HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 10-15 CCP Joint Work Session with Financial Commission P
S`
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
October 15, 2001
6:00 P.M.
CONFERENCE ROOM B
Joint Meeting with Financial Commission
1. Review proposed request for proposals for Audit Services
q P P
a. Review of request for proposals (Auditor scheduled pursuant to policy for review
in 2001).
b. Discussion of committee to review submitted proposals after staff screening.
2. Capital Improvement Plan
a. Capital Improvement Fund
b. Special Assessment Construction Fund (streets)
3. Utilities
a. Water & Sewer
b. Stormwater
c. Street Light Utility
d. Recycling
4. Miscellaneous
5. Adjourn
i
City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Kragness, Councilmembers L an, Nelson, Peppe, and Ricker
FROM: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager
DATE: October 11, 2001
SUBJECT: Request for Proposals for Auditor Services
Pursuant to the schedule that was developed with the Financial Commission and adopted by the City
Council, the City is to review auditor services through a request for a request for proposal process.
Attached is a copy of the policy and procedure on Request for Proposals (RFP) for Financial
Professional Services. This provides that staff prepare the specifications for the RFP, it be reviewed
by the Financial Commission, and approved by the City Council prior to solicitation. After
proposals have been received, they will be initially screened by staff and then reviewed by a
committee of Council Members and Financial Commission Members appointed by the Mayor in
consultation with the Chair of the Financial Commission. These appointments are then subject to
confirmation by the City Council. The City Manager and Finance Director serve on the committee
pursuant to the policy. The purpose of this agenda item is to review the RFP that Mr. Sell has
prepared. We would propose sending the RFP to the six firms listed in Mr. Sell's memorandum, in
addition to advertising this in the newspaper and the League of Minnesota Cities Bulletin. We
would like to have the Financial Commission's review of the RFP happen contemporaneously with
the City Council at the worksession on October 15, 2001. Any changes suggested in the joint
meeting would be incorporated into the RFP and placed on the October 22 °d agenda. This timetable
would allow us to receive the proposals by mid - November and be able to have the committee review
the proposals and make a recommendation to the City Council in time for the December 10"'
meeting.
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400
City Hall & TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434
FAX (763) 569 -3494
I
POLICY AND PROCEDURE ON
REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS FOR
FINANCIAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
I. NEED FOR POLICY:
The City needs a policy and procedure to provide for the orderly conduct of requesting proposals
for professional services for handling financial affairs, to ensure that all services will be
periodically reviewed, and that the proper balance will be maintained between cost and quality of
services.
II. POLICY:
1. All professional services in the area of city finances will be periodically let out for
request for proposals according to an established schedule.
2. Service levels will be monitored by the City Council and Staff and if unsatisfactory
service is received, that contract will be re- advertised prior to the year set in the
schedule.
3. Quality of service will be the primary factor in awarding a contract for professional
service, but cost will also be a determinant.
III. PROCEDURE:
1. A schedule shall be established for the conduct of R.F.P.s. The schedule should
be adhered to unless there is a performance problem or other justification for an
earlier R.F.P. Going to the market too frequently with R.F.P.s expends staff time,
requires extensive orientation of new professionals, and discourages quality firms
from submitting proposals at their most attractive price since they will expect to
only have the contract for a short time.
2. Specifications tailored to the professional service to be advertised will be :prepared
by staff, reviewed by the Financial Commission, and approved by the City
Council.
i
3. A review committee made up of the City Manager and Finance Director shall
review proposals for Banking Services, Insurance Agent, Risk Management
Consultant, and Custodian for investment securities. Proposals for Auditor and
Financial Advisor shall be initially screened by staff, and then reviewed by a
committee of City Council members and Financial Commission members appointed
by the Mayor in consultation with the Chair of the Financial Commission, with the
approval of the City Council, which committee shall also include the City Manager
and Finance Director.
4. The specifications will emphasize the abilities, qualifications, and experience of the
applicant firms to provide high quality service to the City. Price will be considered
after one or more applicants have been identified as providing the desired quality
of service. When. appropriate, the specification shall require prices to be
submitted in a separate, sealed envelope to be opened after applicants have been
ranked according to quality.
5. The City Manager shall make a recommendation to the City Council of a provider
to be appointed to a multi -year engagement. It shall be written in the engagement
that the appointment may be terminated earlier.
This policy was adopted by the City Council on May 28, 1996.
Member Debra Hilstrom introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 99 -20
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE POLICY AND PROCEDURE ON
REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS FO R FINANCIAI , PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City Council established the Policy and Procedure on Requests for
Proposals for Financial Professional Services on May 28, 1996; and
WHEREAS, one of the initial objectives of reviewing services which had been in
place for many years has been accomplished; and "
WHEREAS, the Financial Commission is recommending that the schedule for
conducting further requests for proposals be amended so that there will normally only be one
conducted each year; and
WHEREAS, the withdrawal of the City's current risk management consultant
requires that the schedule for conducting requests for proposals be amended so that the risk
management consultant be done in 1999 and the insurance agent be delayed to 2000.
l NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center to amend the Policy and Procedure on Requests for Proposals for Financial
Professional Services by adopting the "Alternative #3" Schedule of Requests for Proposals.
J anuary-2 5, 1999 7I,.Z�a�yt�
Date Mayor/
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Robert Peppe , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Myrna Kragness, Debra Hilstrom, Kay lasman, Fd Nelson, and Robert Peppe;
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed andadopted.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
SCHEDULE OF REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS
Alternative #3
NORMAL
INTERVAL
BETWEEN LAST
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE R.F.P.s R.F.P. 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Financial Advisor for bond sales 6 years 1998 Fin Advis
I
Banking Services 6 years 1996 Bank
Insurance Agent 6 years 1990 Ins Agent
Risk Management Consultant 6 years 1997 Risk Mgmt
Custodian for investment securities 6 years 1998 Custodian
Auditor 6 years 1994 Auditor
sc1 irnuu:.xLs alternativO 1/19/99
Memorandum
Date: October 10, 2001
To: Michael J McCauley
City Manager
From: Douglas Sell
Director of Fiscal and Support Services
RE:
RFP for Audit Services
Included is a copy of the proposed RFP for audit services for fiscal years ending
December 31, 2001, 2002 and 2003. The RFP provides for an extension for three
additional years under terms mutually agreeable to the City and the selected firm.
We are suggesting that the notice for the RFP be provided to several firms that provide
this type of service to include the following. These are the firms we have contacted in the
past regarding audit services.
Deloitte/Touche, LLP Tautges, Redpath and Associates
Larson, Allen, Weishair and Co. Kern, Dewenter, Viere, Lrd
Olsen, Thielen and Co. Ltd MMKR and Co. P.A.
In addition, we will advertise in the required newspaper as well as the LMC bi- weekly
publication, the `Bulletin."
Pursuant to City Policy, the City Council and Financial Commission should review and
approve the RFP. We are requesting this item be added to the October 8, 2001 City
Council/Financial Commission work session.
The City of Brooklyn Center is accepting proposals from qualified professional
accounting firms and individuals to provide the City with audit services for the fiscal
years ending December 31, 2001, 2002 and 2003.
