1j Approval of Cooperative Grant Application
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
'0 Cio,CenterDrille, PO Box 147 FROM:
C/Jal/ha.\JCI1, Minl/esota 55317
Don Ashworth, City Manager
P/;ol/e 612937.1900 DA TE:
Genera! Fax 612937.5739
'ngiileering Fax 612937.9152
lIb/ic Saft~J' Fax 612934.2524
lrtb l1'U'/II.ci. ehallhl!.ieil. 11111. I!S
January 21, 1998
SUBJ:
Cooperative Planning Grant Application
Staff is seeking the city councii' s approval of our participating in a muIti-
jurisdictional grant application to the Minnesota Board on Governmental
Innovation and Cooperation. If the grant is received, there would be no cost to the
city and, in fact, we should be reimbursed for our time and expenses. The essence
of the grant application is to document how cities, counties, and school districts
can best work together in solving problems.
Approval of the grant application is recommended.
g:\mgr\grantappl.doc
.~
Cit)1 ol'C!JI1Il!JilSSCIJ. A rJi'(Jll'irw COJllIll/lllir' with
. 'J 0 <..'\ ')
-,choo!s, il c!1(lnllil/g doU'ntol/ln, t/;ril'ing businesses, and beillitifit! pmh. II gl'i'i!t P/'I(( !(I !il'e. work, 111/(1 pl,!v
/'r
)
,I ./
.J::~:'~~-, "
\....."
~ Metropolitan Council
~ Working for the Region, Planning for the Future
January 16, 1998
Don Ashworth, City Manager
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Dr. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: City of Chanhassen's participation in grant from the Board on Government Innovation and Cooperation
Dear Mr.Ashworth:
This fall, the Metropolitan Council submitted a grant proposal to the Board on Government Innovation and
Cooperation in partnership with the Educational Cooperative Services Unit of the Metropolitan Twin Cities
Area and TIES--Technicallnformation Edutation Services. It's purpose is to develop a workshop and
workshop manual for cities and school districts to use in a cooperative planning process. Upon completion of
that material, the three partners would offer workshops to interested school districts and their associated
cities and county within their districts to share information that would be useful to all parties in developing
their long range plans. Our pre-application was well received, ranking 8th out of a total of 79 applicants.
Needless to say, we are very excited about this project. A copy of the final application narrative is attached
for your review.
Your city's participation would be in the form of attendance at a maximum of six meetings between April and
August, 1998. During those meetings, we would:
. build an inventory of information needs and resources for both schools and cities/townships or county,
. develop a structure for a school district/city and county workshop that would lead all jurisdictions along a
path toward cooperative planning, and
. develop workshop materials to enhance the workshop activities and facilitate ongoing dialogue between
the schools and cities/townships and county.
In addition, we would welcome the opportunity to address other issues that become identified in our joint
meetings.
What we are asking for your city's commitment to work with the school district and county, to help develop
these materials and process. Your assistance would in turn benefit numerous other cities and school districts
in the metro region and possibly around Minnesota.
Please review the draft of the proposed grant application, which is due January 30, 1998. We would
appreciate hearing any comments you might have on the draft.
We have also included a single sheet indicating your agreement to participate in the grant activities. This
sheet should be returned with signature of an elected or appointed official no later than Tuesday, January 27,
1998. (A FAX copy is permissable --FAX #602-1442) These signature sheets will be attached to the grant
application wher:' it is submitted. If you would like to talk with me about any of this material, I can be reached
at 602-1356 between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Or if you wish, you may call Tom Baldwin with the Metro-
ECSU at 490-0058, x-130.
~'~~
Terrence Kayser (~
Office of Local Assist~e
Attachment (2)
230 East Fifth Street
S1. Paul. Minnesota 55101~1634 (612) 291-6359 Fax 291-6550
TDDjlTY 291~0904 Metro Info Line 229~3780
An Equal Opportunity Employer
A Cooperative Planning Grant Application CP-97 -18
Submitted by
Educational Cooperative Service Unit of the Metropolitan Twin Cities Area.
Metropolitan Council
TIES (Technology Instructional Education Service)
Roseville Area Schools, Independent District #623,
and the cities of Roseville, Lauderdale, Falcon Heights, Maplewood, Little
Canada, Shoreview, Arden Hills and Ramsey County.
