HomeMy WebLinkAboutBudget Discussion - Enterprise and Special Revenue Funds COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Anna Rosenberry, Finance Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: FY10 Budget Discussion – Enterprise and Special Revenue Funds
MEETING DATE: July 20, 2009
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action Item, 4-6pm
RECOMMENDATION: Give staff direction on any changes to City Manager’s
Recommended Budget for FY10, including changes to advertised rates for Water, Sewer,
Streets, and Tree assessments. Rate hearings will be scheduled and any changes will be
finalized in the Approved Budget for FY10.
BACKGROUND: The City Manager’s Recommended Budget for FY2009-2010 (FY10)
was made available to the Commission and the public on June 1, 2009 and a formal presentation
was made on June 15, 2009. During that presentation, it was determined that a number of
additional meetings would be held during the summer to better understand the elements of the
proposed spending plans for the year.
Attached is a more detailed discussion list for your review prior to the meeting. The
presentation by staff will be brief and will primarily focus on the following funds:
· Water Fund
· Wastewater Fund
· Solid Waste Fund
· Parking Fund
· Street Maintenance Fund
· Tree Maintenance Fund
· Planning Fund
· Building Inspection Fund
· Community Housing Fund
· Recovery Act - ARRA Fund
Questions regarding other city enterprise or special revenue funds are welcome. If those are
forwarded to us prior to the meeting, we will be best prepared with answers that night.
However, answers can be prepared for presentation at a later date, if necessary.
5
The City has received notice from the Montana Department of Revenue that taxable values will
be delayed by at least 3 weeks this year. They estimate delivery of certified values in the last
week of August. Based on this information, we estimate Final Appropriation and Tax Levy
resolutions will adopted on September 14, 2009.
FISCAL EFFECTS: The Approved Budget for FY10 has far-reaching fiscal effects. This
discussion is meant to verify proposed rate increases and we move forward with rate hearing this
summer. It is also meant to review the elements of Enterprise and Special Revenue Fund
proposed budgets, prior to their final approval in September 2009.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
Attachments: July 20, 2009 Budget Discussion List
Street Curb/Ramp Work Summary
Curb Condition Map
Parking Commission “Increasing Parking Revenue” Memo
Road Home Funding Request
HB645 Local Government Grant Program Information
ON FILE: City Manager’s Recommended Budget for FY10
Report compiled on: July 15, 2009
6
1
July 20, 2009 - FY 10 BUDGET DISCUSSION List
1. Water Fund – FY10 Expenditure Total $5.4 Million
The CM Recommended Budget includes a proposed rate increase for FY10 = 3.2%. This
amount is based on an updated rate study with a $40.7 million Treatment Plant project that
begins in April 2011. The study tracks on what we have referred to as “Moderate” growth;
1% growth in accounts/sales and approximately $400,000 annually in impact fee revenues.
Other budget-related factors:
a. Teamster contract has not been finalized.
b. The plant costs included in the rate study are based on our most recent project
engineer’s estimate. For instance, if the project actually cost $45 million, rates should
be set at 4.5% increases each year (assuming no other sources of revenue are found.)
c. The rate study includes funding for the Vehicle Maintenance shop project at
$451,000, plus $330,000 in FY09 Fill Station costs.
d. Water sales were down this spring by approximately 3% total, due to wet weather in
April, May and June.
e. Impact fee revenues were more than twice what was estimated in the Moderate
growth scenario.
We will be asking the commission to adopt a 2-year rate resolution, FY10 increase of 3.2%
and FY11 increase of additional 3.2%. Notices will be distributed in the utility bills in July
and the Hearing will be on August 17th.
2. Wastewater Fund - FY10 Expenditure Total $20.7 Million (including construction)
The CM Recommended Budget includes a proposed rate increase for FY10 = 10.2%. Like
for the water fund, the study tracks on what we have referred to as “Moderate” growth. It
also includes the effects of the following grants:
· FFY09 Army Corps of Engineers - $178,000
· State of MT - TSEP - $500,000
· SRF Stimulus - $400,000 (partial loan, partial grant)
Other budget-related factors:
a. Teamster contract has not been finalized.
b. We have not determined if any of the HB645 stimulus money will go towards this
project. (See below, item #10.)
c. Like the water fund, rates include funding for the Vehicle Maintenance shop project
at $451,000.
d. Impact fee revenues were more than twice what was estimated in the Moderate
growth scenario.