To be considered, a completed response including a description of your firm and relevant
experience along with a total cost worksheet must be provided. A completed proposal
must be received by 4:00 PM on Thursday, November 15, 2001 at city offices at the
address noted below to be considered. Questions should be directed to the Director of
Fiscal and Support Services. A complete Request for Proposal package is available by
contacting:
Douglas Sell
Director of Fiscal and Support Services
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
(763) 569 -3345
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
PROFESSIONAL AUDIT SERVICES
DATED OCTOBER 22, 2001
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
PROFESSIONAL AUDIT SERVICES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
I. Introduction Page 1
II. Nature of Services Required Pages 1 to 4
III. Description of Organization Pages 4 to 7
IV. Time Requirements Pages 7 to 8
V. Assistance to Auditor and Report Pages 8 to 9
Preparation
VI. Proposal Requirements Pages 9 to 14
VII. Evaluation Procedures Pages 14 to 15
Appendices
Appendix A Proposal Warranties Page 16
Appendix B Proposal Fee and Expense Forms Pages 17 to 19
INTRODUCTION
A. General Information
The City of Brooklyn Center is requesting proposals from qualified firms of
certified public accountants to audit its financial statements for the three (3) fiscal
years ending December 31, 2001, 2002 and 2003 with the option of auditing its
financial statements for each of the three (3) subsequent fiscal years. These audits
are to be performed in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the
standards set forth for financial audits in the General Accounting Office's (GAO)
Government Auditing Standards (1994), the provisions of the federal Single Audit
Act of 1996 and US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A -133.
There is no expressed or implied obligation for the City of Brooklyn Center to
reimburse responding firms for any expenses incurred in preparing proposals in
response to this request.
Inquiries about the engagement or the request for proposal should be addressed to
Douglas Sell, Director of Fiscal and Support Services. To be considered, six
copies of a proposal must be received by Douglas Sell at 6301 Shingle Creek
Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 by 4:00 PM on Thursday,
November 15, 2001.
The City of Brooklyn Center reserves the right, where it may serve the City of
Brooklyn Center's best interest, to request additional information or clarifications
from proposer's, or to allow corrections of errors or omissions. At the discretion
of the City of Brooklyn Center, firm's submitting proposals may be requested to
make oral presentations as part of the evaluation process.
The City of Brooklyn Center 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 proposal, unless clearly and specifically noted in the
proposal submitted and confirmed in the contract between the City of Brooklyn
Center and the firm selected.
B. Term of Engagement
A three -year contract is contemplated, subject to the annual review and the
satisfactory negotiation of terms (including a price acceptable to both the City of
Brooklyn Center and the selected firm), the concurrence of the City Council and
the annual availability of an appropriation.
H. NATURE OF SERVICES REQUIRED
A. General
The City of Brooklyn Center is soliciting the services of qualified firms of
certified public accountants to audit its financial statements for the three (3) fiscal
years ending 2001, 2002 and 2003, with the option to audit the City of Brooklyn
Center's financial statements for each of the three (3) subsequent fiscal years.
These audits are to be performed in accordance with the provisions contained in
this request for proposal.
B. Scope of Work to be Performed
The City of Brooklyn Center 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 City of Brooklyn Center also desires the auditor to express an opinion on the
fair presentation of its combining and individual fund and account group financial
statements and schedules in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles. The auditor is not required to audit the supporting schedules contained
in the comprehensive annual financial report. However, the auditor is to provide
an "in- relation -to" opinion on the supporting schedules based on the auditing
procedures applied during the audit of the general purpose financial statements
and the combining and individual fund financial statement and schedules. The
auditor is not required to audit the statistical section of the report or express an
opinion as to the fair representation of the data.
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.
The auditor is not required to audit the schedule of expenditures of federal
awards, if applicable. However, the auditor is to provide an "in- relation -to" report
on that schedule based on the auditing procedures applied during the audit of the
financial statements.
C. Auditing Standards to be Followed
To meet the requirements of this request for proposal, the audit shall be performed
in accordance with generally accepting 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 the following reports.
1. A report on the fair presentation of the financial statements in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.
2
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. An "in- relation -to" report on the schedule of expenditures of federal
awards if applicable.
4. A report on compliance with requirements applicable to each major
program and internal control over compliance in accordance with OMB
Circular A -133.
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.
The reports on compliance shall include all instances of noncompliance.
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 City Manager, Michael J McCauley.
Reporting to the City Council. Auditors shall assure themselves that the City
Council of the City of Brooklyn Center's City is informed of each of the
following:
I. The auditor's responsibility under generally accepted auditing standards.
2. Significant accounting policies.
3. Management 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 accountants.
8. Major issues discussed with management prior to retention.
9. Difficulties encountered in performing the audit.
E. Special Conditions
3
1. The City of Brooklyn Center will send its comprehensive annual
financial report to the Government Finance Officers Association of the
United States and Canada for review in their Certificate of Achievement
for Excellence in Financial Reporting program. It is anticipated that the
auditor will not be required to provide special assistance to the City of
Brooklyn Center to meet the requirements of that program. However, the
city will accept suggestions and assistance in this regard.
2. The schedule of expenditures of federal awards, if applicable, and
related auditor's report, as well as the reports on the internal controls and
compliance, are not to be included in the comprehensive annual financial
report, but are to be issued separately.
3. There were no findings or other weaknesses from the City of Brooklyn
Center's most recent fiancial statement audit.
4. The City currently anticipates it will prepare one or more official
statements in connection with the sale of debt securities which will contain
the general purpose financial statements and the auditor's report thereon.
The auditor shall be required, if requested by the fiscal advisor and/or the
underwriter to issue a "consent and citation of expertise" as the auditor and
any necessary "comfort letters" as maybe required or requested.
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 following the issuance of an opinion, unless the firm
is notified in writing by the City of Brooklyn Center 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:
City of Brooklyn Center
Federal Cognizant Agency
US General Accounting Office (GAO)
Parties designated by the federal or state governments or by the City of
Brooklyn Center as part of an audit quality review process.
Auditors of entities of which the City of Brooklyn Center is a
sub- recipient of grant funds.
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.
M. DESCRIPTION OF THE GOVERNMENT
4
A. Principal Contact
The Auditor's principal contact with the City of Brooklyn Center will be Douglas
Sell, Director of Fiscal and Support Services, who will coordinate the assistance
to be provided by the City of Brooklyn Center to the auditor.
B. Background Information
The City of Brooklyn Center is a northern suburban community located in
Hennepin County, in the twin city /metropolitan area and encompasses
approximately 8.5 square miles. The 2000 census population of the City is
29,854.
Moody's Investors Service has assigned an Al rating for city debt instruments.
Brooklyn Center is a municipal corporation 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 present Mayor and Council members and there respective terms are:
Myrna Kragness Mayor December 31, 2002
Ed Nelson Council member December 31, 2002
Tim Ricker Council member December 31, 2002
Kay Lasman Council member December 31, 2004
Robert Peppe Council member December 31, 2004
The City Manager is responsible for the daily management of city business and
the administration of policy as directed by the Council. Mr. Michael J McCauley
is the City Manager and has served in this capacity since 1995.
Mr. Douglas Sell has been with the City as the Fiscal and Support Services
Director since 2001. He was previously the City Administrator for the City of
Jordan. Mr. Robert Sundberg, the Assistant Finance Director, has been with the
City since 1996 having previously served as the City's Accountant.
C. Budgetary Basis of Accounting
The City of Brooklyn Center prepares its budgets on a basis consistent with
generally accepted accounting principles.
D. Pension Plans
The City of Brooklyn Center participates in the following pension plans:
PERA — A defined benefit program with employer and employee contributions.
Fire Relief Association — A defined benefit program with employer contributions.
E. Component Units
5
The City of Brooklyn Center is defined, for financial reporting purposes, in
conformity with the Governmental Accounting Standards Board's Codification of
Governmental Accounting and Financial Reporting Standards, Section 2100.
Using these criteria, two component units are included in the City of Brooklyn
Center financial statements.
The management of the City of Brooklyn Center identified the following
component units for inclusion in the City of Brooklyn Center's financial
statements:
1. Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
(HRA)
2. Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
(EDA)
The Brooklyn Center Fire Relief Association is a nonprofit organization that
provides pensions and other benefits to its members in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes. Its board of directors is elected by the membership. Because
the association is able to fund its programs independently of the City it is
excluded from the reporting entity.
