HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 11/04/2003 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 156, 2003, BEING TH ITEM NUMBER: 27
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: November4, 2003
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: John Fischbach
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 156,2003,Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relating to
the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2004 and Adopting the Budget for the Fiscal Years
Beginning January 1. 2004 and Ending December 31, 2005, and Fixing the Mill Levy for Fiscal
Year 2004.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
This Ordinance represents the annual appropriation for fiscal year 2004, and adopts the total City
budget for fiscal year 2004 at $438,069,004 and for fiscal year 2005 at $450,174,400. This
Ordinance also sets the City mill levy at 9.797 mills, unchanged since 1991, for fiscal year 2004.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Preparing our financial and service plan for 2004 and 2005 has been very challenging. Our sales
and use tax revenues, a primary source of funding for general City services, have been below
projections and previous year levels for the first time in Fort Collins' history.
To adjust to declining revenues, in spite of a growing population and increasing demands for
services, the City's General Fund budget has been cut--$526,067 in 2002; $2,550,000 in 2003 and
a proposed reduction of $3,339,000 in 2004. The 2002 and 2003 reductions are ongoing budget
reductions, meaning that the reductions are in effect for 2004, 2005 and future years.
Other funds, such as Recreation, Transportation, Golf and some of the Utility Funds, have also
experienced sluggish revenues.
There have been four study sessions involving discussion of the 2004-2005 budget for the City of
Fort Collins. In addition, two public hearings were held. With City Council direction, the City of
Fort Collins 2004-2005 Biennial Budget was developed and is now presented to City Council for
consideration and adoption and to appropriate the necessary monies to fund the budget for fiscal
year 2004. The Second Reading of this ordinance is scheduled for November 18, 2003.
November 4, 2003 -2- Item No. 27
BACKGROUND
The budget goals for 2004 and 2005 are focused on maintaining as many of our services as possible
in these challenging economic times:
• Maintain to the degree possible existing services, i.e., minimize service reductions
• As services are provided by employees, avoid or minimize layoffs to the degree possible
• Maintain and, if possible, expand Police services
• Maintain to the degree possible current levels of Primary services
The reductions over the past year and many of those proposed in 2004 have focused on delaying
repairs and renovations,delaying equipment replacements,reducing training and staff development,
cutting supplies and materials and operational services. We have whittled away all that we can of
materials, equipment and some significant secondary and support services. In preparation for the
2005 budget "exception" process and anticipating Council approval of a Budget Advisory
Committee, staff will work with the committee to reassess what our core services are and how they
can be delivered in a more effective and cost-efficient manner within the resources actually
available.
The Net City Budget,which excludes internal transfers between funds is$343,709,418 for 2004 and
$356,613,804 for 2005. The following table compares the 2003 budget with the 2004 and 2005
recommended budgets,including the net operating budgets,capital improvement budgets and debt
service (in millions):
In Millions
2003 2004 % Change 2005 % Change
Net Operating $292.7 $308.5 5.4% $320.3 3.8%
Debt $ 4.6 $ 4.4 -5.6% $ 4.4 1.2%
-Capital $ 38.2 $ 30.8 -19.2% $ 31.9 3.2%
Total Net City $335.5 $343.7 2.4% $356.6 3.8%
Internal Transfers $104.9 $ 94.4 -10.1% $ 93.6 -0.8%
Total City Budget $440.4 $438.1 -0.5% $450.2 2.8%
The total City budget for 2004 is$438.1 million and for 2005 is$450.2 million. The Net Operating
Budget(the money necessary for operating day-to-day services,excluding transfers between funds,
debt service and capital projects)for 2004 totals$308.5 million and for 2005 totals$320.3 million.
A substantial portion($13.2 million)of the increase in 2004 over 2003 is due to the recommendation
of our outside auditor that natural areas (BCC) and Pavement Management(BCC)be moved from
Capital Improvements to the Operating budget.
The Capital Improvement expenditures for 2004 total $30.8 million and for 2005 total $31.9
million
Debt Service will be $4.4 million in 2004 and 2005. The debt service for both years is within the
Council's policy debt target of 15% of the combined general debt service and Special District
November 4, 2003 -3- Item No. 27
Funds' revenue. It is also the lowest since 1981.
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE 2004-2005 BIENNIAL BUDGET
GENERAL FUND
The General Fund supports (either totally or partially) most of our general government services,
such as police,libraries,museum,park maintenance,facilities maintenance,neighborhood programs,
natural resources,development review,building,zoning,affordable housing,recreation,performing
arts and our support services such as finance, budget, legal, information technology and general
administration.
In addition to prior year reductions, the 2004 General Fund ongoing operations will be reduced by
a total of$3,339,000. The 2004 ongoing reductions include:
• Cultural, Library, Recreation........................$ 741,837
• Planning and Environmental........................$ 368,591
• Administrative services..............................$ 239,945
• Transportation services.............................. $ 683,500
• Executive, legislative,judicial......................$ 231,085
• Poudre Fire Authority................................ $ 348,700
• Communication and Technology...................$ 205,344
• Police services.........................................$ 520,000
Total Reductions.............................. $3,339,002
Our revenues have dropped and these reductions were necessary in order to balance projected
revenues and projected expenses.
We go into 2005 on this reduced base of ongoing service and expense reductions. However,
projections indicate revenues will be stronger in 2005. As a result, we anticipate reinstating and
expanding a few services in 2005 and these include:
a. Expand Police staffing .............................................. $ 799,763 ongoing
$ 261,998 one-time
b. Resume Police Building set aside ................................. $ 320,000 ongoing
c. Resume Labor Market Adjustments .............................. $1,900,000 ongoing t
d. Resume Street Maintenance expanded funding ................. $ 200,000 ongoing
e. Resume full amount of PFA allocation .......................... $ 594,000 ongoing
This is a very preliminary estimate for the General Fund.Staff is working on a performance
review system that considers all compensation adjustments—labor market,merit and skill.
November 4, 2003 -4- Item No. 27
TABOR
Funds that exceeded the growth limit imposed by Article X,Section 20(TABOR)in 2001 and 2002
are to be used for transportation capital and street maintenance in 2004 and 2005. In 2004,
approximately$2.3 million will be allocated for street maintenance and in 2005, $1.0 million will
be reserved for transportation capital projects as they become identified. This $1.0 million will be
added to $1.0 million reserved in 2003.
FINAL BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
In the course of the Council's review and discussions of the next biennial budget, there are several
items for which interest was expressed to find a way to retain or fund in the budget. Here is an
update on the status of several items.
Funded Services
1. Rivendell Recycling Center ($18,000) — funded in 2004 with 2003 carryover (one-time)
dollars. We project that an additional $18,000 will be needed to sustain the recycling
operations at the Center in 2004. As we near the end of this fiscal year(2003) we will have
some funds from CPES to carry over into 2004 to cover the recycling operations. Also, we
are beginning to receive some additional income from haulers that will help to cover the
operational costs. We will monitor this closely for 2005.
2. Environmental Business Outreach/Climatewise($20,000)—funded in 2004 through a grant
award and 2003 carryover(one-time)dollars. The purpose is to work with local businesses
to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We have been using one-time monies (from the
General Fund and from Utilities) to support this effort. To cover the anticipated 2004
shortfall, the City received notification of a grant award late this summer that will be
sufficient to cover program costs through 2004. We will monitor closely for 2005.
3. Environmental Planner ($20,000) — funded in 2004 and beyond through reallocation of
personnel resources(ongoing). Approximately.25 FTE of an Environmental Planner's time
has to be picked up by the General Fund. Early in the budget planning process, there was
no source of funding. With some staffing changes over the last few weeks, we are able to
cover this for 2004 and beyond.
Sustain Reductions as Recommended
During the Budget Study Session discussions and review of the proposed service reductions,several
Council members expressed a desire to reconsider some select items. Listed below are the ones
most frequently mentioned by City Council. While none of these are "added-back" or included in
the recommended budget for the first reading of the budget adoption and appropriation ordinances,
Council may decide to add-back one or more of these services. If so, the item(s) will be included
in the second reading of the ordinances on November 18. I would request that Council seriously
consider adding back one-time monies for the Boys and Girls Club ($40,000 for 2004) and the
Summer Bilingual Program ($18,500 for 2004).
November 4, 2003 -5- Item No. 27
4. Advertising (Museum $5,000 and Lincoln Center Room Rental $6,000) — The Museum
advertising budget was increased in 2003 through some internal reallocation. The reduction
for 2004(from$10,000 to$5,000)leaves the Museum at the same level at the beginning for
the 2003 fiscal year. For the Lincoln Center, this portion of the advertising budget relates
to advertising for room rentals. During 2003 funds internal to the Lincoln Center budget
were reallocated and the advertising budget was increased by $6,000. The reduction (for
2004)actually cuts back the advertising to the original level in their 2003 budget($15,000).
As an added note, the Lincoln Center advertising budget for performances is $190,000 for
2004.
5. Traffic Calming ($50,000 allowance for speed humps)—Transportation Services reported
(10/21/2003) that the City has no lasting success reducing speeds or volumes of traffic in
neighborhoods using current methods and resources. Traffic speed studies in Fort Collins,
Colorado Springs,and Golden indicate that average speeds are not lowered by speed humps.
To reach the greatest number of drivers, the remaining budget for 2004 ($50,000) is to be
used for education programs (yard signs, traffic tamers, radio ads, trash can stickers, back
to school efforts, and the speed trailer).