We will be asking the commission to adopt a 2-year rate resolution, FY10 increase of 10.2%
and FY11 increase of additional 10.2%. Adopting two years of rate increases supports our
7
2
loan coverage requirements with the State Revolving Loan Fund. Notices will be distributed
in the utility bills in July and the Hearing will be on August 17th.
3. Solid Waste Fund – FY10 Expenditure Total $2.7 Million
Last year, we adopted a two-year rate resolution for solid waste fees. For FY10, solid waste
fees increase 5% (implemented for July 1, 2009.) Also adding to revenues for FY10 (and in
FY09, midyear) are revenues from servicing of the County Solid Waste District recycling
sites. There was no proposed increase to curbside recycling fees at that time.
Despite the rate increase and additional recycling program revenue from the County, we are
estimating a small decline in total revenues collected in FY10, due to the low demand for
roll-off container and dumpster rentals.
Other budget-related factors:
a. Teamster contract has not been finalized.
b. Request for routing software has been removed for FY10. We are working internally
on using our existing software for better customer management and route tracking.
Depending on the results of the project, we may/may not recommend that that project be
included for FY11.
c. The curbside recycling program continues to be subsidized by the collection efforts
in the following areas: administrative overhead (legal, IT, finance, commission, etc),
insurance premium, building and vehicle storage space, and a subsidy of director,
superintendent, and foreman, and substitute labor costs.
d. By the end of FY09, total revenues were down, owing to declines in the demand for
roll-off container services and rentals, and the late timing of the curbside recycling
program start.
4. Parking Fund (City Parking Districts, including the Parking Garage facility) – FY10
Expenditure Total $444,000
Without assuming any operational changes, the CM Recommended Budget has the Parking
Fund with an operating deficit of ($66,690) for FY10. They have also ended FY09 with an
operating deficit of a similar amount. Given the uncertainty of Garage operational costs and
demand for space in the facility, we knew that the first years of budgeting would be difficult.
At the time that budget was presented, we committed to working with the Parking Manager
and the Parking Commission on finding ways to address this financial problem and bring
forward a balanced budget for final approval.
Problems that continue to significantly affect the finances of the Parking Fund are:
a. Turnover of Parking Enforcement Officers.
b. Recent significant decrease in demand for downtown parking permits.
c. Operating Expenses of the Garage, difficult to estimate with only 3 months of spring-
time operation.
8
3
At their July 9, 2009 meeting, the Parking Commission discussed a detailed list of changes to
parking operations, which is attached for your review. They scheduled a meeting on July 23,
2009 to take further action on the items listed.
5. Street Maintenance Fund – FY10 Expenditure Total $2.1 Million
The CM Recommended Budget includes a proposed assessment increase for FY10 = 2%.
During budget presentations, the Commission requested more information on funding a plan
for replacing deteriorating curbs and boulevards/medians around town.
Attached is a report of the curb and ramp replacements that have been completed in since
FY04, totaling over $355,000 in improvements. In FY09, curbs and ramps along S. 9th and
Alderson were repaired as well as some miscellaneous repairs on S. Bozeman, S. Black, and
E. Lincoln.
The 2001 Pavement Management Survey identified 9.78 miles rated in poor condition, and
nearly as much (8.24 miles) in fair condition. Curbs have a long useful life, easily over 50
years. The curb condition map is attached.
Replacement of the curb on both sides of a street width (600 lineal feet) and the associated
pedestrian ramps costs approximately $40,000/block. The proposed budget includes the
following for curb/ramp replacement:
Source Amount
Street Maintenance Fund $20,000
Gas Tax Fund $50,000
TOTAL FY10 Recommended Budget $70,000
Or 1.75 blocks curbs/ramps (1,050 lineal feet)
For each additional 1% increase is Street Maintenance Assessments, $21,000 will be raised
in FY10. If an additional 2% ($42,000) were added in FY10, it would take us over 31 years
to replace all of the curbs in poor condition (not including keeping up with inflation in
construction costs.) If an additional 2% was also added in FY11, that calculation would drop
to 22 years to replace.