F. Personnel Assigned
The Finance Department is headed by Douglas Sell, Director of Fiscal and
Support Services and consists of nine employees. The principal functions
performed and the number of employees assigned to each are as follows:
Function Number of Emnlovees
Assistant Finance Director 1
Assessor 1
Accountant 1
Payroll/HR/IT Assistant 1
Appraiser Technician 1
Accounting Technician II 2
Assessing Secretary 1
Finance Technician 1
Fiber optic connects most city facilities to the network, which is located at city
hall. Brooklyn Center is a member of LOGIS that is a technology consortium of
26 cities that share hardware and software operations and equipment. Brooklyn
Center has been a LOGIS member since 1977. All major computer applications
are provided through LOGIS.
Function
General Ledger
Budget
6
Payroll
Utility Billing
Permits
Special Assessments
Fire
Police
GIS
Parks and Recreation
H. Internal Audit Function
The City of Brooklyn Center does not maintain an internal audit function other
than internal checks performed by the Finance Department.
I. Availability of Prior Audit Reports and Working Papers
Interested proposer's who wish to review prior years' audit reports and
management letters should contact Robert Sundberg, Assistant Finance Director,
at 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center Minnesota 55430, telephone 763-
569- 3353. The City of Brooklyn Center will make its best efforts to make prior
audit reports and supporting working papers available to proposer's to aid their
response to this request for proposal.
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:
November 5, 2001: Last date for submission of questions.
November 15, 2001: Proposals to be submitted.
B. Schedule for the 2000 Year Audit
1. Detailed Audit Plan
The auditor shall provide City of Brooklyn Center both a detailed audit
plan and a list of all schedules to be prepared by the City of Brooklyn
Center.
2. Fieldwork
The auditor shall complete all fieldwork by May 1. A schedule for interim
work, fieldwork and draft reports will be determined upon completion of
the auditor selection process. A similar time schedule will be developed
for audits of future fiscal years.
C. Entrance Conference and Exit Conferences
A similar time schedule will be developed for audits of future fiscal years.
7
At a minimum the following conferences should be held by the dates indicated on
the schedule. These dates may be changed by mutual agreement between the City
of Brooklyn Center and the selected auditor.
1. Entrance conference with City Manager and Director of Fiscal and
Support Services.
Week of December 17.2001
The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss any potential audit problems and
the interim work to be performed. This meeting will also be used to establish
overall liaison for the audit and to make arrangements for work space and other
needs of the auditor.
2. Entrance conference with Director of Fiscal and Support Services to
commence year -end audit work.
Week of March 31. 2002
3. Exit conference with City Manager and Director of Fiscal and Support
Services
Week of Mav 20.2002
The purpose of this meeting will be to summarize the results of the field work and
to review significant findings.
D. Date Final Report is Due
The Finance Department shall prepare draft financial statements, notes and all
required supplementary schedules and statistical data by May 1, 2002. The auditor
shall provide all recommendations, revisions and suggestions for improvement to
the Fiscal and Support Services Director by May 20, 2002. A revised report,
including draft auditor's report(s), shall be delivered to the Director of Fiscal and
Support Services by June 1 St of each year.
The final report should be delivered to the Director of Fiscal and Support Services
at 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
V. ASSISTANCE TO BE PROVIDED TO THE AUDITOR AND REPORT
PREPARATION
A. Finance Division and Clerical Assistance
The finance division 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 will be the
responsibility of the City of Brooklyn Center using the format provided by the
auditor.
8
B. Work area, Telephones, Photocopying and FAX machines
The City of Brooklyn Center 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
COMPREHENSIVE, ANNUAL FINANCIA REPORT
Report preparation, editing and printing shall be the responsibility of the City of
Brooklyn Center.
ALL OTHER REPORTS
Report preparation, editing and printing shall be the responsibility of the auditor.
VI. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Inquiries concerning the request for proposal and the subject of the
request for proposal must be made in writing to:
Douglas Sell
Director of Fiscal and Support Services
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
All inquiries must be received no later than November 5, 2001.
2. The following material is required to be received by 4:00 p.m. on
November 15, 2001 for a proposing firm to be considered:
a. A master copy (so marked) of a Technical Proposal and five copies to
include the following:
i. Title Page
Title page showing the request for proposal subject; the firm's
name; the name, address and telephone number of the contact
person; and the date of the proposal.
ii. Table of Contents
iii. Transmittal Letter
A signed letter of transmittal briefly stating the proposers'
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 the
three year period.
iv. Detailed Proposal
9
The detailed proposal should follow the order set forth in Section
VI - B of this request for proposal.
v. Executed copies of Proposer Warranties, attached to this
Request for Proposal (Appendix A).
b. Proposers should send the completed proposal consisting of a separate
envelope to the following address:
Douglas Sell
Director of Fiscal and Support Services
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
B. Technical Proposal
1. 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 Brooklyn Center in conformity with the requirements
of this request for proposal. As such, the substance of proposals will carry
more weight than their form or manner of presentation. 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 address all the points outlined in the
request for proposal (excluding any cost information which should only be
included in the sealed dollar cost bid). The proposal should be prepared
simply and economically, providing a straightforward, concise description
of the proposers capabilities to satisfy the requirements of the request for
proposal. While additional data may be presented, the following subject,
Item Nos. two through ten must be included. They represent the criteria
against which the proposal will be evaluated.
2. Independence
The firm should provide an affirmative statement that it is independent of
the City of Brooklyn Center as defined by generally accepted auditing
standards the US General Accounting Office's Government Auditing
Standards (1994).
The firm also should provide an affirmative statement that it is
independent of all of the component units of the City of Brooklyn Center
as defined by those same standards.
10
The firm should also list and describe the firm's professional relationships
involving the City of Brooklyn Center or its component unit 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 Brooklyn Center written notice
of any professional relationships entered into during the period of this
agreement.
3. 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.
4. 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 this 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 review of field reviews of its audits during the past three (3)
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 (3) years with state regulatory bodies or professional
organizations.
S. 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.
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.
The proposer should identify the extent to which staff to be assigned to. the
audit reflect the City of Brooklyn Center's commitment to Affirmative
Action.
11
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 pem1ission of
the City of Brooklyn Center, 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.
6. Prior Engagements with the City of Brooklyn Center
List separately all engagements within the last five years, ranked on the
basis of total staff hours, for the City of Lakeville by type of engagement
(i.e., audit, management advisory services, other). Indicate the scope of
work, date, engagement partners, total hours, the location of the firm's
office from which the engagement was performed and the name and
telephone number of the principal client contact.
7. Similar Engagements with Other Government Entities
For the firm's office that will be assigned responsibility for the audit, list
the most significant engagements (maximum -five) performed in the last
five 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
8. 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. In developing the work plan,
reference should be made to such sources of information as the City of
Brooklyn Center's budget and related materials, organizational charts,
manuals and programs, and financial and other management information
systems.
Proposers will be required to provide the following information on their
audit approach:
a) Proposed segmentation of the engagement
b) Level of staff and number of hours to be assigned to each
proposed segment of the engagement
12
c) Sample size and the extent to which statistical sampling is to be
used in the engagement
d) Extent of use of EDP software in the engagement
e) Type and extent of analytical procedures to be used in the
engagement
f) Approach to be taken to gain and document an understanding of
the City of Brooklyn Center's internal control structure
g) Approach to be taken in determining laws and regulations that
will be subject to audit test work
h) Approach to be taken in drawing audit samples for purposes of
tests of compliance
9. Identification of Anticipated Potential Audit Problems
The proposal should identify and describe any anticipated potential audit .
problems, the firm's approach to resolving these problems and any special
assistance that will be requested from the City of Brooklyn Center.
10. Report Format
The proposal should include sample formats for required reports.
11.Appendix A
Proposer shall complete and provide an original copy of Appendix A
certifying and providing for specific warranties and assurances with regard
to the proposed engagement.
C. Sealed Dollar Cost Bid
1. Total All - Inclusive Maximum Price
The sealed dollar cost bid 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 City of Brooklyn Center will not be responsible for expenses incurred
in preparing and submitting the technical proposal or the sealed dollar cost
bid. Such costs should not be included in the proposal.
