1.1 	A bill for an act
1.2 	relating to local government; requiring the state
1.3 	auditor to study and report on the feasibility of
1.4 	consolidating counties along natural physical or
1.5 	alternative political boundaries and on the usefulness
1.6 	of establishing county service districts as an
1.7 	alternative to consolidation; appropriating money.
1.8 	BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

1.9 	Section 1. STUDY ON CONSOLIDATING COUNTIES AND
1.10 	RATIONALIZING OTHER INTERNAL BOUNDARIES.
 1.11 	The state auditor shall study the feasibility of
1.12 	consolidating counties in the state.  As part of the study, the
1.13 	state auditor shall consider conforming county boundaries to
1.14 	other existing physical or organizational boundaries including,
1.15 	among others, watersheds and state judicial districts and shall
1.16 	consider the economic implications that may result from the
1.17 	consolidation.  The study shall also include a consideration of
1.18 	the rationalization of other internal boundaries of the state
1.19 	such as highway maintenance and regional economic districts.

1.20 	Sec. 2. COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICTS; STUDY.
 1.21 		Subdivision 1.Study. The state auditor shall study the
1.22 	feasibility and usefulness of establishing 19 county service
1.23 	districts as described in this section.
1.24 		Subd. 2.District 1. District 1 is composed of Hennepin
1.25 	County.
1.26 		Subd. 3.District 2. District 2 is composed of Anoka
2.1 	County.
2.2 		Subd. 4.District 3. District 3 is composed of Ramsey
2.3 	County.
2.4 		Subd. 5.District 4. District 4 is composed of
2.5 	Washington County.
2.6 		Subd. 6.District 5. District 5 is composed of Dakota
2.7 	County.
2.8 		Subd. 7.District 6. District 6 is composed of the
2.9 	counties of Carver and Scott.
2.10 		Subd. 8.District 7. District 7 is composed of the
2.11 	counties of Kandiyohi, McLeod, Meeker, Renville, Sibley, and
2.12 	Wright.
2.13 		Subd. 9.District 8. District 8 is composed of the
2.14 	counties of Benton, Sherburne, and Stearns.
2.15 		Subd. 10.District 9. District 9 is composed of the
2.16 	counties of Aitkin, Cass, Crow Wing, Hubbard, Morrison, Todd,
2.17 	and Wadena.
2.18 		Subd. 11.District 10. District 10 is composed of the
2.19 	counties of Chisago, Isanti, Kanabec, Mille Lacs, and Pine.
2.20 		Subd. 12.District 11. District 11 is composed of the
2.21 	counties of Carlton, Cook, Lake, and St. Louis.
2.22 		Subd. 13.District 12. District 12 is composed of the
2.23 	counties of Beltrami, Itasca, Koochiching, and Lake of the Woods.
2.24 		Subd. 14.District 13. District 13 is composed of the
2.25 	counties of Clearwater, Kittson, Mahnomen, Marshall, Norman,
2.26 	Pennington, Polk, Red Lake, and Roseau.
2.27 		Subd. 15.District 14. District 14 is composed of the
2.28 	counties of Becker, Clay, Douglas, Grant, Otter Tail, and Wilkin.
2.29 		Subd. 16.District 15. District 15 is composed of the
2.30 	counties of Big Stone, Chippewa, Lac qui Parle, Pope, Stevens,
2.31 	Swift, Traverse, and Yellow Medicine.
2.32 		Subd. 17.District 16. District 16 is composed of the
2.33 	counties of Cottonwood, Jackson, Lincoln, Lyon, Murray, Nobles,
2.34 	Pipestone, Redwood, and Rock.
2.35 		Subd. 18.District 17. District 17 is composed of the
2.36 	counties of Blue Earth, Brown, Faribault, Le Sueur, Martin,
3.1 	Nicollet, and Watonwan.
3.2 		Subd. 19.District 18. District 18 is composed of the
3.3 	counties of Dodge, Freeborn, Mower, Rice, Steele, and Waseca.
3.4 		Subd. 20.District 19. District 19 is composed of the
3.5 	counties of Fillmore, Goodhue, Houston, Olmsted, Winona, and
3.6 	Wabasha.
3.7 		Subd. 21.Multicounty districts. Counties in a county
3.8 	service district composed of more than one county would
3.9 	cooperate in the planning of and the provision of county
3.10 	services and functions within the district to achieve economies
3.11 	of scale, efficiency in the delivery of services, and the
3.12 	elimination or reduction of duplication of functions and
3.13 	services as feasible.  The county boards of the counties in the
3.14 	respective districts would appoint joint boards and advisory
3.15 	committees to assist in carrying out the purposes of this
3.16 	section.  The county boards of a district, by resolution and
3.17 	unanimous agreement, could delegate to a board the authority
3.18 	that they deem necessary to carry out the function or functions
3.19 	assigned to the board.
3.20 		Subd. 22.Single county districts. A county that is a
3.21 	single county service district would cooperate with other such
3.22 	counties in the planning of and the provision of county services
3.23 	for the purposes described in subdivision 21 where feasible.
3.24 	The county boards could appoint joint boards and advisory
3.25 	committees to assist in carrying out the purposes of this
3.26 	section.  The county boards of the districts, by resolution and
3.27 	unanimous agreement, could delegate to a board the authority as
3.28 	they deem necessary to carry out the function or functions
3.29 	assigned to the board.

3.30 	Sec. 3. REPORT DATE.
 3.31 	The state auditor shall report on the study to the
3.32 	legislative committees with jurisdiction over local government
3.33 	by January 1, 2006.

3.34 	Sec. 4. APPROPRIATION.
 3.35 	$....... is appropriated from the general fund to the state
3.36 	auditor for the purposes of section 1.