Curb in Poor
Condition:
9.78 miles
51,638.40 lineal feet of curb
$ 66.66 FY10 cost per lineal foot
$ 3,442,215.74 Total FY10 cost to repair
$ 112,000.00 FY10 with Additional Funding of 2%
31 Years to repair w/o inflation costs
9
4
Streets and Engineering would suggest focusing on streets that are snow routes or other
important arterial, collector or local streets that function like collectors (i.e. Olive, Lamme,
Story) that are in need of re-paving. Areas in need of sewer or water re-hab would need to be
bypassed.
Street Maintenance Assessment increases will be noticed in July and August, with the public
hearing scheduled for August 10th. (Statutes require an annual assessment hearing, so we are
not able to adopt multi-year rate resolutions.)
6. Tree Maintenance Fund – FY10 Expenditure Total $596,000
The CM Recommended Budget recommends no increase for Tree Maintenance Assessments.
This includes $100,000 for the Vehicle Maintenance/Shop project.
Tree Maintenance Assessment amounts will be noticed in July and August, with the public
hearing scheduled for August 10th. (Statutes require an annual assessment hearing, so we are
not able to adopt multi-year rate resolutions.)
7. Planning Fund – FY10 Expenditure Total $777,000
The CM Recommended Budget includes Planning Fee revenues of $213,000, or
$17,750/month. It also includes a General Fund subsidy of $348,000, down from the FY09
subsidy of $398,000. Planning has proposed to maintain current staffing levels, which were
decreased by 1.5 FTE during FY09 and 4.0 FTE in FY08.
During FY09 budget preparation, the issue of the workload related to administration of the
Workforce Housing Ordinance was discussed due to the fact that the work had shifted when
the Workforce Housing Administrator position was eliminated. Planning staff committed to
monitor the actual related work during the year. During FY09, there was very little existing
planning staff time spent on implementation of the Workforce Housing Ordinance. This was
due primarily to the fact that no applications were received that qualified under the
ordinance. It is anticipated that in FY10 there may be some level of WHO effort if the
Norton East Ranch submits their final plat.
Planning Fund FY09 Actual* FY10 Budget
Revenues $880,000 $790,000
Expenditures $746,000 $777,000
Surplus/(Deficit) $134,000 $13,000
*estimated year-end.
Related issues:
a. Due to the fact that the FY09 General Fund contribution of $398,000 covered 54% of
the costs of the Planning Department, and covered a $78,000 deficit from FY08, we
recommend transferring any surplus in the Planning Fund to the General Fund in the
process of closing the books for FY09.
10
5
b. We propose that Quarterly Reports for the Planning Fund continue to be presented for
Fiscal Year 2010; unless operational/budget problems are encountered, the report will
be put on the Commission’s Consent agenda.
c. Planning Fees were set based on a cost study performed by AZ & Company in mid-
2008. With increases in the hourly cost of personnel, an increase in the fees should
be considered this August or September.
8. Building Inspection Fund – FY10 Expenditure Total $861,000
The CM Recommended Budget includes Building Inspection revenue of $869,100, or
$72,425/month. This closely mirrors the average monthly revenue for FY09.
The Building Inspection Division has laid-off additional workers since March, and will be
submitting a 4th Quarter Report to the Commission soon.
Building Inspection Fund FY09 Actual* FY10 Budget
Revenues $870,000 $869,000
Expenditures $1,021,000 $861,000
Surplus/(Deficit) ($151,000) $8,000
Related issues:
a. During the FY09, the desired level of Building Inspection Fund reserve was discussed
at length. We were targeting a reserve no less than 50% of annual expenditures. For
FY10, that amount would be $430,500. The reserve is estimated at $587,000 at the
end of FY09 (which was 57% of FY09 expenditures.)
b. Quarterly Reports will be prepared and submitted in the same manner as Planning
Fund reports, as described above.
9. Community Housing Fund – FY10 Expenditure Total $40,000
The CM Recommended Budget includes 1 mill (estimated at $76,403) for Workforce
Housing efforts. We have received one request for funding from Road to Home, in the
amount of $40,000 (letter attached.)