The first page of the sealed dollar cost bid should include the following
information:
a. Name of Firm
b. Certification that the person signing the proposal is entitled to
represent the empowered to submit the bid, and authorized to sign
a contract with the City of Brooklyn Center.
c. A total all- inclusive Maximum Price for the three (3) year
engagement
13
2. Rates by Partner, Specialist, Supervisory and Staff Level Times Hours
Anticipated for Each
The second page of the sealed 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. The cost of special services should be disclosed as separate
components of the total all- inclusive maximum price.
3. Out -of- pocket Expenses Included in the Total All- inclusive Maximum
Price and Reimbursement Rates
All expense reimbursements will be included in the total all - inclusive
maximum price submitted by the firm.
4. Rates for Additional Professional Services
If it should become necessary for City of Brooklyn Center to request the
auditor to render any additional services to either supplement the services
requested in this RFP or to perform additional work as a result of the
specific recommendations 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 City of Brooklyn Center and the
firm. Any such additional work agreed to between City of Brooklyn
Center and the firm shall be performed at the same rates set forth in the
schedule of fees and expenses included in the sealed dollar cost bid.
5. Manner of Payment
Progress payments will be made on the basis of hours of work completed
during the course of the engagement and out -of- pocket expenses incurred
in accordance with the firm's dollar cost bid proposal. Interim billing shall
cover a period of not less than a calendar month.
VII. EVALUATION PROCEDURES
A. Review of Proposal
The City of Brooklyn Center 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 Brooklyn Center.
14
c. The firm adheres to the instructions in this request for proposal
on preparing and submitting the proposal.
d. The fine 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
(1) The firm's past experience and performance on
comparable government engagements.
(2) 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
(3) The firm's expertise with the GFOA Certificate of
Achievement in Financial Reporting.
b. Audit Approach
(1) Adequacy of proposed staffing plan for various
segments of the engagement
(2) Adequacy of sampling techniques
(3) 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 anyone or
all firms to make oral presentations. Such presentation will provide firms with an
opportunity to answer any questions the Financial Commission or their designee
may have on a firm's proposal. Not all firms may be asked to make such oral
presentations.
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 Brooklyn
Center and the firm selected.
The City f Brooklyn Center re
ty yn serves the right without prejudice to reject any or
all proposals.
15
I
APPENDIX A
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
PROPOSER WARRANTIES
A. Proposer warrants that it is willing and able to comply with State of Minnesota
laws with respect to foreign (non -state of Minnesota) corporations.
B. Proposer warrants that it is willing and able to obtain an errors and omissions
P g
insurance policy providing a prudent amount of coverage for the willful or
negligent acts or omissions of any officers, employees or agents thereof.
C. Proposer warrants that it will not delegate or subcontract its responsibilities
under an agreement without the prior written permission of the City of Brooklyn
Center.
D. Proposer warrants that all information provided in connection with this
proposal is true and accurate.
E. 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):
Title:
Firm:
Date:
i
16
I
APPENDIX B
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
SCHEDULE OF PROFESSIONAL FEES AND EXPENSES
FOR THE AUDIT OF THE 2001 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
NOTE: The rate quoted should not be presented as a general percentage of the
standard hourly rate or as a gross deduction from the total all - inclusive maximum
price.
Standard Quoted
Hourly Hourly
H= Rates Rates Total
Partners
Managers
Supervisory
Staff $ $ $
Other
(Specify) S $ $
Subtotal $ $ $
Out -of- Pocket
Expenses $
Meals and
Lodging $
Transportation $
Other
(Specify) $
Total All-
inclusive Price
for 2001 Audit
Services $
I
I
I
17
i
APPENDIX B
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
SCHEDULE OF PROFESSIONAL FEES AND EXPENSES
FOR THE AUDIT OF THE 2002 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
NOTE: The rate quoted should not be presented as a general percentage of the
standard hourly rate or as a gross deduction from the total all - inclusive maximum
price.
Standard Quoted
Hourly Hourly
Hours Rates R= Total
Partners
$ $ $
Managers
$ $ $
Supervisory
Staff $ $ $
Other
(Specify) $ $ $
Subtotal $ $ $
Out -of- Pocket
Expenses $
Meals and
Lodging $
Transportation $
Other
(Specify) $
Total All-
inclusive Price
for 2001 Audit
Services $
18
APPENDIX B
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
SCHEDULE OF PROFESSIONAL FEES AND EXPENSES
FOR THE AUDIT OF THE 2003 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
NOTE: The rate quoted should not be presented as a general percentage of the
standard hourly rate or as a gross deduction from the total all - inclusive maximum
price.
Standard Quoted
Hourly Hourly
Hours Rates Rates Total
' Partners
Managers
Supervisory
Staff $ $ $
Other
(Specify) $ $ $
Subtotal $ $ $ _
Out -of- Pocket
Expenses $
Meals and
Lodging $
Transportation $
Other
(Specify) $
Total All-
inclusive Price
for 2001 Audit
Services $
19
City Brooklyn n
y o
Z Center
f y
A Millennium Community
To: Mayor Kragness and Council Members Lasman, Nelson, Peppe, and Ricker
Financial Commission Members
From: Michael J. McCauley
City Manager
Date: October 12, 2001
Re: Capital Improvement Plan
Utilities
The Capital Improvement Plan is very similar to last year's 5 year projection. The
addition of 2006 is at the planned Destination Park level. Revenues would be enhanced
with an increase in the Golf Course loan repayment amount and an increase of $25,000 in
the liquor store contribution. This would bring the liquor store contribution back to the
$100,000 per year level. It has been at $75,000 for the past few years while the liquor
operations have been re- configured.
The Special Assessment Construction Fund (streets) has been adjusted to.reflect changes
made in the plans for 2002 that increase costs $205,691 to address more of the
France /53 d /Osseo road areas and start on Happy Hollow. The other major adjustment is
in 2004 and 2005. The 2001 CIP split the anticipated cost of Tangletown as a one year
project into two years. Reviewing the potential costs, the City Engineer has increased
each year's costs to reflect a loss of economy of scale. We anticipate that the final draft
will reduce the costs of the 2002 projects to reflect payment by the street light utility for
lights, the use of more state aid on the project, and will add some additional transfer from
the General Fund.
As indicated in Ms. Spector's memorandum, there are a number of approaches to the
funding of the Special Assessment Construction Fund. The plan before you makes certain
assumptions:
1. the City ill levy the maximum determined b the State in 2002
Y Y Y
2. Golf Course loan repayment will be accelerated (which appears to be feasible
and can always be adjusted, based on unforeseen circumstances at the golf
course)
3. the utility rates will be increased and additional parts of the street projects will
be funded by the utilities
4. the street light utility will be implemented at the proposed rates.
As the draft General Fund budget stands now, I anticipate being able to budget $80,000 +
in additional transfers to the Special Assessment Construction Fund. Issues that are
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400
City Hall & TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434
FAX (763) 569 -3494
I
unfunded in these plans included the impacts of switching to 800 MHZ. $300,000 is
included in the Capital Improvement Program, but this would be inadequate to replace
the dispatch center, if that was required.
As the final drafts are prepared for public hearing and further Council action and
Commission recommendations, we would like to get a sense of whether the direction
outlined is acceptable.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 11, 2001
TO: Michael I McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Diane Spector, Director of Public Work
SUBJECT: Proposed 2002 -2006 Capital Improvements Program
Preliminary 2002 Utility Rate Study
Attached are several tables providing a "big picture" overview of the Capital Improvement Program
(CIP), and the evaluation of funding of capital projects over the five -year period 2002 -2006.
The first table is a summary of the projects contemplated over this five -year period. The subsequent
tables detail the impact on the utility, capital improvements, and special assessment construction
funds, as well as the utility rates necessary to support the proposed capital improvements.