Chaska School District, Independent District #112
and the cities of Chanhassen, Chaska, Carver, Victoria and Carver County
A school district and associated cities/county YET TO BE SELECTED
To
The Minnesota Board on Government Innovation and Cooperation
January 30, 1998
Planning Grant Application CP-97-18
Draft of Jan. 16, 1998
Project Goal: To facilitate improved and increased collaborative planning between and
among school districts and municipalities (and counties) in Minnesota, specifically
focusing on those in the seven county metropolitan area.
I. Proposed Project
Background Schools and municipalities find themselves operating in an increasingly complex
and demanding political and social environment. The changes and pressures they face make it
more important to work in cooperation with each other. Historically, collaborative planning
between the two has been limited and patchy. In addition, citizens have increasing
expectations of more efficient use of public funds. Current growth expectations for the seven
county region show an increase of 330,000 households in the next 25 years. This would
equate to at least 125,000 additional public K-12 students. To accommodate this increase will
require additional new facilities as well as remodeling and upgrading nearly all existing school
facilities. Public expenditures for this increase would be enormous. In addition, as
development increases in all metropolitan areas of the state, better decisions at all local
governments will require them to be made in coll~boration rather than in isolation. Improved
and increased planning between levels of government can make those expenditures more
effective
Cities, counties and townships in the seven county metropolitan area are required to share their
vision for the future via comprehensive plans with school districts and neighboring jurisdictions.
Often this may be the only communication between school districts and the other levels of local
government. The requirement of developing comprehensive plans (and sharing them) only
applies to the metro area, not in other developing areas of the state. While some school
districts, cities and counties communicate on a regular basis, many others do not. There is no
record of efforts to bring school districts together with cities and counties to build a collaborative
planning strategy that will benefit both.
While this is an opportune time to increase collaborative planning between these groups, there
is no formal process established at this time. Nor are there established goals and guidelines for
what information is needed to accomplish this collaboration. However, it is commonly agreed
that some formalized planning activity and tools are necessary. This proposal intends to
Planning Grant Application CP-97 -18
Draft of Jan. 16,1998
oevelop a process and establish the tools that will assist interested school districts and the
cities and counties within their boundaries to develop collaborative long-range plans.
The three principal grant applicants (Metro ECSU, Metropolitan Council and TIES) have a
history of working separately with school districts and counties. In this proposal, they are
collaborating to bring together schools, cities and counties to develop this workshop format.
The products of the grant activities will then be shared with other school district/cities/county
combinations that voluntarily seek to increase the level of collaborative planning between
themselves.
B. Benefit
The extent of collaborative planning between school districts, cities and counties is not known,
but is estimated to be limited. based on our informal survey. Consequently, there is no
baseline, or benchmark to which this proposal can compare. There have been, however, some
incidents where cities, counties and school districts have pooled funds to construct joint
facilities that enhance the community they serve. While many more and varied opportunities
may exist, they will not come to fruition unless the three levels of governments enhance their
working relationships.
The products of this proposal will be made available for all school districts, cities and counties in
Minnesota and other locations. By providing the impetus for working collaboratively, that effort
may be enough to find a host of ways they can cooperate and collaborate on joint services. We
hypothesize that many opportunities exist for cost savings as a result of this project. However,
that is an intuitive assumption, there are no estimates available. It may be assumed that just a
single joint project in one school district may repay the costs of this grant through savings of
public funds.
c. Work Product
The proposal has two phases and a total of five specific tasks. The phases are: Development
and Try-out. In the development phase, three distinct tasks will be undertaken as follows.
1. GIS Overview. The proposal principals feel that one way to facilitate increased
collaboration is through a common planning language. That language could be GIS, or
Planning Grant Application CP-97-18
Draft of Jan. 16, 1998
Geographic Information System. A large effort is underway in the Metro Area with the Metro-
GIS project in which both the Metropolitan Council and TIES are participants. This training
would be provided to the school districts because they are not as versed as are cities and
counties with the planning capabilities of the technology. TIES would take lead responsibility for
this task.