10. Recovery Act, ARRA Fund – FY10 Expenditure Total $796,500
This fund was established to account for stimulus (American Reinvestment and Recovery Act) dollars
that are not accounted for in other project funds. This fund includes:
Recovery Act, ARRA Fund
Energy Efficiency & Conservation Block Grants (EECBG) $175,500
Montana HB645 Allocation – Dedicated to City Vehicle
Maintenance/Shop Project
$277,000
Montana HB 645 Allocation – Undetermined $344,000
Total – FY10 $796,500
EECBG: The plan for spending EECBG dollars has been submitted to the State, according to our
public hearing that was held in June.
11
6
MT HB645: The Commission instructed staff to move forward with the City Vehicle
Maintenance/Shop project, which included $277,000 in HB645 funding. We need to determine
where the final $344,000 of that allocation will be spent. The money must be spent by September 30,
2010 or it reverts back to the State General Fund. The Governor’s office has agreed to let us amend
our original projects, since those proposals were submitted under a VERY tight timeframe.
A full listing of eligible projects can be found on the HB645 Local Infrastructure Grant Program
(attached, page 2 of 4)
Bozeman eligible projects currently include: water system treatment project, water reclamation
facility -- water treatment plant design, recreation facility improvements, sidewalks and restroom
upgrades in parks, and debris removal.
12
Curb/Ramp Work 2005‐2009Description Total Cost (curbs/ramps only) LF of Curb Replaced Ped. Ramps installed (# of corners)FY 2004 Curb/Ramp Project $68,546 590 20(E. Olive/S. Black)FY 2006 Curb/Ramp Project $77,962 1332 10(Westlake Park, S. Tracy, W. Cleveland) (Note: 740 LF was newcurb along N. 5th)FY 2007 Curbs and Walks Project $58,920 724 4(Curtiss St.)FY 2009 Curb/Ramp Project $78,575 1526 9(S. 9th and Alderson)2009 Misc. Curbs/Ramps $27,167 240 10(S. Black, S. Bozeman, E. Lincoln)S. Willson $18,136 286 0(Downtowner Mall)W. Olive/Tamarack & Wallace $20,126 247 3Miscellaneous Spot Repairs 2005‐2008 $6,090 118 2Totals $355,522 5,063 5813
14
15
16
GOVERNOR BRIAN SCHWEITZER
Home » Commerce » Local Government Grant Program
House Bill 645 Local Government Infrastructure
Grant Program
House Bill 645, the Montana Reinvestment Act passed by the 2009 Legislature, provided:
z $10 million in infrastructure grants for counties and
z $10 million for cities and towns
You can click on the appropriate link above to read the list of authorized projects and grant amounts
for counties, cities, and towns as authorized in HB 645.
All of us at the Department of Commerce are anxious to make these funds available as soon as
possible for local projects that will put Montanans back to work addressing critical local needs, while
stimulating both Montana's and the Nation's economy. We look forward to working with you to make your infrastructure project a success.
Click on the links for other topics:
z Procedure Used to Calculate Grant Amounts
z Preparation of Contracts
z Incurring Costs
z Financial Management
z Changing the Scope of a Project
z Applicable State Laws and Regulations
z Budget and Implementation Schedule
z Name and Title of Signatory for the Grant
z Reporting Requirements
Applicable State Laws and Regulations
All the standard state statutes and regulations will apply to the use of these funds, such as current
laws for bidding thresholds and procedures, as well as applicable state prevailing wage laws. If local
officials have questions on compliance issues, such as procurement, we suggest that they refer to the
Administrative Manual for Treasure State Endowment Program (TSEP) projects, which provides a summary of the state requirements that apply to local infrastructure projects that are using state
funds only.
Please see: http://comdev.mt.gov/CDD_TSEP_AM.asp for the text of the TSEP Administrative Manual.
Procedure Used to Calculate Grant Amounts
There has been some confusion among local officials caused by the changes in the bill as it worked its way
through the Legislature. As HB 645 left the House, it included a list of projects for all counties and municipalities with a specific dollar amount listed for the grant for each local government. The Senate struck the specific amount for each project and instead substituted alternate language that tied the
allocations to each local government to the formula used by the Montana Department of Transportation to distribute gasoline taxes.
The amounts of the final allocations for cities and towns and counties shown on this webpage may be
different from the amounts that were included in earlier versions of HB 645 because of the application of this formula. In addition, HB 645 was amended to provide that “The department (of Commerce) may
retain 1.13% of the amount of the grants to counties, cities, towns, tribal governments, and school districts for administrative purposes.”