In eneral the capital lace are not adequate in the long g funds and funding plans currently m p q g run to
continue the Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvement Program. Additional funding is
necessary to continue at even the reduced pace identified in last year's CIP. Later in this memo
several options are presented for the Council and Financial Commission to consider to address this
shortfall.
Table 1: Proposed CIP, 2002 -2006
In general, projects proposed in the 2002 -2006 CIP include:
Streets
• The continuation of the Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvement Program;
• City participation in several state and county highway projects; and
• Rehabilitation of several commercial streets.
Utilities
• In water and sanitary sewer, primarily the completion of several maintenance type projects, with
a few projects intended to maintain the integrity of interceptors or forcemains;
• Contemplation of construction of a water treatment plant; and
• Various water resources projects, including improvements to Twin Lakes, Shingle Creek, and
Palmer Lake.
Parks
• Completion of improvements to the following Destination Parks: Evergreen, Grandview, and
Central; and
• Miscellaneous improvements to park facilities according to the 20 year replacement schedule.
Other
0 Completion of several building projects;
Improvements to several trail segments; and
° Replacement of the emergency sirens and improvements to the Public Safety/Public Works radio
system.
Table 2: Adecivacv of General Fund Contribution to Street Proiects
This table shows the estimated cost of the various neighborhood street projects proposed for this
period; the estimated cost is the total street cost (i.e., any project cost that is not attributable to and
chargeable to utilities) less the estimated special assessments. These project costs are accounted for
in the Special Assessment Construction Fund. Starting balance is the unencumbered fund balance
not necessary to service special assessment debt. Revenues to the Fund include interest; an annual
transfer from year -end General Fund surplus; and a General Fund contribution that is annually levied
specifically for this purpose.
As can be seen, by the end of 2003, the fund balance is nearly exhausted, and thereafter the planned
levy contribution and year end surplus transfer is not sufficient to pay the annual city share of street
improvement costs. (In actuality, we would not expect the fund to go into the red until the end of
2004, as we estimate project costs very conservatively, and would expect that the actual cost of
projects in 2002, 2003 and 2004 would be somewhat less than the cost as proposed.)
Each year project costs increase. In the past few years, construction companies have been having
trouble hiring, and have paid a premium for laborers, passing along those increased labor costs.
Petroleum costs have been variable, impacting the cost of fuel and bituminous material. Project costs
have also risen relating to the amount of additional work we include being responsive to residents.
For example, more trees have been removed in the project areas at the request of homeowners than
have been removed for project reasons.
However, funding dedicated to this program has not kept up with these increases. In 2001, an
additional $15,000 was budgeted, the first increase in several years. Transfers from year end surplus
have been substantial but irregular, and cannot be relied upon as a steady source of revenue. It is
unlikely that this transfer could be substantially increased in future years.
The Council and Financial Commission could consider various options to address this situation:
1. Reduce the size or frequency of neighborhood projects. For example, construct projects
every other year or two out of every three years. Con: smaller projects lose economies of
scale. This is why the estimated cost of projects in 2004 and 2005 increased substantially.
During development of last year's CIP, the "Tangletown" project was too costly to construct
in one year, so it was divided into two smaller projects. At that time, the estimated cost was
simply proportioned between the two years. For this year's CIP, a separate cost estimate was
made for each project, using the higher cost per mile of a smaller project with limited
economies of scale, separate mobilization charges for each project, etc. As a result, the
estimated cost of these projects increased substantially.
In addition, less frequent projects do not fully utilize city investments in engineering staff or
equipment, and could actually be an increase in costs to the General Fund. Five Engineering
Technicians are funded about 25 percent from the General Fund and 75 percent from the
2
capital funds. A percentage of my time and the time of the City Engineer, Engineering
Secretary, Administrative Aide, and Public Works Specialist is also charged to projects and
funded from sources other than the General Fund. During those down years, all those costs
would be charged fully against the General Fund. This would reduce the General Fund
amount available to transfer to the street program.
2. Increase the share paid by property owners through special assessments. Con: the current
level of special assessment is a reasonable amount that has public acceptance. Increasing the
rate may lead to more appeals, or make projects less palatable to neighborhoods.
3. More aggressively charge utility funds for a share of street improvements. For example, the
Storm Drainage Utility could be charged a portion of the cost of curb and gutter, as it is an
integral part of the storm drainage system. Also, some of the cost of replacement street lights
now funded by the General Fund contribution can be charged to the new street light service
fund. Con: this would require raising the utility rates well over what is currently projected.
4. Increase the levied General Fund contribution. Con: either increases taxes or reduces the
amount available for other budget purposes.
5. Increase the transfer from year -end surplus. Con: year -end surplus is unreliable and varies
from year to year. Also, relying too heavily on this source reduces the Council's flexibility to
use it for other purposes.
Staff Recommendation
Implement a combination of 2, 3, and 4. Use 5 where possible, but do not rely on the ability to
increase this contribution, or even to sustain that level.
Table 3: Capital Improvements Fund and Golf Course Fund
The lower of the two tables on that page shows that in the later part of this five year period, the golf
course fund should be able to accumulate an operating fund balance in excess of the target starting
operating balance. When the debt service schedule to repay the loan from Capital Improvements
Fund (CIF) for construction was renegotiated in 1997, the Council agreed that if in future years the
golf course fund had funds in excess of its target balances, then that excess could be considered for
transfer to the CIF.
What is proposed in this table is an acceleration of the loan repayment schedule. This schedule
currently assumes $50,000 principal payment in 2001 and 2002, increasing to $55,000 in 2003 -2006.
It is proposed to increase the principal payment to $70,000 2002, $75,000 in 2003 -2004, and $80,000
in 2005 -2006. If the golf course fund is able to sustain this accelerated schedule, the loan would be
retired four to five years early.
The upper table shows the effect on the Capital Improvements Fund of this accelerated schedule.
Staff Recommendation
Approve the accelerated loan repayment schedule.
3
Table 4: Prouosed 2002 Utilitv Rates and Proiected 2003 -2006 Rates
Utility rate increases for 2001 increased the average annual utility bill for single - family residential
properties by 4.6 percent, and for senior homeowners 4.3 percent. Rate increases proposed for 2002
would increase the average annual utility bill for single - family properties by 3.5 percent, and for
seniors by 4.8 percent. No increase is recommended in the water utility, but sanitary sewer and
storm drainage increases are recommended.
These rate increases are necessary to operate and maintain the three utility systems, as well as to
construct the utility improvements associated with the neighborhood projects.
It is projected that utility rates would increase at around four percent per year until the later part of
the five year period, when the projected increases would be in the range of two to three percent.
A $1 per month increase in the recycling rate is necessary to implement the new commingled
recycling program. Recycling rates have remained virtually unchanged since recycling collection
was implemented ten years ago.
A new item on the utility bill would be the newly established service charge for street lights. This
charge would be established at $3 per household per quarter for 2002. Other types of property would _
be charged a rate per acre except multiple family properties, which would be charged a rate per
dwelling unit.
Following Table 4 are the detailed tables used to calculate the utility rates. A similar table will be
prepared for the street light service district.
Staff Recommendation
Use these recommended rate increases to prepare the Utility Rate Study for Council consideration in
November 2001.