6. Affordable Housing($158,000 reduction)--The total allocation for the Affordable Housing
Trust Fund (this is for the production of affordable housing units and excludes Land Bank
resources)since inception(1993-2003)is$4,370,875.The City expended$3,179,090 in this
time period ($410,000 of this expenditure was transferred to the Land Bank program),
leaving a projected balance at the end of 2003 of$1,191,785. The annual,ongoing General
Fund allocation for affordable housing units is $893,962-- with the reduction of$158,000
this will drop to an annual allocation of $735,898 in 2004. Given the history of
expenditures,if the annual allocation remains at$735,898 and the expenditures ratios remain
fairly constant, the projected balance at the end of 2010 for the Affordable Housing Trust
Fund is $1,217,696.
In support of the long-range goals for increasing the number of affordable housing units in
Fort Collins,the plan has been to increase the General Fund appropriation for the Affordable
Housing Trust Fund each year through 2008. The target was an annual appropriation of
approximately $2.4 million per year. With the combination of not increasing the
appropriation and an actual reduction in 2004 of$158,000 as proposed, it is estimated that
the potential production of actual affordable homes will be reduced by 126 units or
approximately 28% of our total production goal (456 units) for 2004.
Projects recommended for funding from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund in 2003 are as
follows:
1. Home Buyer Assistance $ 200,000
2. Habitat for Humanity $ 445,500 (multi-family ownership project)
3. Habitat for Humanity $ 32,424 (lot acquisition)
4. Land Bank 410,000
Total $1,087,924
November 4, 2003 -6- Item No. 27
In addition,CDBG and HOME funding for affordable housing projects in 2003 is expected
to be approximately$2,898,208. The grand total the City is expected to invest in affordable
housing in 2003 is $3,986,132.
7. Boys and Girls Club($40,000 for 2004)—the City has supported the programs at the Boys'
and Girls' Club for several years. Because many of the services and activities overlap with
the City's recreation services for youth, Council agreed to gradually reduce the funding so
that by 2008 the City would no longer allocate funds to the Boys' and Girls' Club. With the
current financial picture and the reductions in Cultural, Library and Recreation Services
($488,068 was cut in 2003; $740,000 was the proposed cut in 2004), the allocation to the
Boys' and Girls' Club was eliminated beginning in 2004. If Council wishes to sustain some
level of allocation in 2004,an allocation from the General Fund available reserves(one-time
funds of$2,000,000 are available) would need to be included in the 2004 appropriation.
8. Summer Bilingual Program ($18,500) — this is a summer program implemented through
eight part-time youths and two part-time adults. The program introduces young people to
the library and employs them for outreach programs in the Hispanic community. If the
Council wishes to sustain some level of allocation in 2004, an allocation from the General
Fund available reserves (one-time funds of $2,000,000 are available) would need to be
included in the 2004 appropriation.
9. Weekend Swimming Pool Hours($8,000)—this was a reduction in the weekend hours at the
Mulberry Pool (open for 3-hour Saturday sessions during the school year; closed Sundays
for drop-in swimming)and Senior Center Pool. If the Council wishes to sustain some level
of allocation in 2004,an allocation from the General Fund Undesignated Reserves(one-time
funds of$2,000,000 are available) would need to be included in the 2004 appropriation.
10. Human Rights'Coordinator($67,500)—this was a contractual position,originally supported
by a private donation in 2000 and 2001. For 2002-2003,the contractual position was funded
with one-time monies. Base budgets (ongoing, operating budgets)do not include one-time
dollars. The Human Rights' Coordinator provided support to a wide-variety of educational
programs including the Youth Multicultural Retreat, Martin Luther King events, Public
Dialogue series, Multicultural Community retreat, PSD Leadership conferences, etc.
Without the Coordinator, much of the work will have to be picked up by volunteers, if
available. If the Council wishes to sustain some level of allocation in 2004, an allocation
from the General Fund available reserves (one-time funds of $2,000,000 are available)
would need to be included in the 2004 appropriation.
11. Street Oversizing($110,000)--the General Fund contribution to Street Oversizing was cut
by approximately$23,000 in 2003,from$550,000 to$523,050. The impact of that has been
negligible. The proposed 2004-2005 budget further reduces the General Fund contribution
by$110,000 to$413,050,for each of these two budget years. It also projects this same level
of General Fund contribution thru 2008. The cumulative effect of this reduction may begin
to have an adverse impact over time unless the recommended level of General Fund
contribution is reinstated in an upcoming budget cycle.
November 4, 2003 -7- Item No. 27
During each budget cycle we have a number of projects scheduled related to the Street
Oversizing Fund. For example, in 2004 we anticipate Street Oversizing project costs in the
amount of$3.3 million. Revenues,even with the anticipated reduction of the General Fund
allocation,are projected at$4.1 million. The difference goes into the Street Oversizing fund
reserve. The $110,000 cut for 2004 represents about 2.6% of the total revenue expected.
The estimated project costs are very rough estimates--projects are often scaled back or
savings are realized based on the actual design and engineering. That said, we project a
reserve balance of$1.3 million at the end of 2004. So, while we are planning to reduce the
General Fund allocation for Street Oversizing in 2004 , between our management
approaches and our reserves,the Street Oversizing program should remain financially sound.
Preliminary projections of the Street Oversizing revenues and expenses for 2006 through
2008 indicate an adequate reserve balance.
However,the fund will have to be closely monitored. The General Fund is still responsible
for a portion of the Street Oversizing program. As revenues begin to come back,the General
Fund allocation to Street Oversizing is one that should be considered for reinstatement ahead
of adding any new or expanding existing services.
If Council wishes to reinstate some or all of these service items in 2004 with dollars from General
Fund available reserves, here is a summary of the impact to the one-time reserves:
Estimated One-time Dollars Available for 2004 $ 2,004,878
Potential Uses:
a. LC and Museum advertising ($ 9,000)
b. Traffic Calming ($ 50,000)
c. Affordable Housing ($ 158,000)
d. Boys & Girls Club ($ 40,000)
e. Summer Bilingual Program ($ 18,500)
f. Weekend Swimming Hours ($ 8,000)
g. Human Rights' Coordinator ($ 67,500)
h. Street Oversizing ($ 110,000)
Total potential uses 461,000
Net available after potential uses $ 1,543,878
1 continue to advise caution conceming the use of any one-time reserves to fund these items. There
remains a good deal of uncertainty about the economy. The budget plan reflects the best financial
planning information and data available. To fund ongoing, operating services with the scarce one-
time dollars in 2004 is in my estimation not financially prudent.
PERSONNELIWACTS
Given current economic conditions,the projected gap between expenses and revenues and the goal
of minimizing service reductions (and therefore minimizing staff reductions),the budget excludes
November 4, 2003 -8- Item No. 27
any employee salary adjustments for 2004 and 2005. This means no Labor Market Adjustments for
three years (2003, 2004, 2005). For 66% of the City's workforce, this means potentially no pay
increase for three years because they are at the top of their range and are not eligible for merit or
skill adjustments.In addition to the suspension of Labor Market Adjustments,there will be no merit
and or skill adjustments for employees not at the top of their pay range for two years (2004,
2005)—the one exception is for Police personnel who will be eligible for skill ladder increases in
2004 and 2005.
In addition to no salary adjustments, we are increasing the amount employees must pay for their
medical benefits. In keeping with our targets for employees paying a larger share of the premium
costs, on average,employees will be going from paying 5% of their premium costs in 2003 to 10%
in 2004 and 15% in 2005.
The structure and design of the benefits that are offered and the cost is also being changed. For most
employees,this will mean greater out-of-pocket costs. In other words,they will be paying more for
the medications and services they use.
Based on Council's direction at the October 14 budget study session, more work is to be done in
conjunction with the Personnel Board to prepare a recommendation for the scheduled changes to the
benefits'premium costs. The recommendation(s)will be considered during the"exception process"
for the 2005 budget.
CONCLUSION:
Our fiscal plan is sound for continuing to provide quality services to our community. While our
service levels have been reduced and our future challenges are many,employees remain optimistic
and ready to serve our citizens in the best way possible. I appreciate the persistence and dedication
of Council to adopt a balanced and sound financial plan for municipal services.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Accumulated Budget Questions and Answers
ORDINANCE NO. 156, 2003
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
BEING THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE
RELATING TO THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2004; ADOPTING THE BUDGET
FOR THE FISCAL YEARS BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2004,
AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2005; AND FIXING THE MILL
LEVY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
WHEREAS,the City Manager has,prior to the first Monday in September,2003,submitted
to the Council a proposed budget for the next ensuing budget term, along with an explanatory and
complete financial plan for each fund of the City, pursuant to the provisions of Article V, Section
2, of the City Charter; and
WHEREAS, within ten (10) days after the filing of said budget estimate, the Council set
September 16 and October 7, 2003, as the dates for the public hearings thereon and caused notice
of such public hearings to be given by publication pursuant to Article V, Section 3, of the City
Charter; and
WHEREAS, the public hearings were held on said dates and all persons were then afforded
an opportunity to appear and object to any or all items and estimates in the proposed budget; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 4, of the City Charter requires that, before the last day of
November of each fiscal year, the Council by passage of the annual appropriation ordinance shall
adopt the budget for the ensuing term and appropriate such sums of money as the Council deems
necessary to defray all expenditures of the City during the ensuing fiscal year; and
WHEREAS,Article V,Section 5,of the City Charter provides that the annual appropriation
ordinance shall also fix the tax levy upon each dollar of the assessed valuation of all taxable property
within the City, such levy representing the amount of taxes for City purposes necessary to provide
for payment during the ensuing fiscal year for all properly authorized expenditures to be incurred by
the City; and
WHEREAS, Article XII, Section 6, of the City Charter permits the City Council to fix,
establish, maintain, and provide for the collection of such rates, fees, or charges for water and
electricity, and for other utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to
pay into the General Fund in lieu of taxes on account of the City-owned utilities such amount as may
be established by Council.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. Bud et
a. That the City Council has reviewed the City Managers 2004-2005
Recommended Budget, a copy of which is on file with the office of the City Clerk,
and has approved certain amendments thereto.
b. That the City Manager's 2004-2005 Recommended budget, as
amended by the Council, is hereby adopted, in accordance with the provisions of
Article V, Section 4, of the City Charter and incorporated herein by reference;
provided,however,that the comparative figures contained in the adopted budget may
be subsequently revised as deemed necessary by the City Manager to reflect actual
revenues and expenditures for the fiscal year 2003 and/or revised projections for the
fiscal years 2006 through 2008.