2. Workshop format and materials development. The second task will bring together two
pilot sites consisting of a single school district, the cities and the county in their jurisdiction for
the purpose of developing the process for a workshop and the materials to facilitate the
workshop. The two pilot sites will include the Roseville Schools ISO #623 and Chaska School
District ISD# 112 and their related cities and Carver and Ramsey Counties. These
districts/cities/county have been selected because they have a history of working closely
together and have established working relationships. Given this, it is anticipated that, (a) the
project tasks will take minimal time to complete, and (b) combining the experiences from both
pilots, the process, materials and ideas generated should account for 80 to 90 percent of issues
of procedure and content other school districts and cities might encounter.
3. Develop an executive summary comprehensive plan for school districts. The third task
will be to develop a template for an executive summary for a municipal or county
comprehensive plan for school districts. Our understanding is that school districts are not
familiar with municipal/ county planning issues and their response to the comprehensive plan
(as required by law) may thus be inconsequential. This executive summary will be designed to
facilitate (a) understanding of municipal/county comprehensive planning of issues of
consequence to school districts and (b) provide improved responses from the school district
back to the city.
The second phase of the project is comprised of two tasks: Try-out and Dissemination.
4. Try-out. The try-out will commence upon completion of the development of the workshop
process, the materials used in it, and the executive summary. Later in 1998 the project
principals will invite another school district and their associated cities to "try out" the materials
developed in the development phase. The try-out will be a "dress rehearsal" of the workshop
and materials and will use the time and format that will structure the final product when it is
offered school districts, cities and/or county. The principals will conduct the workshop and an
Planning Grant Application CP-97 -18
Draft of Jan. 16, 1998
evaluation of the process and materials used in the workshop. Modifications will be made prior
to presenting it to other districts and cities. (Note: This task was not part of the original pre-
application proposal. However, it was felt by the principals that a try-out, or "dress rehearsal"
was necessary to ensure the workshop meets the needs of the school districts, cities and
county.)
5. Dissemination of materials. The three products from this grant project will be used
extensively with the 53 school districts and their associated cities/counties in the seven county
metropolitan area. In addition, the materials and workshop process will be made available to
other regional Cooperative Service Units (CSU) throughout Minnesota for use outside the
metropolitan area. The three grant principals will offer short-term training on the model for
those regional CSU's. In addition, the principals intend to disseminate the concept and
materials via electronic media, i.e., on the Internet. This task will ensure easy access of
materials by cities and school districts in Minnesota and in other locations.
D. Planning Process
The first steps in the planning process have been completed. That is, the recruitment of the
initial two groups consisting of a school district and its related cities/county. These two groups
will form the pilot work groups that will develop the workshop process and materials and the
executive summary. The objective for this is to ensure a greater proportion of issues and
concerns are addressed and included during the development process. This will provide
assurance that the process and materials are more applicable to a wider variety of school
districts and cities/counties (for example, stable slow growth communities as well as
suburban/exurban, fast growth areas).
The anticipated timeline for this project will be 12 months or less. The collaborative work on the
development phase will be six months or less and will require a maximum of six meetings.
After the workshop and materials are developed, the try-out and dissemination phase will take
the remaining six months or less. The try-out will require preparation time, one meeting, and a
follow-up evaluation of the workshop. When the grant activities are completed, the workshop
and materials will be available to school districts and cities/county throughout the metro area via
the Metropolitan Council and Metro ECSU and in other areas of Minnesota through their
regional CSU. CSUs in Greater Minnesota will be offered training in the process and materials
Planning Grant Application CP-97-18
Draft of Jan. 16, 1998
by the three metropolitan agencies (grant proposal principals). The following time-line shows
the sequence of tasks, start dates, participants and expected outcomes.
Project Time Line
Milestone Task Start Date Participants Outcomes
Number
GIS Overview 1 April 1998 TIES, ISO 112, ISO Overview of uses and benefits
623 of GIS as planning tool.
Workshop 2 April 1998 Metro ECSU, Metro Workshop format and
Development Council, TIES, ISO materials for collaborative
112, cities, and Carver planning between school
County--ISO#623, districts and cities
cities and Ramsey
County
Executive 3 July 1998 Metro ECSU, Metro Establish format and template
Summary Council, TIES, ISO for comprehensive plan
112, cities, and Carver executive summary
County--ISO#623,
cities and Ramsey
County
Try-out and 4,5 October Metro ECSU, Metro Validate workshop process
Dissemination 1998 Council, TIES, an ISO and materials, executive
(to be selected) and summary. Establish network
cities for distribution of materials and
set training opportunities.