4
Table 1: Proposed CIP, 2002 -2006
Year Street Utility Park* Other Planning
2001 0 Garden City North 0 Wellhouse #4 addition 0 Relocate Central hockey, 0 City Hall/ Community Center ° TH 100
Brooklyn Blvd 0 Replace 16" gate valve, skating rinks addition and remodeling a I94/694
° Replace signal lamps with Centerbrook 0 Evergreen softball lights 0 City Hall/Community Center
LCDs 0 Evergreen irrigation parking lots
° Centerbrook storage bldg 0 Garage north windows &
° East Palmer shelter, lights sandblasting
2002 0 Garden City South 0 Replace 2 lift station cabinets 0 Grandview Phase I (bldg, 0 City Hall/ Community Center ° Twin Lake
° Southwest Area & controls hockey, skating, bball) addition and remodeling testing &
° France Avenue Relocation 0 Shingle Creek improvements 0 Twin Lake shelter, 0 City Hall/Community Center design
° 47` h playground, trail parking lots 0 Shingle Creek
63 Blvd signal Central trail lights 0 Rehab Palmer Lake Trail improvements
° Paint garage exterior
2003 0 Happy Hollow 0 Mississippi River Interceptor 0 Grandview Phase II 0 Raise Shingle Creek Trail 0 Garage cold
° TH 100 bank stabilization (playground, baseball, 0 Sidewalk, east side Evergreen storage bldg
° I94/694 0 TH 100 Relocations soccer, tennis court) Park
° 73` Humboldt/Penn (B Park 0 Replace 2 lift station cabinets Centerbrook irrigation 0 Replace 2 emergency sirens
lead agency) & controls 0 Central tennis court rehab
Twin Lake improvements
2004 0 Tangletown South 0 Replace 2 lift station cabinets 0 Add garage cold storage bldg 0 Streetscape
° Shingle Creek Pkwy M &O & controls 0 Replace 2 emergency sirens Brookdale
° TH 100 0 Shingle Creek improvements Area
° I- 94/694
2005 0 Tangletown North 0 Central softball/baseball 0 Brookdale Area streetscape 0 Water
Xerxes/Northway /55 lights 0 Xerxes sidewalk/Brookdale Treatment
M &O 0 Centerbrook clubhouse reroof trail plant?
° Evergreen track & 0 Upgrade radio system 0 Palmer Lake
scoreboard dredging
2006 0 Riverwood 0 Rehab forcemains at LS #2, 9 ° Garden 0 °
° Paint/rehab 69 Ave Parkway ° Water treatment plant? City/Riverdale /Kylawn
fence 0 Palmer Lake improvements shelters
Dupont, I94/694 to 69
*Park projects in italics are Destination Park improvements.
Table 2: Adequacy of General Fund Contribution to Street Projects
Oct 01 2UD1` `... € ..
............ ..;.,.....,
.. ..... ..
C�EI�E #tigLFfJ�Ql�l�;�'�}iETI��ETF�Ff �I£�1S'`'4`;
Starting Balance $1,203,777 1 $938,5831 $185,872 1 $33,299 1 ($385,687)1 ($524,407)
Revenues
Investment interest 66,210 51,620 10,220 1,830 (21,210) (28,840)
Levy contrib, SA bond debt retired* 69,536 143,172
Transfer from year -end surplus 225,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 225,000
Budgeted General Fund contribution 409,044 409,044 409,044 409,044 409,044 409,044
EkDenditures 965,448 1,438,375 796,837 1,054,860 821,090 916,530
Capital Outlays 965,448 1,438,375 796,837 1,054,860 821,090 916,530
Bellvue (99,516) 0 0 0 0 0
Logan /James /Knox/57th
Azelia
SE Neighborhood 0 0 0 0 0 0
Earle Brown Dr (28,151)
Garden City Central 32,822 0 0 0 0 0
73rd 0 107,955
Garden City North 935,293 0
Garden City South 50,000 1,020,455 0 0 0 0
Southwest/France /53rd /Osseo 75,000 367,920
Tangletown S 55,000 994,860
Happy Hollow 0 50,000 633,882 0 0 0
Tangletown N 0 0 60,000 761,090 0
Riverwood 60,000 916,530
Reforestation
Ending Balance $938,583 1 $185,872 1 $33,299 1 ($385,687)1 ($524,407)' ($692,561)
* In 1994, 1995, and 1996, bonds were issued to pay for the City's share of street improvements; subsequently a policy change
was approved to pay cash for the City's share. These figures are the levy to service that debt that would become available as
the debt is retired. It could be reallocated to increase the levy contribution, with no increase in taxes. The use of this levy could
be impacted by legislative restrictions, such as levy limits.
Table 3: Capital Improvements Fund and Golf Course Fund
2. Oct 01
..... ... ..;.. ;.;.;.; Ot), ............... .............................::
APLT�k 11VI Fib : . :
Starting Balance (Net Current Assets) $3,129,297 $502,957 $516,107 I $555,124 I $430,074
Revenues
Investment Interest 241,080 156,460 25,150 25,810 27,760 21,500
Golf course loan payments 50,000 70,000 75,000 75,000 80,000 80,000
Transfer from year -end surplus 115,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000
Transfers from other funds 568,700 0 0 0 0 0
Budgeted transf from G F /Liquor fund 225,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 225,000
Expenditures
Capital Outlays 2,088,534 3,197,800 432,000 406,793 577,810 423,000
Police /Fire stations 12,539 0 0 0 0 0
Civic Center impr 1,650,000 2,650,000 0 0 0 0
Park improvements 312,500 480,000 315,000 11,593 258,810 315,000
Central Garage impr 75,000 50,000 0 225,000 0 0
Emerg sirens & radio sys 0 0 50,000 50,000 300,000 0
City's street assessments 38,495 17,800 67,000 120,200 19,000 108,000
Ending Balance $3,129,297 $502,957 I $516,107 $555,124 $430,074 $453,574
11- Oct -01 �'.�00'I �`�'`.`� 20b�X003�� €`.�Oq....•...•. � ................�............ .
t3LF?tQJRSE1~Nl;
Target starting operating balance $57,450 $58,950 ( $61,450 I $63,320 $65,470 $67,580
Operating Cash Starting Balance $51,426 $98,843 $123,945 $151,475 I $182,832 $214,668
Revenues
Fees & rentals 326,359 335,031 345,082 355,434 366,097 377,080
Concessions & merchandise 50,250 53,000 54,590 56,228 57,915 59,652
Interest 6,406 5,000 10,016 10,467 12,469 13,779
Operatina Expenditures
Operating costs 244,348 257,789 265,523 273,488 281,693 290,144
Cost of sales 36,100 36,300 37,389 38,511 39,666 40,856
Net operating income $102,567 $98,942 $106,776 $110,130 115,122 119,512
Add back depreciation 14,850 16,160 15,754 16,227 16,714 17,215
Loan repayment (accelerated sched) (50,000) (70,000) (75,000) (75,000) (80,000) (80,000)
Contribution to capital (20,000) (20,000) (20,000) (20,000) (20,000) (20,000)
Operating Cash Ending Balance $98,843 $123,945 $151,475 1 $182,8321 $214,6681 $251,395
Capital Reserve Cash Starting Balance 53,982 40,982 42,982 22,982 24,982 14,982
Contribution to capital 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
Capital Expenditures
Capital Outlays $33,000 $18,000 $40,000 $18,000 $30,000 $15,000
Clubhouse impr 5,000 0 0 30,000 0
Ground impr 33,000 13,000 40,000 18,000 0 15,000
Capital Reserve Cash Ending Balance $40,982 $42,982 $22,982 $24,982 $14,982 $19,982
Total Golf Course Ending Balance $139.825 $166,927 $174.457 $207,814 1 $229,650 1 $271,3771
Brooklyn Center Municipal Golf Course
Proposed Accelerated Schedule As Of December 31, 2001
Interest Free Loan Amortization Schedule
Beginning Ending Ending
Principal Annual Principal Accelerated Principal
Year Balance Pay_ ment Balance Payment Balance
1998 1 $1,150,000 $50,000 $1,100,000 $50,000 $1,100,000
1999 2 1,100,000 50,000 1,050,000 50,000 1,050,000
2000 3 1,050,000 50,000 1,000,000 50,000 1,000,000
2001 4 1,000,000 50,000 950,000 50,000 950,000
2002 5 950,000 50,000 900,000 70,000 880,000
2003 6 900,000 55,000 845,000 75,000 805,000
2004 7 845,000 55,000 790,000 75,000 730,000
2005 8 790,000 55,000 735,000 80,000 650,000-
2006 9 735,000 55,000 680,000 80,000 570,000
2007 10 680,000 55,000 625,000 80,000 490,000
2008 11 625,000 60,000 565,000 80,000 410,000
2009 12 565,000 60,000 505,000 85,000 325,000
2010 13 505,000 60,000 445,000 85,000 240,000
2011 14 445,000 60,000 385,000 85,000 155,000
2012 15 385,000 60,000 325,000 85,000 70,000
2013 16 325,000 65,000 260,000 70,000 0
2014 17 260,000 65,000 195,000
2015 18 195,000 65,000 130,000
2016 19 130,000 65,000 65,000
2017 20 65,000 65,000 0
$1,150,000 $1,150,000
Table 4: Proposed 2002 Utility and Service Charge Rates
11- Oct -01
Utility Charges
Residential 2001 2002 Seniors 2001 2002
Water $ 127.40 $ 127.40 Water $ 28.00 $ 28.00
Sanitary $ 200.00 $ 210.00 Sanitary $ 110.00 $ 115.60
Storm $ 43.00 $ 46.00 Storm $ 43.00 $ 46.00
Total $ 370.40 $ 383.40 Total $ 181.00 $ 189.60
$ Change $ 17.40 $ 13.00 $ Change $ 8.48 $ 8.60
% Change 4.6% 3.5% % Change 4.3% 4.8%
Other Charges
Recycling $ 25.80 $ 37.80 Recycling $ 25.80 $ 37.80
Street Light $ 12.00 Street Light $ 12.00
Projected Utility and Service Charge Rates, 2001 -2006
Utility Charges
Residential 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006*
Water $ 127.40 $ 127.40 $ 143.00 $ 153.40 $ 161.20 $ 171.60
Sanitary $ 200.00 $ 210.00 $ 210.00 $ 215.00 $ 215.00 $ 220.00
Storm $ 43.00 $ 46.00 $ 46.00 $ 46.00 $ 46.00 $ 43.00
Total Utilities $ 370.40 $ 383.40 $ 399.00 $ 414.40 $ 422.20 $ 434.60
3.5% 4.1% 3.9% 1.9% 2.9%
*Should a water treatment plant at a cost of $8 million be built in 2006, then debt service would
require a rate increase of 24 %, to a total annual utility charge of $523.