C. That the adopted budget,as amended,shall be maintained in the office
of the City Clerk and identified as "The Budget for the City of Fort Collins for the
Fiscal Years Ending December 31,2004 and December 31,2005,as Adopted by the
City Council on November 18, 2003."
Section 2. Appropriations. That there is hereby appropriated out of the revenues of the
City of Fort Collins,for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2004, and ending December 31, 2004,
the sum of FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY-EIGHT MILLION SIXTY-NINE THOUSAND FOUR
DOLLARS ($438,069,004)to be raised by taxation and otherwise,which sum is deemed by the City
Council to be necessary to defray all expenditures of the City during said budget year,to be divided
and appropriated for the following purposes, to wit:
GENERAL FUND $ 88,934,017
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Golf $ 2,579,293
Light &Power 80,044,674
Capital:
Substation Improvements 481,314
Underground Conversion Program 2,368,210
Light &Power Capital Total 2,849,524
Total Light& Power 82,894,198
Storm Drainage Operating 9,185,382
Capital:
Basin Master Planning 200,000
Developer Repays 400,000
Drainage System Replacement 351,000
Dry Creek Basin 3,400,000
McClelland/Mail Creek Basin Improvements 1,000,000
Poudre River Basin 1,600,000
Service Center Improvements 235,000
Storm Drainage Capital Total 7,186,000
Total Storm Drainage 16,371,382
Wastewater Operating 17,652,038
Capital:
Collection System Replacement 839,000
Pollution Control Lab 50,000
Service Center Improvements 100,000
Sludge Disposal Improvements 400,000
Treatment Plant Improvements 370,000
Wastewater Capital Total 1,759,000
Total Wastewater 19,411,038
Water Operating 25,681,245
Capital:
Distribution System Replacement 677,000
Gravel Pit Storage Ponds 3,300,000
Halligan Reservoir Expansion 2,250,000
Michigan Ditch Improvements 200,000
Service Center Improvements 100,000
Southwest System Improvements 423,000
Treatment Facility Improvements 350,000
Water Supply Development 100,000
Water Capital Total 7,400,000
Total Water 33,081,245
TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS $154,337,156
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Benefits $ 17,230,016
Communications 1,674,556
Equipment 6,963,387
Self Insurance 2,894,518
Utility Customer Service &Administration 13,269,999
TOTAL INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS $42,032,476
SPECIAL REVENUE &DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
Capital Improvement Expansion $ 127,800
Capital Leasing Corporation 1,632,562
Cemeteries 638,545
Cultural Services &Facilities 3,934,050
Debt Service 2,733,551
Emergency Response 2,003,841
General Employees'Retirement 2,064,182
Natural Areas 8,368,739
Perpetual Care 65,680
Recreation 7,864,943
Sales & Use Tax 72,551,470
Street Oversizing 3,249,001
Transit Services 10,270,910
Transportation Services 25,395,131
TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE &DEBT SERVICE FUNDS $140,900,405
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS
General City Capital
CSU Transit Center $2,400,000
Facilities MR&R Capital 220,495
Minor Street Capital 218,493
Pedestrian Accessibility 382,788
TOTAL GENERAL CITY CAPITAL $ 3,221,776
1/4 Cent Necessary
Administration $ 121,878
TOTAL 1/4 CENT COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENTS $ 121,878
1/4 Cent Community Enhancements
Administration $ 57,408
Northside Aztlan Center 3,081,039
TOTAL 1/4 CENT COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENTS $ 3,138,447
1/4 Cent Natural Areas and Parks
Administration $ 55,255
Community Park Improvements 126,402
TOTAL 1/4 CENT NATURAL AREAS AND PARKS $ 181,657
1/4 Cent Streets and Transportation
Administration $ 113,112
Pedestrian Plan 342,857
Mason Street Transportation Corridor 1,470,496
TOTAL 1/4 CENT STREET AND TRANSPORTATION $ 1,926,465
Conservation Trust Fund
Administration $ 331,876
Fossil Creek Trail 375,000
Open Space Acquisition 20,000
Trails Maintenance 65,694
Trail Acquisition, Development &Repair 375,000
Tri-City Trails 30,000
TOTAL CONSERVATION TRUST FUND $ 1,197,570
Neighborhood Parkland Fund
Administration $ 332,157
Avery Park Improvements 150,000
Dry Creek Park 50,000
Huidekoper Park 50,000
Iron Horse Park 300,000
Lee Martinez Park Addition 75,000
New Park Site Acquisition 200,000
New Park Site Development 150,000
Oak Street Plaza Park 150,000
Park Site Equipment 15,000
Provincetowne Park 100,000
Rabbit Brush Park 30,000
Registry Ridge Park 100,000
Richards Lake Park 100,000
Rossborough Park Improvements 125,000
Staley Park 100,000
Stewart Case Park 50,000
TOTAL NEIGHBORHOOD PARKLAND FUND $ 2,077,157
TOTAL CITY FUNDS $438,069,004
Section 3. Mill Levy
a. That the 2004 mill levy rate for the taxation upon each dollar of the
assessed valuation of all the taxable property within the City of Fort Collins as of
December 31, 2003, shall be 9.797 mills, which levy represents the amount of taxes
for City purposes necessary to provide for payment during the aforementioned budget
year of all properly authorized expenditures to be incurred by the City.
b. That the City Clerk shall certify this levy of 9.797 mills to the County
Assessor and the Board of Commissioners of Latimer County, Colorado, in
accordance with the applicable provisions of law, as required by Article V, Section
5, of the Charter of the City of Fort Collins.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of
November, A.D. 2003, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of November, A.D.
2003.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 18th day of November, A.D. 2003.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
ATTACHMENT A
QUESTIONS &RESPONSES
GENERAL
Question: I-1. Nice to see that we did, indeed, in 2002 receive $2 million more in property tax
with the reassessment. Nice that our bonds also showed almost $2 million increase. I also see we
estimated about $6 million more in fees and charges in utility funds. (Pm assuming that much of
that went to storm drain because we decided to fund that major improvement in a pay as you go
manner?)
Response: The fees and charges are for all utility funds-Light and Power, Wastewater, Water,
and Storm Drainage. A good portion of the total fees and charges collected were for Light and
Power and Storm Drainage. We are funding the projects for Storm Drainage on a pay as you go
basis. We did issue bonds earlier to kick-start the improvements.
Question: 1-2. In 2003 we showed an increase of more than $11.4 million in operating costs.
What percentage increase was that?
Response: The expenditure history charts shown on page I-2 are for the years 1998-2002. I am
uncertain as to which chart you are referring to on page I-2 and where the 11.4 million is shown.
The first chart includes all City funds excluding utilities which is shown on the second chart.
Question: I-4 That's constant 1982 dollars? Appears we have been living ABOVE our means in
2002 but not before that time, where expenses appeared to be below the revenue. DID I get that
right? What was the major cause of that change?
Response: Both charts on Page I-4 use 1992 as the base year. The first chart compares actual
collection of revenue in current dollars compared to that revenue adjusted for inflation. That
comparison shows the real growth in revenue collections. The second chart shows total revenue
collected per capita for those funds used in the evaluation (General Fund and funds receiving
support from the General Fund-Cultural Services, Recreation, Transit, and Transportation) and
the per capital revenue for the General Fund. in constant dollars (1992 base). It shows that
revenue per capita has shown a decreasing trend over the last several years. It does not compare
revenue to expenses.
The trend means that the revenue for the General Fund and those funds used in the evaluation are
not keeping pace with population growth. A number of things could explain this including the
recession and leakage of taxes to other retail areas, especially for the General Fund.
Question: Kathy Wright of the Larimer County Boys and Girls Club commented that the
Mississippi Attorney General, while talking with Colorado Attorney General Ken Salarzar,
discussed investment in Boys and Girls Clubs versus costs of incarceration. Please provide any
documents or information of this conversation.
Response: Staff has contacted Kathy Wright and the Mississippi Attorney General's Office. As
of this date no information has been received. When the information is received, it will be
1 of37
ATTACHMENT A
forwarded to Council.
uestion: Would like a comparison of the Police budget versus the Transportation budget over
the last five years.