E. Project Budget
The applicants are seeking a grant in the amount of $26,025 that will be added to the estimated
$16,000 of in-kind costs to accomplish the project objective. The project budget is presented
here t?ased on the five tasks that will be implemented. Since the project is quite simple and has
minimal participants, the budget expenditures are given in terms of salary and benefits of the
Planning Grant Application CP-97-18
o raft of Jan. 16, 1998
three principal participants (Metro ECSU, Metropolitan Council and TIES). Added to these
figures is a percentage that reflects indirect costs that include expenses such as office supplies,
equipment, rent, postage, phone, printing, meeting expenses and travel. Indirect expenses for
Metro ECSU and TIES are 8% while the cities, school districts, county and Metropolitan Council
are 10%. Expenditures for consultant work is given in hourly fees.
Revenues that will go to the project are applicable only for the Metropolitan Council.
Consequently, these revenues, generated from the general operating levy are applied to the
grant as "In-Kind" contributions, amount to 38% of the proposed grant expenditures. The Metro
ECSU and TIES are public, not-for-profit organizations that generate revenues through
membership fees and fee-for-services. Project expenditures for their part, accounting for 40%
of the grant expenditures, will come from grant funds. The remaining 22% will cover consultant
costs.
Implementation of the planning model after it has been validated will be established through the
Metropolitan Council's Office of Local Assistance (aLA) in coordination with the Metro ECSU
and TIES. By integrating the model and procedures into aLA, it will become part of that unit's
regular program of assistance. For the Metro ECSU and TIES organizations, their "after grant
project" costs will be negotiated (fees for services) with agencies seeking training on the
workshops and materials. This would include working with other regional Educational
Cooperative Service Units outside the metropolitan area.
Planning Grant Application CP-97-18
Draft of Jan. 16, 1998
PROJECT BUDGET
Task Name Participants Total In-Kind Grant Costs
Hours Costs
GIS Overview TIES 36 $1,800
MC 24 $ 640
ISO 112 3 180
ISO 623 3 180
Workshop and MC 80 2,140
Manual Development Metro ECSU 48 4,800
TIES 12 900
ISO 112 12 360
ISO 623 12 360
9 cities * 108 3.240
Carver County 12 360
Ramsey County 12 360
Meeting Facilitator 24 2,400
Develop Executive MC 40 1,070
Summary Template Metro ECSU 24 2,400
TIES 12 900
ISO 112 6 180
ISO 623 6 180
9 cities * 54 1,620
Carver County 6 180
Ramsey County 6 180
Execute Try-out Metro ECSU 16 1,600
TIES 3 225
MC 20 535
ISO * 6 180
Cities * # 6 1,680
Preparation and Metro ECSU 12 1,200
Dissemination TIES 12 900
MC 40 1,070
Consultant Programmer 40 3,000
Consultant Writer 75 3.750
Indirect Costs Metro ECSU (.08) 800
TIES (.08) 450
MC (.10) 545
School Districts, Cities, etc. (.10) 906
Subtotals $ 15,966 $ 26.025
Total Proiect Costs r $ 41,991
Notes:
* Each city and school district (yet to be determined) will contribute six hours to this task.
# Assumes a minimum of 4 cities participating in Try-out.
Planning Grant Application CP-97 -18
Draft of Jan. 16, 1998
F. Need for State Financial Assistance
This project requires financial assistance from the Board on Government Innovation and
Cooperation for four reasons.
1. The project is truly innovative and collaborative and meets the mission of the Board.
2. The project originated within the past six months and is operating in a somewhat time-critical
situation (comprehensive plans are due to be completed at the end of 1998). Comprehensive
plans need to be submitted to local jurisdictions and school districts prior to submitting them to
the Council.
3. Because of the financial situation of the Metro ECSU and TIES, as fee for services
organizations, the proposed coordination could not be accomplished and the opportunity would
be lost.
4. Finally, the cost savings anticipated for this project are not necessarily linked to services and
their annual costs. Rather, it anticipates that significant collaborative efforts such as facility
planning and sharing between the levels of government can reduce public expenditures well
into the future.