Other Charges
Recycling $ 25.80 $ 37.80 $ 37.80 $ 37.80 $ 37.80 $ 37.80
Street Lights $ 12.00 $ 12.00 $ 16.00 $ 16.00 $ 20.00
WATER UTILITY RATE STUDY: 2002
10- Oct -01 budget budget 10/2
. 00 .......... -- ----
.................... .......
"!
k
2 V 4$830;667
Start of Year Cash Investments 6
EXPENDITURES
Operations
Personal Service $448,079 $438,395 $451,547 $465,093 $479,046 $493,417
Contractual Service 209,590 209,866 216,162 222,647 229,326 236,206
Supplies & Materials 147,000 152,050 156,612 161,310 166,149 171,134
Utilities/insurance 119,475 120,185 123,791 127,504 131,329 135,269
Depreciation 412,055 433,899 450,000 460,000 470,000 470,000
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,336,199 $1,354,395 $1,398,111 $1,436,554 $1,475,851 $1,506,026
REVENUES
Billing Revenues $1,225,000 $1,225,000 $1,375,000 $1,475,000 $1,550,000 $1,650,000
Miscellaneous Operating 155,000 160,000 165,000 170,000 175,000 180,000
Bond proceeds
Change in Fair Market Value of Inv
Miscellaneous Non-operating 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
TOTAL REVENUES $1,400,000 $1,405,000 $1,560,000 $1,665,000 $1,745,000 $1,850,000
Net Income or Loss $63,801 $50,605 $161,889 $228,446 $269,149 $343974
Depreciation Add-Back $412,055 $433,8 $450,000 $460,000 $470,000 $470:000
.100
Non Operating Expenditures
Capital Outlay $1,053,978 $1,389,545 $607,300 $764,105 $465,815 $681,180
Debt Service $56,300 $56,300
Non Operating Revenues
Interest Earnings $111,481 $85,334 $41,533 $43,839 $42,249 $58,028
Total Net Effect on Fund Balance ($522,941) ($876,007) $46,122 ($31,820) $315,583 $190,821
End of Year Cash & Investments $1;706,675 $830,667 04, 0 $1s160,553
For Information
Cash Balance Target $1,000,0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,0
..............
..A: ow.p. w
Number of gallons (in 1000s) 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000
WATER UTILITY RATE STUDY: 2002: Treatment Plant in 2006
10- Oct -01 budget budget 10/2
0.
Start of Year Cash & Investments $2229616 fg 41706,675j$83tlFi6
EXPENDITURES
Operations
Personal Service $448,079 $438,395 $451,547 $465,093 $479,046 $493,417
Contractual Service 209,590 209,866 216,162 222,647 229,326 236,206
Supplies & Materials 147,000 152,050 156,612 161,310 166,149 171,134
Utilities /Insurance 119,475 120,185 123,791 127,504 131,329 135,269
Depreciation 412,055 433,899 450,000 460,000 470,000 470,000
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,336,199 $1,354,395 $1,398,111 $1,436,554 $1,475,851 $1,506,026
REVENUES
Billing Revenues $1,225,000 $1,225,000 $1,375,000 $1,475,000 $1,550,000 $2,500,000
Miscellaneous Operating 155,000 160,000 165,000 170,000 175,000 180,000
Bond proceeds 8,000,000
Change in Fair Market Value of Inv
Miscellaneous Non - operating 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
TOTAL REVENUES $1,400,000 $1,405,000 $1,560,000 $1,665,000 $1,745,000 $10,700,000
Net Income or Loss $63,801 1 $50,6051 $161,889 $228,446 $269,1491 $9,193,974
Depreciation Add - Back $412,055 $433,899 $450,000 $460,000 $470,000 $470,000
.�v ��' �� � :� �: ��• .: :. • . � � :i: � . r� :::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::• ��` �� 5
. 0 :: 4. �: :::::::::::::::;� •x:1 :::::::::::::::: � g � . l� .... 7�.. 14 � fk6� 9� . .
A aw. i��af�.. tapat��. ��> I�tr... butia ................................................... �....... ��&..... 1........... .. �, 5ti. �.. 1............. �. .......,.5��................�.. �.. ►....................� .... �... 9..�..............$..,..... �..... .
..............
Non Operating Expenditures
Capital Outlay $1,053,978 $1,389,545 $607,300 $764,105 $465,815 $8,681,180
Debt Service $56,300 $56,300 $690,000
Non Operating Revenues
Interest Earnings $111,481 $85,334 $41,533 $43,839 $42,249 $58,028
Total Net Effect on Fund Balance ($522,941) ($876,007) $46,122 ($31,820) $315,583 $350,821
End of Year Cash &Investments $1;T06675 a'$$30,66T '876;790 ; ;.$844,970 $1,160,5.53 $1,51
For Information
Cash Balance Target $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
..::::• ::::::::::::: •:::::•:':':•:.:•:::•:•:::.:•:: ':::::::::::':::'::::::: •::: �VY:::::•:•:•: •:::::::::::::::: ' I 'iV:::: 11. .......... .� i..... ... ..... it
.Rat�,.pleC, 000 c�r�s : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : $ Q: 9�:. �...,.. .:...:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:....... $;.:.:.........:....................... �......................................: �:........................... .................$ ....... . w
.....