Response:
GENERAL FUND CONTRIBUTION
Police Increase Transportation Increase
Budget 1999 $15,675,540 $7,578,410
Budget 2000 $18,578,967 18.5% $10,356,997 36.7%
Budget 2001 $18,764,385 1.0% $10,881,331 5.1%
Budget 2002 $22,339,423 19.1% $12,335,841 13.4%
Budget 2003 $23,945,890 7.2% $12,752,681 3.4%
Proposed 2004 $24,056,617 0.5% $11,351,795 -11.0%
Proposed 2005 $25,835,414 7.4% $10,393,244 -8.4%
Note: Transportation includes contributions to Capital and
Street Oversizing.
Question: Do pass through monies, such as County Open Space, affect or skew the cuts proposed
for the General Fund?
Response: The 2004 General Fund reduction of $3.3 million was based on the ongoing base
budgets of departments funded by the General Fund. No pass through monies were included in
the base budgets on which the reductions were based.
Question: What major fees did we increase over inflation?
Response: Major fees include Utility rate fees and Capital Expansion Fees (Impact Fees). These
major fees will be presented to Council for adoption in November. Utility fees for Light &
Power, Stormwater, and Wastewater will be increased in 2004 and 2005 over the rate of
inflation. Capital Expansion Fees will be increased consistent with inflation. In addition to an
increase to inflation for Street Oversizing, a proposal may be presented to Council in 2004 that
may increase Street Oversizing fees.
Question: The General Fund statement shows 2003 Budget and 2003 Revised Budget numbers
while the General Fund Expense Detail schedule just shows the 2003 Budget. For comparison
purposes, do you use Revised Budget or Budget numbers?
Response: The General Fund financial statement on page 67of the Recommended Budget shows
the adopted 2003 budget and a column called revised 2003. The adopted 2003 budget is the
2 of 37
ATTACHMENT A
budget amended and adopted by Council in November of 2002 (2003 exception process). For
comparison to the 2004 proposed budget, the 2003 budget should be used.
The revised 2003 numbers show the 2003 budget plus appropriations approved by Council since
January 1, 2003. It also reflects a mid-year estimate of revenues including any grants or other
unanticipated revenue received since January 1, 2003.
Question: Can the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) contribute the total $250,000 to
do the Downtown River District Concept Design?
Response: Staff has spoken with the DDA Executive Director regarding the possibility of fully
funding this project ($250,000). The request is supported by the Executive Director and will be
brought to the DDA Board for consideration in the near future.
Question: Explain the Home Run Program and did we retain monies to continue?
Response: The Streets Department formed a partnership with neighborhood associations and the
City to bring educational resources into various neighborhoods. This was accomplished by
developing the Home Run program which helps people without a high school diploma receive
their GED. The Streets Department supplies the GED materials, locates volunteer tutors, and
coordinates jobs for the program. As an incentive to students, the program provides students with
employment at the City. They must meet regularly with a tutor to work on their GED in order to
continue qualification for this program.
The City departments that provide employment opportunities for the people pay one-half of the
compensation and the General Fund provides the other half from funds in the City Manager's
Office (student wages are currently $7 per hour). After the reduction, the balance remaining for
the General Fund share is $12,500 for 2004. Currently there is one participant. General Fund
share monies spent in past years are: 1999-$18,391; 2000-$5,552; 2001-$0; 200240; 2003-
$3,029 year-to-date.
Question: How many positions are being cut in 2004 budget reduction?
Response: There are eighteen positions that would be cut or hours reduced in 2004. A majority
of the positions are hourly(part-time or seasonal). Hours will be reduced for the part-time and we
will not hire as many seasonal hourly positions. Five salaried positions are currently vacant, and
one position is contractual.
Question: What is the proposed rate of increase in the next budgets for the I 1 communities we
compare our pay rates with?
Response: Following is a table of proposed rate of budget increases. Some communities do not
include capital as part of their budgets so to compare apples to apples, the projected rate of
increase does not include capital. The City of Fort Collins budget projected increase is also noted
less capital for comparison.
3 of 37
ATTACHMENT A
%Change
City from 2003 to 2004
Arvada 2.4%
Aurora 5.1%
Boulder 0.8%
Englewood -0.6%
FORT COLLINS -0.2%
Greeley 5.0%
Lakewood 5.0%
Littleton not available
Longmont 4.2%
Loveland 0.2%
Northglenn 0.0%
Thornton -3.7%
Westminster 4.1%
REVENUE
uestion: H-5 and II-6
We are proposing a $10 Million increase in general fund fees and charges from 2003 to 2005.
Can you highlight just what those would include? This is in addition to the 20 % increase in
utilities costs next year?
Response: The charts shown on page H-5 are for all City funds less Utilities and for Utility
funds. The charts do not specifically show just the General Fund. The fees and charges shown on
page II-5 include Recreation, Cultural Services, Transportation, Transit, and all other City Funds
that charge fees for the use of their respective services. Revenue from fees and charges for
utilities, as shown on page 11-5, the second chart, are projected to increase approximately 13% in
2005 over 2003. The cost of operating the utilities, as shown in the recommended budget,
increases 1.0%in 2004 over 2003 and 4.3% in 2005 over 2005.
uestion: 1I-7 While most service areas have made major cuts, and while salaries are the biggest
costs (which we have frozen for three years) we still see a 14% increase in administrative
services, a 20% increase in transportation and a 13% increase in Other (what does that include).
Please explain why.
Response: The increase in Administrative Services is primarily due to estimated medical claims
as recommended by consultants. The 20% increase in Transportation is based on our outside
Auditor recommendation that we move the Pavement Management Program expenditures from
the Capital Fund to operations maintenance. Pavement Management expenditures are shown as
part of the operations budget for Transportation. The Other category includes accounts such as
the Capital Expansion Fund, General Employees Retirement Fund, insurance, and City dues. The
increase in 2004 over 2003 is due to a change in accounting practices that records administrative
(vendor fees) that businesses retain for sales and use taxes paid to the City.
Question: H-8 and II-9 What is the year to year% increase in our total budget from 2003 to 2004
4 of 37
ATTACHMENT A
and 2005. (I don't do math, as you can tell.)
Response: As shown on page H-6, the recommended total City budget for 2004 is 0.5% less than
the 2003 adopted budget. The recommended total City budget for 2005 is 2.8% over the 2004
recommended budget.
Question: III-5 Finance: have we made any changes in vendor fees?
Response: No change has been made in the 2004-2005 recommended budget.
Question: III-32 Here's where I will be looking for some answers: There is a $6 million increase
in base budget from 2003 and 2004. Why?
Response: There was an error made in the 2003 base budget. The 2003 base budget is
$29,833,295 rather than the $27,711,925 as shown. The difference between the 2003 base budget
and the 2004 base budget is $4.0 million Based on the recommendation of the City's outside
Auditor, the Pavement Management Program was moved from the Capital Projects Fund to the
operations budget of Transportation which accounts for the $4.0 million increase.
Question: IV-5 I support the recommendations for items 1, 2 and 3. However, I think we need a
real discussion about items 4 and 5. It appears we are putting an additional $2,289,640 into
pavement management in addition to the $1.8 million already provided in the budget. And in
item 5 we are adding another$1 to the capital for streets in 2005?
Response: The $2,289,640 is one-time dollars allocated from revenue collected over the
TABOR growth limit. The $1.0 million added in 2005 for transportation capital is also from
revenue collected over the TABOR growth limit. This is consistent with the transportation
funding strategy approved by Council.
Question: AS I read through all those requests rejected, it appears that the city manager's budget
supports potholes and asphalt over all other services that citizens might expect from their city.
While streets and police are our major primary services that we pay for with general funds
money, there are many items that might be considers-- of relatively low amounts of money
compared to the transportation costs. No doubt we need to maintain our streets. No doubt we
need to build more roads. But do our priorities get so out of balance that that's the only thing we
do?
Let me go through some of the key points that I think people will be concerned about-- and I'm
not talking about picking up dog poop or emptying the library drop boxes, which are totally
insignificant cost items raised for I don't know what reason.
Response: Many of the requests are needed and would improve service to citizens. The fact
remains, however, that we have had to cut many General Fund items and just do not have the
resources to fund many of these requests. Further, if resources are available to expand some
ongoing services in 2005, the priority as suggested by Council is on primary services-included in
the Recommended Budget in 2005 are expanded services for Police, Fire, and Transportation.
Question: I would like to get an updated green sheet (first page) that includes total city budget
(including general fund totals) for the years 2001 through 2005 broken down by real dollars and
5 of 37
ATTACHMENT A
percentages. This would be extremely helpful for comparison purposes. Plus, there is this
tendency to jump from General Fund Budget to Total City Budget and I want to make sure we,
and the public, have a clearer picture.
Response:
%Inc %Inc %Inc %Inc %Inc
Budget over Budget over Budget over Budget over Budget over
2000 2001 2000 2002 2001 2003 2002 2004 2003 2005 2004
General
Fund $62.4 $63.1 1.1% $73.4 16.3% $74.1 1.0% $71.2 -3.9% $74.1 4.1%
Utilities 111.9 117.1 4.6% 131.9 12.6% 132.1 0.2% 132.3 0.2% 138.6 4.8%
Internal
Service 30.3 31.7 4.6% 34.9 10.1% 36.3 4.0% 42.0 15.7% 44.5 6.0%
Dedicated
Revenue
(Recreation,
etc.) 46.3 46.5 0.4% 54.1 16.3% 50.2 -7.2% 57.2 13.9% 56.9 -0.5%
Capital 33.5 47.0 40.3% 35.7 24.0% 38.2 7.0% 36.6 -4.2% 38.1 4.1%
Debt 7.2 7.0 -2.8% 6.2 11.4% 4.6 25.8% 4.4 -4.3% 4.4 0.0%
Transfer of
Funds within -
the City 85.4 90.6 6.1% 103.2 13.9% 104.9 1.6% 94.4 10.0% 93.6 -0.8%
Total City
Budget $377.0 $403.0 6.9% $439.4 9.0% $440.4 0.2% $438.1 -0.5% $450.2 2.8%
Question: Over the past 4 years, how far off have we been from original projected sales tax and
use tax (per year)? Since I have been on Council we have always ended up with either making
spending cuts or allocating overages.