Planning Grant Application CP-97 -18
Draft of Jan. 16, 1998
0"
Ql ...
ti" .2,
.. (1)
-lSl
c: ..
(1) lh
.....9- ~
aa
~o: ~ ~ ~ 111
~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
lO ~ ~ 'tl ~ ~ ~
lh ~
@ ~ ~ lh m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (j) ~~
a 0 0 ~ >< ~ ~ ~
'tl 0 ll: ~ ~ ~ ~ (j) c. en
'tl 0 6 ~ 'tl .2. III
'tl 'tl 0 ~ ~ ~ ':1' en It 'tl en
'*l: 5'i c 'tl 'tl 0 ~ ~ 0 (il (il ~ (1) '1('
.2, U1 '*l: .. ~ 'tl 'tl 0 0 0 ~ ~ lh 'tl ~ ~. 'tl (1) Slz
U1 <" '*l: ~ 'tl 'tl 0 .g ~ ~ Ql 'tl 2
(1) ~ w (') 'tl 'tl .g III Ql en III
Sl 'tl 'tl 111 ~ ~ 0 (il <
(il (il ;? 'tl ~ ~ ~ 'tl ~ ~ ~ (il (il Iii 3
r:r en (il 'tl '*l: '*l: C. 0 ~ f ~ 111
::I. ~ 'tl C .r:r (il 'tl ~ 'tl ..... ..... '*l: ~ ~ lh C.
(1) Ql 3 ::I. ll: 'tl ~ 'tl ..... i: .g e- Ql
::!l @ (1) Ql <D r:r (il 'tl 0 'tl 'tl III ~ ~ Iii
::I Iii g: 3 ::!l ::I @ s- ::I. <D (1) (il (il ~ ~
lO - ::l Iii (1) 'tl r:r 8 .g ~ g-
o III lO ~ ::!l ::l Ql s- ::I. lh 'tl C .g (il
::l -< ~ 0 ::l Iii @ (1) Ql !!. ~ ll:
::l 0 (1)
::I ::I lO g: ~ ::!l ::l @ ~
~ " -l -l g ::l Iii ~ <D lh
<D S Ql 3 ::l lO ~ g s-
lh 0 CD
5 (il '1(' 'tl ::I 0'
::l III iii 'tl
(1) ; 3
111
~
..
+
"
~
(1)
~
<D
c.
C
'tl
~
<D
lh
g
(1)
::0
Q.
<D
c.
C
'tl
r}
lh
'1('
+~~~~
~
....
en
t+
~
....
w
.-........---.-.-..-- ~ ,~~~
_.._._._.._....._~~~_.._-
_p-' ..... .uu'Uuuu
en~
o
u>i
,
en,
c
en
c:
3
3
Ql
-<
en!
I
~
en:
p-'~ 1--
en:
en'
en,
en
~
<D
c.
C
'tl
"
S
(il
III
en
en
en
en
en
en
en
en
;0 ;0 en
Q. Q. c:
CD CD 3
a. a. 3
-0 C C Ql
Ql "O"O~
~ ~ ~
N CD Ul
Ul ;t<;
6'
;:]
CD
<>
.....
