------------------------- RESOLUTION Grant contract for CD from the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation (hereinafter Board) to (?) (hereinafter Grantee) on behalf of CID . WHEREAS, @ has/have a need for a grant to @ (hereinafter Project); and WHEREAS, the Board has awarded CID a grant of $ CID in order to accomplish the Project; and WHEREAS, CID has/have authorized the Grantee to accept the Board's grant on . its/their behalf; anu WHEREAS, the Grantee is a local government unit organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Grantee understands that the Board will not reimburse the Grantee for any costs incurred for the Project prior to the date on which the grant contract is executed; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Grantee hereby authorizes and approves the execution of a grant contract with the Board for $ CID to accomplish the Project; and BE IT RESOL VED that the Grantee's @ is/are hereby authorized and directed to sign and submit a grant contract [or the said grant funds. Adopted: CD , 19 By: CID Its: By: @ Its: I hereby certify that the above resolution is a true copy of the Resolution duly passed, adopted, and approved by the @ on the (J) , J9_. @) . . INSTRUCTIONS For Preparing a Local Government Resolution Form These instructions are intended to assist you in preparing a resolution that will confirm your governing body's decision to accept a grant and to empower a specific person or persons to sign the grant contract. Without a resolution in the proper form, the processing state authorities will not approve a grant contract. If you need further assistance in preparing your resolution, please call the Board's staff at 612/297-3367. CD State very briefly the purpose for which your grant was awarded. For example, "resource sharing" or "planning for regional solid waste management." @ State the legal name of your local government unit. For example, "County of..." or "City of..." or "Town of ... ." CID State the organization or list the entities included as applicants for the grant. For example, "West Central Resource Sharing Cooperative" or "the Cities of Fridley, Mounds View, New Brighton, and Spring Lake Park." @ Describe briefly, but in more detail than in CD, the purposes for which the grant funds will be used. @) State the amount the Board has awarded to your project. . cID State the official or officials of the governing body who are being authorized to sign the grant contract. We recommend that you state only the title of the official, rather than stating the name of the person who currently holds that office. Then you will not have to adopt a new resolution if the officeholder changes before the grant contract is signed. Anyone or more of the officers of the governing body, or its administrative employees, may be delegated the authority to sign the grant contract. Be careful not to state that the Chair and the Vice Chair (for example) are authorized to sign if you intend that the Chair or the Vice Chair can sign. (J) State the date on which the resolution was adopted by the governing body. @ Generally, the person signing first should be the chief officer of the governing body. For example, the Board Chair, Mayor, or Town Chair. In the absence of the chief officer, the next highest ranking officer should sign. This person may be the same office holder as named in @. @ The second signature may be specified in the governing body's by-laws or in the law or charter that governs the body. In that case, the required officer must sign. If there is no such requirement, any officer other than the one signing in @ may sign. This person may be the same office holder as named in @. . @ The governing body's secretary, clerk, or other custodian of records should sign here.