Response: Following are model projections for sales tax since inception, in millions:
Model Actual Variance
1992 $19.7 $20.7 $1.0
1993 22.3 23.1 0.8
1994 24.2 25.4 1.2
1995 26.6 27.2 0.6
1996 28.8 29.0 0.2
1997 31.2 31.1 -0.1
1998 33.3 34.4 1.1
1999 35.8 37.7 1.9
2000 40.0 41.1 1.1
2001 43.4 43.5 .1
2002 47.5 43.3 -4.2
Question: How did we go over the TABOR growth limit in 2002 when our sales and use tax
collections were down?
Response: The State Constitution has limitations for total revenue and a separate limitation for
6 of 37
ATTACHMENT A
property tax. The two limitations are separate.
The growth limit is based on inflation and a local growth component (which is based on increase
in total property tax valuation due to annexation and new construction). As property values have
been growing faster than this combination, the City reached the growth limit on property tax
several years ago. The State Constitution sets the revenue base as the lower of the growth limit
or actual collections. As the City's property tax collections continue to grow, they are farther and
farther ahead of the limit.
Question: What effect does a reduction to 2% in the projected sales and use tax collections for
2005 have on the recommended 2005 enhancements?
Response: Lowering the 2005 projected sales and use tax collections from 4.7% to 2% reduces
estimated ongoing revenue by approximately $1.5 million. The 2005 ongoing dollar
enhancements included in the recommended budget total $1.9 million.
• Police staffing $799,763
• Police building $320,000
• Street Maintenance $200,000
• PFA allocation $594,000
Question: Could you clarify on whether the 20 add-on items were permanently removed, or do
they resume in 2006 (or later)?
Response: I think there is a misperception about the suggested "add-backs" that were discussed at
Tuesday's (10/14) study session. Let me try to clarify.
For the 2004 (and beyond) General Fund budget, projected revenues are insufficient to cover all
of the existing/current ongoing expenditures. Consequently, we had to cut $3.3 million of
ongoing expenses -- expenditures that we incur to deliver exisiting services and maintain current
facilities.
The detailed list of cuts in ongoing expeditures was provided as part of the September 9 Budget
Study Session materials. These cuts are "permanent"--they are not slated to be added back in any
upcoming budget. For example:
Our ongoing expense in 2003 for park fertilizer is $30,000. For 2004, we cut this ongoing
expense by $10,000; so the budgeted expense in 2004, 2005 and beyond for park fertilizer is
$20,000. I might add that we are using and keep seeking improved technologies (i.e., water
soluable fertilizer administered via irrigation)to stretch our resources.
The only way this or any expenditure is increased or "added" to any future budgets is (1) if there
are increased ongoing revenues sufficient to cover the expense, and (2) the Council approves the
increased expenditure. Marty's point, of course, is absolutely correct.
That being said, we could use some reserves (one-time savings) to cover some of these reduced
expenditures for 2004 and/or 2005. For example, Council may want to use savings of$40,000 in
7 of 37
ATTACHMENT A
2004 and another $30,000 in 2005 for the Boys and Girls Club. We had originally planned to
step down the allocation over a period of four years to zero.
Any use of reserves (which are one-time savings) is a temporary fix--one-time dollars diminish
as they are spent. They are not ongoing. In the past, we have used these reserves for one-time
projects, for emergency repairs, and to pay for the start up phase of a program. When economic
times were good, our savings were frequently replenished. Now, it is more uncertain as to
whether or not we will receive any surplus that can be put into and replenish our savings. That is
why I urge Council to be cautious about using one-time reserves for ongoing expenses.
Here's a quick analogy to one's home budget. Let's say the monthly household income in 2003 is
$2,000. Food, clothing, utilities, insurance, and the mortgage are all monthly ongoing expenses.
We get notice that our projected income for 2004 is going to drop to $1,500 per month. So, we
cut where we can--the monthly food expense drops from $400 to $200.
Our food budget can only be reinstated or "added-back" if our income increases or we use some
savings. If we use savings (let's say our savings account is $500) to cover our food expenses--
using $50 a month out of our savings to boost our monthly food budget in 2004 to $250 per
month-- our savings will be depleted in 10 months.
This may be oversimplified when comparing to the City's budget,but the principles are the same
and the decisions no less difficult.
Question: How does the proposed change in language for sections 1.3al and 1.3b square with
this City Council being able to change budget if projections are not correct about sales and use
tax?
Response: This in no way affects the ability of the Council. The Council has the authority to
modify the City Manager's recommended budget. These policies do not limit this authority. To
be specific:
Section 1.3a.1 states that the Council can add appropriations to the adopted budget during the
fiscal year Those requested appropriations plus the adopted budget appropriation cannot exceed
anticipated or available revenue or reserves (balanced budget). This is consistent with the City
Charter Article V, Section 9.
Section 1.3b of the Financial Management Policies refers to adopted budget decreases during the
fiscal year. If the City Manager directs budget reductions, Council will be immediately informed
and the appropriations to be reduced will be set aside (frozen). This does not lower or cancel the
appropriations. The new language clarify's that even though total appropriations have not been
reduced or canceled, expenditures shall not exceed the reduced appropriations recommended by
the City Manager. Again, this is to insure that we are within the requirement of a balanced budget
and that expenditures will not exceed available resources.
Question: First, the sales and use tax amounts need further consideration. The base coming out
of 2003 will only be $67 million. With the budget crisis at CSU and the loss of high end jobs in
the technology sector, purchasing power in Fort Collins for 2004 will only be dreadful. To tie
8 of 37
ATTACHMENT A
our growth numbers to statewide trends when community purchasing power is likely to go in the
other direction is just a poor budget strategy.
Response: The 2003 base that we are using to project 2004 sales and use taxes is $67.7 million.
The base is shown on the Sales and Use Tax Fund Statement (revised 2003) in the recommended
budget. This is pretty consistent with his observation. I believe the point that John neglects to
mention is that his comments are pushing for Economic development, whereas this budget
doesn't.
We have explained over and over about the model and the data input from State and Federal
numbers. It seems to me that we're safer going with a model that has a proven track record rather
than following a "gut" reaction or a"finger in the air" reaction.
Question: Apparently, to help bail out the general fund crisis, Mike Smith has volunteered to
increase the PILOT fees which the utilities pay because utility fees can be increased without a
vote of the people. With these PILOTS, the administrative charges, and the sales tax collections
from the utilities more than 10% of the utility revenues are funneled into the general fund. Any
PILOT fees should be based on the costs associated and not a political decision to bail out the
general fund.
Response: We are currently studying the possibility but at this time no decision has been made.
Therefore, the utilities are not "bailing out" the General Fund."
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Question: II-1 What was the reason for our$3 million increase in administrative costs in 2003?
Response: Our outside Auditor recommended that we discontinue funding building maintenance
as a capital expense and to, instead, show as an operating expense. Based on this
recommendation, $1.0 million was reallocated from capital to the operating budget for Operation
Services in the Administrative Services area. In addition, increases in benefits costs increased in
2003.
Question: Section III
III-3 While Administrative services shows minimal increases from 2004 to 2005, a $5 million
jump from 2003 brings those costs up pretty high. Why?
Response: The increase is due to the projected increase in medical claims, primarily in 2004, as
recommended by our consultant.
Question: Is custodial services performed by City employees or is it contracted outside?
Response: The City contracts out the cleaning of our buildings with the exception of the Lincoln
Center. We use primarily two contractors for these services; however due to budget cutbacks this
year, we are forced to scale back the frequency of overall cleaning or scale back on specific tasks.
(i.e. office/cubicle cleaning and trash collection frequency is now weekly instead of daily). In
9 of 37
ATTACHMENT A
addition, some of the cleaning duties at various facilities are being assumed by the current staff at
those buildings. These duties include vacuuming, dusting, restroom cleaning, and some trash
collection.
Question: Our outside auditor says that transfers are inflated. Please explain?
Response: In the management report for the 2002 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report,
Bondi & Co. indicated when one fund sells property to another fund, there is a danger in marking
up the value of the property. In recent years in the private sector, this type of transfer caused
balance sheets to be overstated.
The transfers discussed in the budget documents are transfers among funds for services rendered
by one fund for another or transfers to maintain proper accounting for City monies. So, the two
types of transfers are entirely different.
COMMUNICATION &TECHNOLOGY SERVICES
Question: 1II-6 Crum. Tech made cuts each year, which shows a good effort. However, I am
concerned that on III-10 base budget levels, next to the last sentence under comm./ and public
involvement "The ability to provide high level of cable programming to the community is
dependent upon receipt of funding" Are you saying that without additional that we will be
reducing that service?
Response: We will continue to provide Cable programming but with reductions in department
budgets, the frequency and timing of those programs might be reduced.
Question: What impact does the reduction in Communication & Technology Services have on
the services provided?