0-0
Ql ... UI UI UI UI ~ UI UI UI UI .,.. t .,.. .,.. .,.. t .,.. .,.. .,.. .,.. '" '" '" '"
1if~' co ~ 01 UI '" N ... 0 CD ~ 01 UI '" N ... 0 CD co ~ 01 6
--i!+
c: Ul -0 C $
~g. CD CD ~
::;;8 < Ul
"0 CD 0 71:'
~~ Ql 0 -0 ;0 ;0 CD -0 ;0 CD ~ 0 --i ;0 0 -0 en -0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
CD iii' iii CD CD ::I. m CD ::I. ~ CD CD m CIl CD 5- z
s. < ~ < ~ Ul 'C S. g- CD III
<>>-<: :E Ul !il (il' "0 (ii" CD 0 Ul "0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3
CIl Ul Ql 3 ::t Ul ~ CIl n Ql
3 CIl ~ (j 8 ~ CIl 0 Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul
ea ::I. 0 0 m ~ a- ::I a. "0 CD 0 ::r ::r ::r ::r ::r CD
iil fi :'r l' Ql ::r ;:] 0 ;:] CD e!- (j 3 Ql :E Ql 'i .g 0 0 0 0
a. e!- Ul Ul "T1 Ul 0 Ql ;:] do 3 "0 "0 "0 "0
;:, r 0 S' iil E. 3
z 3 c: Ql 3 CD a. 0 Ql il (j ~ ~ (j
"0 ;0 1S" S' iif !!!. ~ Iii ;:, !>> ~ O. CD ~
.2. ;:, CIl CIl CD a. eo "0 ::I. m "0 0 0
CIl !il 'J a. 0 a. CD Ql ~ Ul Ql ... .r 3 0 3
"0 (j CD ... IE ::r Ql "0
CIl 0 III iil ~ iij. CD e- o ;:, fj; CD "0 CIl "0 CD "0
n ::i. 0 .CO -0 S. "0 Iii "tI CD a- CD CD
3 Ql CIl ;g ~ ;:,. CD Iii ~ Ql Di CD ::I. m "0 CD
Q' "0 ~ s: CD ~ CD CIl Ql
[ ... ~ ::I "" ;:, iil
CD Ql OJ 8 Ul ~ ::I ;:, Iii ""
0 CIl CD 3 ::r 5' ea - 0
Ql ::I. 3 3 0 ~ cc 0 ;:,
a. Ql CIl 3 "0 Ul ;:,
fj; ... CIl ::r ~
~ -0 ~ ;:, 0 0
;g Iii "0 *
CD Ul lit
71:'
Ul m ::r
6' 0
;:, III 'C
CIl
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
'"
...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------.--.-----------.---------.-.-.---.---.--.-
en uS
co
t en~
.t-=rP-~ =
co en co
..u......... uu..... u uu. uu.............. u. ..~p.;t=rt=r+""'t iil................ ...."' r:
CD
N
UI
;0
Q.
CD
a.
C
"0
-0
;g
CD
III
N
,0
en uS
co
-.-----------------------...-----------.---------------'-'--.
----------------------------------...-----------------..
en~
<
...
.U1
en uS
co
!::!
...
-------------------------------------------------------""'-
c..
en!>>
::I
...
.0
en uS
CD
------.---------------.---.-----.-----------.---------------------------------.-----------------------.-----------.
enEe
III
...
.~
en:g
--..--..---..--------....
enE
.N
en:g
---...----..----------.---------...---.....--------------.-..---.--------.
--.......---.--.
c..
enc;
::I
N
,~
en:g
OlJ
II)~
_0
CD -.
.. CD
-d+ $ 6
c: Ul
?g.
aa (") -l
0 III
co a: 3 Ul
co.;: "0 ~
-z
co !l III
Ql CD 3
;a. ~<D
"0 ~
.2. :::J
CD ~
Po
"0
0
;:1
~ -0 ~
1D c8 Ul
Ul -;<;
0 (il
:::J Ul
CD Ul
.
lJ
II)
co
CD
V>
~
1D
Co
C
"0
~
1D
Ul
o
:::J
CD
~
1D
Co
C
"0
-l
II)
Ul
-;<;
(fl
c:
3
3
II)
-<
o
.....
~
[
C
"0
lJ
c8
(il
g:
(fl~
.,
po
(fl~
(fl~
c.
:
(flU
o
(fl5
~
:
(fl~
(fl~
I
~
(fl'
I
(fl
(fl'
I
(fl-
(fl
(fl
+(fl
~
-~-
N
(fl
(fl
(fl
(fl
To: The Minnesota Board on Government Innovation and Cooperation
This is to acknowledge the proposed Grant Application #CP-98-18 which is submitted by the
following 18 parties, and our agreement to fully participate in its activities.
Educational Cooperative Service Unit of the Metropolitan Twin Cities Area.
Metropolitan Council
TIES (Technology Instructional Education Service)
Roseville Area Schools, Independent District #623,
Roseville,
Lauderdale,
Falcon Heights,
Maplewood,
Little Canada,
Shoreview,
Arden Hills and
Ramsey County.
Chaska School District, Independent District #112
Chanhassen,
Chaska,
Carver,
Victoria and
Carver County
For the
(city, county, school district or other agency)
Name
Title
Date
Planning Grant Application CP-97-18
Draft of Jan. 16, 1998