As a result, the initial allocation for each local government using the gas tax formula was reduced by
1.13% to provide funding for the administration of the local government grant program. The final figures in the Excel spreadsheets on this webpage reflect the adjustments for program administration by the
Department of Commerce, as calculated by the Governor’s Office of Budget and Program Planning.
Preparation of Contracts between Department of Commerce and Local
Page 1 of 4Local Government Grants Program
7/15/2009http://recovery.mt.gov/commerce/localgrant/default.mcpx
17
Government
The Department will need to prepare a contract with each local government prior to disbursing the
funds. The contract will lay out all the financial and job creation reporting and compliance issues consistent with the requirements of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Each local
government will need to provide a budget breakdown and implementation schedule using the fill-in
the-blanks templates provided on this website).
While these funds are not technically federal "stimulus" money but rather "freed-up state general fund"
money, the Governor intends to assure that all the Montana Recovery Act projects comply with the spirit
and intent of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) for transparency and accountability.
The contract will include required the monthly financial and job creation reporting and compliance issues
consistent with the requirements of the ARRA.
Department of Commerce staff hope to keep the contracting process as simple as we can since
Department staff will have to prepare contracts for 185 counties and municipalities.
Incurring Costs
Department of Commerce Director, Anthony J. Preite, has authorized local governments to begin incurring eligible costs for their HB 645 projects as of May 14th, the date Governor Brian Schweitzer signed HB 645 and the law became effective. No costs related to a HB 645 local government grant can
be incurred or reimbursed for activities that take place prior to that date. Funds will be provided to local
governments once a contract for the grant is signed between the local government and the
Department of Commerce.
Financial Management
A standard requirement for receipt of federal funds is that the recipient entity's financial management system must meet generally accepted accounting principles. For all local governments that are in compliance with the State's audit and annual financial reporting requirements, the Department of
Commerce intends to disburse the HB 645 local government grant funds on a 90/10 basis: 90% of
the local government’s HB 645 grant amount will be provided to the local government upon the
signing of the contract by both parties: the balance will be sent when the local government has provided all the final reporting information required by the ARRA requirements. We believe that this is consistent with the Obama Administration's emphasis on transparency and accountability for the
use of stimulus funds and Governor Schweitzer’s commitment to comply with the spirit of the ARRA.
Changing the Scope of a HB 645 Infrastructure Project
If local governments need to change the scope of work for their grant project from that specified in
HB 645 (see Section 57 (3)(2)(c)i-vii, pages 45-48) the law outlines the procedure for that:
3) The governing body of a county, city, or town may choose to propose to the department of commerce an alternate project to those listed in subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b) based on the criteria in subsection (2)
(c). If the alternate project meets the criteria in subsection (2)(c), the Department shall approve the project.
The criteria of subsection (2)(c) include:
(i) designing, erecting, repairing, and remodeling public buildings or making energy efficiency
improvements to public buildings;
(ii) designing, constructing, and repairing sewers, storm sewers, sewage treatment and disposal plants, waterworks, and reservoirs;
(iii) designing, constructing, and repairing bridges, docks, wharves, breakwaters, and piers;
(iv) designing, constructing, reconstructing, improving, maintaining, and repairing roads;
(v) acquiring, opening, or widening any street and improving the street by designing, constructing,
reconstructing, and repairing pavement, gutters, sidewalks, curbs, and vehicle parking strips;
(vi) designing, building, renovating, and equipping parks and other recreation facilities; and
(vii) installing street lighting.
If a local government needs to change the scope of work for their Local Government Infrastructure
Grant project from that specified in HB 645, they should submit a request for the change on their
local government's letterhead. The letter should describe the basis of the need for the change in the
scope of work and how the alternate scope of work is consistent with one of the seven criteria listed above, i through vii. The letter should be signed by the local government’s chief elected official or
chief executive officer. The letter will become an attachment to the contract. Requests should be
Page 2 of 4Local Government Grants Program
7/15/2009http://recovery.mt.gov/commerce/localgrant/default.mcpx
18
submitted to Dave Cole, Administrator of the Community Development Division, at the address
shown below.
Budget and Implementation Schedule
Below are links to the formats for the HB 645 Local Government Infrastructure Grant Budget and the
Implementation Schedule that local officials can download, fill out, and e-mail back to us so we can
prepare the contract for their project.