Response: Communications and Technology Services will be eliminating 3 staff positions in
order to address budget short falls (a System's Analyst in the application support group, a Web
developer in the E-government group, and a PC support technical). These staff provide support
a variety of major computer application systems in use by both the City as a whole as well as
individual departments. Examples of these applications include the City's JDEdwards financial
system, FCgov.com(the City's web site), and fleet and facilities maintenance tracking systems.
As a result of these reductions, CTS will need to prioritize its work it does on behalf of
departments; lower priority projects will take longer to get to the top of the list or may not be
done at all. CTS will work cooperatively with departments to prioritize support for competing
projects, but departments may need to seek outside consulting assistance if work priorities and
schedule agreements cannot be reached. Outside consulting is generally significantly more
expensive than utilizing in house staff for these kinds of projects.
COMMUNITY PLANNING& ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
10 of 37
ATTACHMENT A
uestion: III-14 But does this allow for adequate response to the Zucker report on changes
needed in Current Planning?
Response: The described productivity improvements are ones that have been completed over the
last one to two years. The description was prepared in May, long before the Zucker Report was
finished. We will be assessing how to do the improvements to our Development Review and
what, if any, additional resources may be required.
Question: IV-22 item 57 If we are serious about developing the Downtown River District, don't
we need to look at the design sooner rather than later?
Response: Another good request, but no one-time dollars have been recommended to be
expended in 2004.
Question: The City Plan update costs were not recommended for funding. Does this mean that
the City Plan update will be delayed?
Response: The City Plan Update will call for some high priority Next Steps. An example is a
sub-area plan in cooperation with CSU and Larimer County in the Northwest quadrant of the
GMA, including the Foothills Campus. Without funds for consulting assistance, such projects
will be delayed or reduced in scope.
Question: What is the amount of General Fund contribution for Natural Areas in 2001-2005?
Response:
2001 $95,153
2002 $113,819
2003 $114,100
2004 $0
2005 $0
uestion: Does the position transferred from the General Fund to Natural Areas program work
100% for Natural Areas?
Response: Yes. The General Fund contribution to the NA program has funded a full time
position that provides expertise in wildlife biology, and supervision to the field crews. There is
some de minimus work provided by this position coordinating NA activities with other city
programs; e.g., development review or long range planning.
uestion: What has the budget for the Natural Resources Department been for the last three
years?
Response:
BUDGET SUMMARY BY ACTIVITY FOR LAST THREE YEARS
Activity Budget 2001 Bud et 2002 Bud et 2003
Clean Air $414,417 $410,838 $407,877
11 of 37
ATTACHMENT A
Environmental Planning $290,582 $298,541 $339,450
Natural Areas $ 95,153 $113,819 $114,100
Waste Reduction $270,114 $152,624 $172,800
Total $1,070,266 $975,822 $1,034,227
Question: Please list the activities which they are charged with doing concerning environmental
protection within Fort Collins.
Response: Services provided by Natural Resources are as follows:
Clean Air- Implements education and, to a lesser degree, incentives and regulation, to reduce
emissions from mobile sources,businesses and residences, in an effort to continually improve
local air quality.
Environmental Planning- Provides overall administration of the department, support to the
Natural Resources Advisory Board and Air Quality Advisory Board, environmental review and
compliance services for the City organization, environmental input to new development projects,
develops and coordinates the sustainable management system implementation.
Natural Areas - Implements open land conservation priorities identified in the City's
Comprehensive Plan by purchasing fee simple or conservation easement interests in key natural
areas, community separators, and other open lands. Provides land stewardship for lands acquired
by the City, trails and interpretive features for public use. Funding sources for open land
purchase and management include a portion of the Building Community Choices 1/4 cent City
sales tax and a portion of the Help Preserve Open Space 1/4 cent Latimer County sales tax.
Waste Reduction - Assists citizens in reducing waste through education, provision of special
materials collection services, and policy initiatives. Specific new recycling programs in 2003 -
2004 include a project to increase recycling opportunities to multi-family residences in Fort
Collins, an audit of the City's pay-as-you-throw ordinance, and optimization of local composting
opportunities.
Question: How many Natural Resources Department employees, contract or City employee, will
be lost with the proposed budget?
Response: None
Question: Natural Resources-consider reinstating/providing resources for the Senior
Environmental Planner, the Rivendell Recycling activities, and the pollution prevention staff
person.
Response: This is discussed as part of the October 14`h Agenda Item.
uestion: Affordable Housing — what is the funding activity of the trust fund over the past few
years, the amount of funding cuts, the impact of those cuts , and the current balance of the trust
fund?
Response: Fundine Activity
12 of 37
ATTACHMENT A
As of March 2003, the total allocation of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund since inception
(1993-2003)was $5,356,619. The City expended $4,477,114 in this time period, leaving a
balance of$879,799. Please see the attached table for details of allocations and expenditures.
Excluding the Land Bank funds,we had $832,138 available for production and a carry over
balance of about $255,786. For the 2003 fall Competitive Process, the City has available
$1,087,924 of Affordable Housing Trust Fund dollars to allocate to affordable housing projects.
The CDBG Commission will be recommending to City Council the allocation of this funding
later in the month. Projects recommended for funding are as follows:
1. Home Buyer Assistance $200,000
2. Habitat for Humanity $445,500 (multi-family ownership project)
3. Habitat for Humanity $32,424 (lot acquisition)
4. Land Bank $410,000
Fundine Cuts
The City reduced the amount of funding allocated to affordable housing programs for 2003
because of the reduction of sales tax revenue. The reductions were as follows:
$272, 474 Supplemental allocation for production
$200,000 Supplemental allocation to the Land Bank Program
In the 2004-2005 budget, the City will cut $158,064 from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
Impact of Funding Cuts
The City has committed to ten-year Affordable Housing production goals. These goals included
an ongoing and escalating funding contribution from non-federal sources; the 2003 commitment
($272,474) was eliminated in the 2003 mid-year budget process.
The 1999 Priority Affordable Housing Needs and Strategies Report budget allocates an average
subsidy of$5,000 dollars to produce each new affordable housing unit in the City. The recent
affordable housing cuts ($472,474) and anticipated cuts ($158,064) in the 2004-2005, will reduce
the production of affordable housing by 126 units or approximately 30% of our total production
goal (419 units) for 2004.
Current Balance
The CDBG Commission will be recommending the allocation of all Affordable Housing Trust
Fund dollars to City Council at the October 28 Study Session, leaving a zero balance for
production. In fact, there were several other good projects the CDBG Commission would like to
fund if additional affordable housing resources were available.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND-MARCH 2O03
13 of 37
ATTACHMENT A
Expense •-
Allocation Developers Project Name Rebates* Type- Amount Units
$250,000
$233,000
761, 1995 LHIP LHIP $22,500
$133,000 TRAC San Cristo $25,860 75
CARE Greenbriar $71,400 40
Rose Tree Village $106,800URI
120
1996 LHIP LHIP $22,500
Funding Partners Northern Hotel Other $250,000 47
IN $383,000 FCHA Hillcrest $26,280 15
FCHA W Mulberry $1,460 1
>i Habitat for Humanity N Briarwood $4,244 1
i' 1997 LHIP ' LHIP $22,500
$133,000 ICARE JW Swallow $79,200 40
= s Habitat for Humanities IN Briarwood 1 $3,047 11
1998 LHIP LHIP 1 $22,500
Habitat for Humanity LaPorte $4,244 1
$208,000 FCHA W Swallow $54,020 34
Kaufman & Broad The Woodlands $119,720 116
�J Habitat for Humanity Albion Way $3,142 1
CARE Eagle Tree Other $103,070 36
$283,000 FCHA JFK Parkway Other $32,962 12
FCHA Via Lopez Other $80,931 33
CARE Windtrail $67,160 50
CARE (land acquisition) Fairbrooke Heights Production $150,000 50
$443,036 JFCHA Rehab Rehab $75,000 144
Brisben Companies Buffalo Run $207,450 86
rcsi; Volunteers of America Elderly Housing Production $219,000 60
Bethphage Westfield Drive Production $111,900 5
Simpson Housing Woodbridge Other $125,000 50
j Downpayment Assistance Other $100,000
t $671,915 Habitat for Humanity Torridon Lane Other $6,115 1
I` Habitat for Humanity HBA& Fees Other $47,000 1
CARE Fairbrooke Heights $69,050 -
Brisben Companies Bull Run 1 $179,580 176
Brisben Companies Country Ranch $86,140 118
$893,962 CARE Fairbrooke Heightsi Production $200,000 -
r. Downpayment Assistance Other $100,000 14
Land Bank Program Estimated
$1,725,000 (30 Acres) Land $1,677,339 360
* The Rebate Program was discontinued in 1999 and replaced with a new Competitive Process.
•'Expense Types include Production, LHIP, Land, Rehab and Other, etc.
Question: How many employees are just in the Natural Areas Program and what is the labor
cost?
Response: There are 26.45 FTE's and the labor cost is approximately $1.5 million. Following is
14 of 37
ATTACHMENT A
list of employees.