Number of gallons (in 1000s) 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000
SANITARY SEWER RATE STUDY: 2002
10- Oct -01 Budget Budq 10/2
'
Start of Year Cash & Investments f $857.,U0 0.36t815:` "I
S 44
EXPENDITURES
Operations Personal Service $209,585 $218,554 $225,111 $231,864 $238,820 $245,984
Contractual Service 131,588 128,244 134,656 141,389 148,458 155,881
Supplies & Materials 16,500 18,750 19,313 19,892 20,489 21,103
Utilities/Insurance 32,380 32,380 33,999 35,699 37,484 39,358
Depreciation 234,237 250,148 270,000 280,000 290,000 300,000
Subtotal: City O&M Expense $624,290 $648,076 $683,078 $708,844 $735,251 $762,327
MCES Charges $1,425,000 $1,400,000 $1,414,000 $1,428,140 $1,442,421 $1,456,846
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $2,049,290 $2,048,076 $2,097,078 $2,136,984 $2,177,672 $2,219,173
REVENUES
Billing Revenues $2,510,901 $2,646,966 $2,658,096 $2,733,481 $2,745,306 $2,821,050
Miscellaneous Operating 0 0 0 0 0 0
Change in Fair Market Value of Inv
Miscellaneous Non-operating 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
TOTAL REVENUES $2,511,901 $2,647,966 $2,659,096 $2,734,481 $2,746,306 $2,822,050
Net Income or Loss $462,611 I $599,890 I $562,018 $597,497 $568,634 $602,877
Depreciation Add-Back $234,237 $250,148 $270,000 $280,000 $290,000 $300,000
w : 0 . -
- .8 7
Non Operating Expenditures
Capital Outlay $561,220 $1,392,015 $711,790 $808,305 $440,940 $1,143,090
Non Operating Revenues
Interest Earnings $42,867 $51,792 $27,282 $34,658 $39,850 $62,728
Total Net Effect on Fund Balance $178,495 ($490,185) $147,510 $103,850 $457,544 ($177,485)
End of Year Cash & Investments 5,04,9 f
For Information
Proposed Cash Balance Target $950,000 $950,000 $950,000 $950,000 $950,000 $950,000
Residential Accounts
Senior Accounts
0
STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY RATE STUDY: 2002
10-Oct-01 budget Budg 1012
20
�'$476` 9 _ ,PWI8 $ 1
Start of Year Cash & Investments $1 490,T2
EXPENDITURES
Operations Personal Service $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Contractual Service 56,879 54,057 56,003 58,019 60,108 62,272
Supplies & Materials 500 650 1,100 1,200 1,200 1,300
Utilities/insurance 3,200 3,200 3,315 3,435 3,558 3,686
Depreciation 164,902 182,695 180,000 190,000 200,000 200,000
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $325,481 $340,602 $340,418 $352,654 $364,866 $367,258
REVENUES
Billing Revenues $1,118,000 $1,196,000 $1,196,000 $1,196,000 $1,196,000 $1,118,000
Change in Fair market value
Miscellaneous Operating 0 0 0 0 0 0
Miscellaneous Non-operating 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
TOTAL REVENUES $1,120,500 $1,198,500 $1,198,500 $1,198,500 $1,198,500 $1,120,500
Net Income or Loss $795,019 I $857,898 I $858,082 $845,846 $833,634 $753,242
Depreciation Add-Back $164,902 $182,695 $180,000 $190,000 $200,000 $200,000
$ A.
3 4
A 2
v".
00.. . 0 .
.005
Non Operating Expenditures
Capital Outlay $360,331 $1,154,790 $495,785 $601,845 $350,070 $690,920
Debt Service $240,850 $240,850 $240,540 $239,250 $237,210
Non Operating Revenues
Interest Earnings $6,571 $24,836 $8,326 $23,830 $34,759 $58,815
Total Net Effect on Fund Balance $365,311 ($330,211) $310,083 $218,581 $481,113 $321,137
j
7-994.3
End of Year Cash & Investments t 0, $166
1517, $ 695,180 7JIJ 4 7
For Information
Proposed Cash Balance Target $540,000 $540,000 $540,000 $540,000 $540,000 $540,000
Ak
Ap 0
Residential rate per lot $10.75 $11.50 $11.50 $11.50 $11.50 $10.75
Schools & govt buildings per acre $53.75 $57.50 $57.50 $57.50 $57.50 $53.75
Multiple family & churches per acre $129.00 $138.00 $138.00 $138.00 $138.00 $129.00
Commercial and industrial per acre $215.00 $230.00 $230.00 $230.00 $230.00 $215.00
Potential Street Light Utility Charges & Revenues
11- Oct -01
Total Quarterly Annual Other Cities
Property Type Unit Units Charge Revenue Per Quarter
Single Family Number 7365 $ 3 $ 88,380 $3 -6
Two Family, Townhouse, Condos Number 861 $ 3 $ 10,332 $3 -6
Multi Family Units 3241 $ 3 $ 38,892 $2.25 -3
per unit
Institutional Acres 239 $ 10 $ 9,560 $5 -20
Retail and Service -Office Acres 515 15 30,900 $5 -20
Industrial Acres 217 $ 15 $ 13,020 $5 -20
Parks & Open Space Acres 536 $ 5 $ 10,720 unclear
Vacant - Developable"* Acres 70 $ 5 $ 1,400 unclear
Vacant - Undevelopable Acres 25
Total Potential Revenue $ 203,204
* *End of '99 data. Some of this has been developed since then.
Potential Budget Item Budget
2001 Budget: Street Lights $ 140,000
Additional expense for addl deco lighting $ 20,000
Admin & overhead $ 5,000
Potential Future Street Light Utility budget $ 165,000
Add in approx annual project expense for new lights $ 75,000
Potential Future Street Light Utility budget w/ capital $ 240,000
Unit Annual Quarterly
For example Unit Area Charqe Charge Charge
Brookdale - Acres 37.26 $ 15 $ 2,236 $ 559
Northport School Acres 21.76 $ 10 $ 870 $ 218
Rainbow Foods Acres 12.41 $ 15 $ 745 $ 186
St. AI's Church Acres 17.82 $ 10 $ 713 $ 178
Maranatha Acres 7.07 $ 10 $ 283 $ 71
Hilton Acres 6.46 $ 15 $ 388 $ 97
BCHS Acres 35.57 $ 10 $ 1,423 $ 356
Grandview Park Acres 12.45 $ 5 $ 249 $ 62
Henn County Govt Center Acres 13.35 $ 10 $ 534 $ 134
Summerchase Units 252 $ 3 $ 3,024 $ 756
Wickes Distribution Acres 12.6 $ 15 $ 756 $ 189
NEIGHBORHOOD STREET AND UTILITY
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROGRESS
i Major Projects ( Local 1 MSA I Total i
1985 -1993 1 1.381 4.76 6.16 6%
1994 Northwest; James /Knox, 53rd to 55th 1.67 0.25 1.92
1995 Woodbine; Freeway Blvd; Humboldt, 69th to 2.73 1.97 4.70
73rd
1996 Orchard East; 69th; Logan/James/Knox/57th; 5.59 2.08 7.67
Xerxes /53rd
1997 Orchard West; France, 69th to 73rd 4.81 0.50 5.31
1998 Bellvue; Lee /68th; James /67th; John Martin Dr 3.22 0.77 3.99
1999 Southeast; Earle Brown Dr east; 66th/Camden 4.27 0.44 4.71
2000 Garden City Central; 73rd, Humboldt to 3.25 0.94 4.19
Camden
2001 Garden City North; Halifax/Grimes/France 3.52 - 3.52
1994 -2001 29.05 6.95 35.99 35%
2002 Garden City South; Southwest; 4.81 1.98 6.79
France /53 /Osseo; 47 48th
2003 Happy Hollow; 73 Humboldt to Penn 1.87 .25 2.12
2004 Tangletown South; Shingle Creek Pkwy 2.45 1.15 3.60
2005 Tangletown North; Summit, Earle Brown west 2.63 1.23 3.90
2006 Riverwood; Xerxes, 55 56 Northway 2.36 0.70 3.06
12002 -2006 - - - -- -- 1 14.12 5.361 19.48119%
1 2007 -2011 I 12.371 2.841 15.21115%
1 2012- - 1 24.551 2.851 27.40126%
TOTAL 1 81.471 22.761 104.221