House Bill 645 Project Budget And Implementation Schedule Formats(pdf)
House Bill 645 Project Budget And Implementation Schedule Formats (Word)
Regarding the implementation schedule, please be aware that HB 645 states:
A recipient of funds under this section must expend the funds by September 30, 2010. Unexpended funds must revert to the state and be deposited in the state general fund.
Name and Title of Signatory for the Grant Contract
In addition, please provide the proper legal name and title of your local government’s chief elected
official or chief executive officer who will be signing the contract for your grant. This will be
incorporated in the signature block for the contract.
Copies of your budget, implementation, and the proper legal name and title of your local government’s chief elected official or chief executive officer who will be signing the contract for your
grant should be either e-mailed to:
DOCLocalGrant@mt.gov
or mailed to:
HB 645 Local Government Infrastructure Grants
Community Development Division
Montana Department of Commerce
PO Box 200523 301 South Park Avenue Helena, MT 59620-0523
Reporting Requirements
(a) Quarterly Progress Reports. During the term of their HB 645 Local Government Infrastructure
Grant projects, grant recipients will need to submit periodic project progress reports to the
Department within 30 days of the end of each calendar quarter. These reports will describe
the status of the activities set forth in Section 7 of their contract, SCOPE OF WORK, including, at a minimum, the percentage completed, costs incurred, funds remaining, and projected
completion date. The report must also describe any significant problems encountered in
carrying out the Project and the scope of any necessary modifications the grant recipient is
requesting in the SCOPE OF WORK, BUDGET, or Project Implementation Schedule. Timely
quarterly reports are extremely important to the Department’s ability to submit its reports to the Governor’s Office of Budget and Program Planning for the reporting requirements of the
Montana Reinvestment Act funds. The Department, at its discretion, may decline to honor the
final 10% Request for Payment if the required quarterly progress report has not been
submitted to or approved by the Department.
(b) Recovery Funds Reports. No later than the first Friday of each month during the term of this Agreement, grant recipients must report, at a minimum, for itself and all contractors,
subcontractors, and subrecipient entities, the following information:
(1) The dollar amount of all contractor invoices;
(2) The supplies delivered and the services performed;
(3) An assessment of the completion status of the work; (4) An estimate of the number of jobs created and the number of jobs retained as a result of the
Recovery funds.
“Jobs created” means the cumulative new positions created and filled, or previously existing
unfilled positions that are filled, for each project, as a running total over the life of the project,
expressed as “full time equivalent” (FTE), calculated cumulatively as all hours worked (jobs created cumulative work hours) divided by the total number of hours in a full time schedule,
as defined by the grant recipient.
“Jobs retained” means the cumulative previously existing filled positions that are
saved/retained for each project, as a running total over the life of the project, expressed as
FTE, calculated cumulatively as all hours worked (jobs saved cumulative work hours) divided
Page 3 of 4Local Government Grants Program
7/15/2009http://recovery.mt.gov/commerce/localgrant/default.mcpx
19
by the total number of hours in a full time schedule, as defined by the Grant recipient. Job
counts should be converted to full-time equivalents. Temporary construction jobs should also
be converted to annualized full-time equivalents. For example, 20 full time jobs on a three
month project count as 5 full-time equivalent annualized jobs; and (5) Name and physical location of all contractors, subcontractors, and subrecipient entities engaged in any of the activities described in Section 7 of the contract, SCOPE OF WORK.
(c) Project Completion Report. Upon completion of the final Project, the grant recipient will submit a
final Project Completion Report to the Department. The Project Completion Report will
describe the total costs incurred for the Project, identify the final completion date, summarize any significant problems encountered in carrying out the Project, and provide the final
Recovery Funds information for each item set forth in paragraph (b) in this Section. Within 15
days of receiving the Project Completion Report, the Department will issue the Notice of
Project Close-out.
If you have any questions regarding the HB 645 Local Government Grants, contact:
Dave Cole, Administrator
Community Development Division
Phone: 406.841.2776
FAX: 406.841.2771
e-mail: DOCLocalGrant@mt.gov http://recovery.mt.gov/commerce/LocalGrant/
Page 4 of 4Local Government Grants Program
7/15/2009http://recovery.mt.gov/commerce/localgrant/default.mcpx
20