2003 Natural Resources Staff
Environmental Planning Natural Areas
Director 0.5 Director 0.5
Admin Sec 1 0.25 Admin Sec 1 0.25
Admin Support Spvsr 0.5 Admin Supp Spvsr 0.5
Financial/Grants Coord 0.5 Financial/Grants Cc 0.5
Environmental Planner 1 Program Mgr 1
Sr.Envmtl Planner 1 Nat Area Techs 6
(Home
Secretary Run) 0.5 Crew Chief 1
Sr.Env.Plnnr 2
Ranger 3.2
Env.Ed Specialist 1
Env.Ed&Pubinv Coord 0.5
NA Tech Aides 2
Env Planner 1
NA Maint Worker 7
Solid
Waste/Recycling Clean Air
Sr.Environmental
Planner 0.75 Sr.Env.Planner 2
Env. Ed&Pub Inv
Officer 1 EnvEd&PubinvCoord 0.5
Environmental Planner 1 Env.Planner 1
Pub&Mrktng Asst 0.5
Question: Can I have a list by area of NRD employees?
Response:
2003 Natural Resources Staff
Environmental Planning
Director 0.5
Admin Sec 1 0.25
Admin Support Spvsr 0.5
Financial/Grants Coord 0.5
Environmental Planner 1
Sr. Envmtl Planner 1
Secretary (Home Run) 0.5
Environmental Planning total 4.25
Natural Areas
Director 0.5
15 of 37
ATTACHMENT A
Admin Sec 1 0.25
Admin Supp Spvsr 0.5
Financial/Grants Co 0.5
Program Mgr 1
Nat Area Techs 6
Crew Chief 1
Sr. Env. Plnnr 2
Ranger 3.2
Env. Ed Specialist 1
Env.Ed&Pubinv Coord 0.5
NA Tech Aides 2
Env Planner 1
NA Maint Worker 7
Natural Areas total 26.45
Solid Waste/Recycling
Sr. Environmental Planner 0.75
Env. Ed&Pub Inv Officer 1
Environmental Planner 1
Solid Waste/Recycling total 2.75
Clean Air
Sr.Env. Planner 2
EnvEd&PubinvCoord 0.5
Env. Planner 1
Pub&Mrktng Asst 0.5
Clean Air total 4
NATURALRESOURCES
DEPARTMENT 37.45
Question: Who is the City rep for the NCEDC?
Response: The City Manager
uestion: What amount of City dollars goes to the Visitor's Bureau, Chamber, and NCEDC?
Response: No money is contributed by the City to the Visitor's Bureau. The Visitor's Bureau is
funded through the Lodging Tax via an allocation included in City Code Sec. 25-244(b) and
Resolution 177,1995. The amount allocated to the Visitors Bureau in 2003 from Lodging Tax is
$395,000. The Chamber gets nothing from the City and NCEDC gets nothing from the City.
Question: Including the virtual incubator, and vendors fee, what other types of fees/taxes and
support does the City offer the business community?
Response: Manufacture's Use Tax Rebate Program (2003: $0)
Vendors Fee (2003: approximately$1,000,000)
16 of 37
ATTACHMENT A
Virtual Business Incubator(2003: $28,000 pass thru from PRPA)
CULTURAL, LIBRARY &RECREATIONAL SERVICES
uestion: Two items in the CLRS requests seem to be more than "secondary" services. Item 23,
IV-14 asks for a continuation of the security guards at the library to deal with drunk, disorderly
homeless who use the library as a day center. This is an issue that should be dealt with by our
police force. It is a matter of safety for children and adults who use the library or work there. It is
NOT a secondary service in this regard.
Response: The issue of safety at the library is certainly important and a priority. We are currently
dealing with the issue. Library security will be provided.
Question: Item 33 IV 16 The Lincoln Center operates with only one half time permanent
custodian. The staff makes a case that hourly hired people turnover too much and do not provide
the service needed. Seems totally reasonable for the city to properly staff that with a city
employee instead of with ineffective hourly workers. That surely must be a tradeoff rather than
new costs.
Response: We will certainly look into the situation and if cost-effective, implement a change.
Question: While I am perfectly aware that libraries are a secondary service, funds to operate
library facilities, pay hourly staff and buy books has not been increase to cover inflation since
1997."...Publishers costs have increased 30% , ...library lost $32.000 in state funds in 2002. hi
addition, we don/t have a children's librarian at Harmony, and while the workload has increased
significantly, because of our city growth and because of more police has increased from 2003 to
library use by citizens, we haven't added staff to do the job.
Response: All departments of the City are having to do with increased workload and staffing
problems. The number of employees per 1,000 population for the General Fund has been
decreasing since 1995 and the lowest since 1990.
Question: What is the status of converting community trails from asphalt to concrete?
Response:
1. Poudre River Trail at Lee Martinez Park.
Project is under construction and should be completed in about two weeks. Work length is about
4,000 feet. Funding is Natural Areas Funds. Bidding on the project was below our estimate by
some 20%. Contractor will use a lay down machine (cost savings) and do the actual concrete
work in just a few days.
2. Poudre River Trail at Linden St. to Lincoln Av.
New temporary asphalt overlay to be completed the week of September 22. The project will hold
this very bad section in place until River Restoration Project work starts in two years. Funding is
Conservation Trust.
17 of 37
ATTACHMENT A
3. Spring Creek Trail at Ross Natural Area;
Project is out to bid with construction set for November/December. Project involves a length of
about 1,300 feet. Funding is from Natural Areas Funds.
4. Spring Creek at Edora Park:
Project is in design phase with bidding to be in October. Construction time frame is December to
February. Project involves a length of about 1,800 feet. Funding is from Conservation Trust
Fund.
5. Poudre River Trail from Lincoln Ave. to Nix Farm.
Project involves reviewing landownership for potential trail adjustment. Phase I will likely start
at Link-n-Greens Golf course and proceed to near Nix Farm. When constructing or
reconstructing trails, we look for opportunities to move further back from the river. While we
have asked in the past and the owner was not interested, staff will check again to see if the trail
can be adjusted near the golf course or downstream of Lemay.
While this phase is going on landowner contacts near Lincoln Avenue may result in an
opportunity to adjust the trail. New trail easements will be obtained and the trail reconstructed
next spring.
Funding for both phases would be from Natural Areas Funds.
6. Poudre River Trail Shields to Taft Hill.
This section of trail should be replaced in early to mid summer of 2004. Project length is about
6,000 feet. Landowners will be contacted to see if any possibilities exist to adjust the trail.
Funding would be from Natural Areas Funding.
Question: What percentage of the budget is Cultural, Library, & Recreational Services (CLRS)
and what percentage of the budget was their cut?
Response: The CLRS General Fund supported budget before the reduction amounted to
$16,272,651 or 17.6% of the total General Fund before reductions. After the reduction of
$741,837, the CLRS General Fund supported budget was $15,530,814 or 17.5% of the total
General Fund after reductions. The $741,837 reduction amounts to 4.6% of the CLRS budget. Of
the total General Fund budget, the $741,837 reduction for CLRS represents 0.8%.
EXECUTIVE. LEGISLATIVE & JUDICIAL SERVICES
Question: 111-22 Exc. Leg and Jud. Show significant cuts. Good.
Only one minor question: III-25. How much of the court's costs are covered by its fees/fines etc.?
Response: 100% of the costs for Municipal Court are covered by fees/fines.
Question: IV-18 item 44. Are we paying rent for the current space? If so, is there a savings?
Response: Municipal Court is not paying rent for the current space. The rent in the budget for
18 of 37
ATTACHMENT A
Municipal Court for the previous space was returned to the General Fund in 2001 and was
reallocated.
Question: N-19. I thought we had already been told that we WOULD support the community
liaison coordinator.
Response: The City's share of the cost with Colorado State University for the Community
Liaison Coordinator is included in the base budget (through reallocation of resources) for
Neighborhood Resources. In the past two years, the City's share of the Coordinator's position
was supported by one-time dollars and this request was made early in the budget process prior to
the reallocation of resources.
POLICE
uestion: III-27 Is the $100,000 increase in police expenditures, without increasing the
number of employees, all designated for raises for skills achievement? Is this fair when compared
to freezing all other skill raises?
Response: The increase in Police Services is for skill achievement. Without the ability to adjust
for skill competency, Police Services would be at an even greater disadvantage as we compete
for qualified candidates with other Front Range organizations. At a time when Fort Collins is
trying to strengthen and expand Police Services, we must be in a position to remain an attractive
employer and keep our public safety personnel in which we have invested significant resources to
prepare them to work.
Question: III-29 Even so, it appears that the base budget for police has increased from 2003 to
2004 from $21 million to $23 million. Where are those increased dollars going?
Response: The 2003 base budget for Police Services was understated by $689,000. The
corrected base is $22,212,784 for 2003 and is recommended to be $23,447,977 for 2004. This is
an increase of approximately $1,200,000. As shown on page 111-28, $962,817 in ongoing
enhancements must be added to the beginning $22,212,784 2003 base in order to arrive at the
base budget for 2004. In addition, the 2004 budget was increased for items such as Humane
Society one-time funding in 2003 was added to the ongoing base in 2004, Juvenile Assessment
Center one-time monies were added to the base in 2004, Skill increases for 2004, Camera Radar
and School Resource Officer contribution.
Question: III-30 I'd like to be sure that we see the results of the improved response time that
results from the changes in Patrol Service.
Response: We will be providing Council with data throughout the year.
Question: IV-23 item 62. How are we proposing to deal with the Humane Society issue. They
want more money, we want good service.
Response: We have increased the City's ongoing allocation over the last two years-in 2002 and
19 of 37
ATTACHMENT A
in 2003. We are working with the Humane Society to address their concerns in light of our
limited resources. We have discussed the possibility of using some one-time resources for some
needed capital items such vehicles and equipment.
Question: IV- items 64, 63 How will we deal with these needs ? What is our base budget for
these services. (Island Grove and Juvenile Assessment facility)
Response: The base budget includes $22,900 ongoing for Island Grove and $38,000 for the
Juvenile Assessment Center.
uestion: IV-23 item 61. Are you actually saying that we will NOT contribute to the social
service needs that we have in the past? When state budgets have cut the heart out of these
services, are we going to cut services to the needy poor?
Response: The base budget includes $370,457 in ongoing funds allocated to Larimer County
Human Services for social needs.
uestion: What is the comparison of Police Services compensation to Sheriff's office
compensation?
Response:
Current Monthly Current Monthly Average
Pay Range Pay Range Monthly
Agency Minimum Maximum Salary
Fort Collins $3,631 $4,942 $4,286
Larimer County $3,231 $4,679 $3,955
Long Term
Monthly Medical Monthly Dental Life Insur Disability
Employer Employer Employer Employer
Agency Contribution Contribution Contribution Contribution
Fort $542 all FT $32 all FT 0.24/$1000 .0024 x annual
Collins employees—all employees—all (1 x annual salary
coverage levels coverage levels salary benefit
Larimer $309 FT employees— $28 all FT 0.23/$1000 .0049 x annual
County employee only employees—all (1 x annual salary up to
$449 FT employees— coverage levels salary benefit) $3,600/month
employee +
dependents
2004 and 2005 Comparison
Larimer County is in the process of updating their 2004 Pay Plan and Philosophy. This process
will not be completed until later this fall as not all of the details of the plan have been finalized.
Therefore, 2004 data is not available at this time.
20 of 37
ATTACHMENT A
Larimer County operates under a one-year budget cycle. Therefore, 2005 data will not be
available until the end of the year 2004.
Question: Do we have a response time goal for Police? If we increase officers, what do we
expect in response time change?
Response: We attempt to maintain a response time in the four minute level for our most
emergent calls. We would rather have it in the three minute level but cannot consistently attain
that currently. This is an arbitrary number and will not be significantly impacted until we
increase size beyond the level of trying to simply match growth.
Question: What makes up the $90,000 one-time costs for hiring a police officer?
Response:
Recruitment Costs:
Advertising 350
Testing Costs;
Written Examination 25
Polygraph 170
Psychological Testing 390
Physical 525
POST Testing 150
Background Investigation 1,450
Training Costs:
Police Academy Tuition 5,000
Field Training Officer Overtime 5,832
Training Ammunition 200
Compensation During Training
Period:
16 Week Academy(level 1) 18,379
24 Week Mini-Academy and FTO 29,446
Overtime for 40 weeks 4,344
Equipment Costs:
Uniform/Equipment(including shotgun
&radio) 7,875
First Year of Vehicle Lease Purchase
Pmt. 8,000
Other Costs:
Lab Supplies 227
25% Space/Tenant Finishing Costs 5,883
City Shop Charges to Prep. New Vehicle 1,035
Total Cost $89,281.00
Question: Does Boulder have a contract with police officers in terms of retention?
21 of 37
ATTACHMENT A
Response: Yes they have a contract with new hires to repay certain costs of training and
equipment, if they leave within the first two years of employment. It used to be three and the city
did not prevail during a recent appeal. It is understood to be on a prorated scale.
Question: What is the discrepancy in the one-time costs for hiring a new Police officer and
replacing an officer in an existing position?
Response: The difference between a new officer and a replacement position(Approximate Costs:
$5,888 in Office Space Allocation Funds used for remodeling for office space;
$8,000 in New Vehicle Lease funds;
$3,500 in Radio and Equip. Costs.
The following questions and responses are attached to the Agenda Item Summary for the October
14 Study Session.
• If we do increase Police staffing in 2004, what would be cut in order to provide the
needed resources?
• To increase Police staffing, what would have to be cut in the Police department to
cover the needed resources?
• Of the $640,000 that has been set aside for the Police Building(for construction of the
new Police facility in 2006), can these funds be used to fund additional Police staff?
TRANSPORATION
Question: 11-4 What was the major transportation capital enhancement ($4.million) in 2001? I
forget what it was.
Response: Funding of$4.0 million for the Advanced Traffic Management System (traffic signal
synchronization).
Question: III-26 Total enhancement:
If I read that chart right, 100% of our "enhancements" this coming year will go to transportation
and nothing else?
Response: You are correct. The recommendation is to use TABOR overage from 2002 to fund
needed street maintenance (Pavement Management). As approved by the voters, any retained
revenue over the growth limit must be used for
• Public health and safety (including, but not limited to environmental monitoring and
mitigation)
• Transportation
• Growth management
• Maintenance and repair of public facilities
Question: III-34 There is an increase in transit from 2004 to 2005. What is being added?
Response: The Transit budget increased from $7,870,910 in 2004 to $8,019,277 in 2005 or an
22 of 37
ATTACHMENT A
increase of$148,367. The increase is primarily due to increases in FTA and fee revenues.
Question: III-35 Is there an absolute need to sweep streets that often. Not much is accomplished
as we do not post no parking and the sweeper runs down the middle of the street. What saving
could be made with fewer sweepings?
Response: Included in the recommended budget is a reduction in street sweeping and is included
as part of the $3.3 million reduction. Sweeping of residential streets will be reduced from twice a
month to once a month. The amount of the cost reduction is estimated to be $50,000.
All of the enhancements for 2004 go to Transportation. I'd like a real discussion of this.
Question: What is the total cost of the Pavement Management Program?
Response:
Program Needs Budget
2003 $7,041,701.00 $6,969,329.00 (Actual)
2004 $7,556,980.00 $7,528,891.00 (Proposed)
2005 $7,961,201.00 $5,591,341.00 (Proposed)
The "Program Needs" amounts represent the expense to maintain the overall pavement condition
index rating of 75 or "good" (on a scale of 1 to 100), which is the level at which substantial
future maintenance and replacement expense is avoided. The 2005 proposed budget does not yet
include a supplemental amount from one-time funds that will be considered during the 2005
budget adjustment process in order to fund the program need amount.
uestion: How can the City get by without funding the maintenance program for bridges and
railroad crossings?
Response: The maintenance program for bridges and RR crossings is partially covered in the
"Minor Street Capital" project, funded from General City Capital. The Minor Streets budget is
intended to respond to citizen, Council and staff requests for minor street improvements or
emergency repairs, as well as minor repairs to bridges and RR crossings. The funding level is
slightly over $200,000 per year, as compared to an identified need of$600,000 per year. The
budgeted level allows us to only address emergency conditions, and install only critical safety
improvements.
Question: What are the safety impacts of eliminating the monies for speed humps program?
Response: There are no safety impacts associated with eliminating monies for speed humps.
The speed humps installed thus far were not based on accident history but rather speeding.
Studies have shown that the speed humps we have installed have done little to reduce the
speeding problem.
23 of 37
ATTACHMENT A
Question: Please provide an update of the ATMS schedule.
Response: To date the ATMS control center has been installed and the following corridors
activated:
Harmony from Ziegler to Mason
College from Harmony to Mulberry
Drake from Redwing/McClelland to College
Horsetooth from McClelland to Stanford
Mulberry from Meldrum to Remington
Remington from Mulberry to Prospect
By the end of 2003 the extent of the ATMS attributable to the original budget will be concluded.
Listed below are additional corridors to be activated by the end of the year:
Shields from LaPorte to Horsetooth
Mulberry from Riverside to Summit View
Lemay from Mulberry to Stuart
Timberline from Harmony to Timberwood
Drake from Yorkshire to Research
Horsetooth from Stover to E. Lemay
For 2004 and beyond, we will seek CMAQ funds, and funds form other outside sources as they
are available, to expand the system to other corridors.
Question: What portion of the Street Oversizing($413,000/General Fund allocation) is used to
pay for the facilities required by the enhanced street standards (e.g., for landscaped medians)?
Response: The General Fund allocation is used to pay for the roadway improvements that cannot
be legally attributed to new development trips; i.e. regional and county growth that does not pay
impact fees and growth in local VMT above the population growth rate. Landscaped medians are
funded both by Street Oversizing Fees and the General Fund contribution. The value of the
landscaped medians are not allocated separately from the total amounts for either the fee portion
or the General Fund Portion. In 1998, the Street Oversizing fee and the General Fund
contribution were raised 17.1%to pay for the enhanced street standards,which included wider
bike lanes, wider sidewalks, wider parkways and landscaped medians.
Question: Can the Street Oversizing allocation be used for other purposes?
Response: The City Attorney has provided a response under separate cover.
Question: What are the implications of the reduction to Street Oversizing?
Response: The General Fund contribution to Street Oversizing was cut by approximately$23,000
in 2003, from $550,000 to $523,050. The impact of that has been negligible. The proposed
2004/05 budget further reduces the GF contribution by $110,000 to $413,050, for each of these
two budget years. It also projects this same level of GF contribution thru 2008. The cumulative
24 of 37
ATTACHMENT A
effect of this reduction may begin to have an adverse impact over time unless the recommended
level of GF contribution is reinstated.
During each budget cycle we have a number of projects scheduled related to the Street
Oversizing Fund. For example, in 2004 we anticipate Street Oversizing project costs in the
amount of $3.3 million. Revenues, even with the anticipated reduction of the General Fund
allocation, are projected at $4.1 million. The difference goes into the fund reserve. The
$110,000 cut for 2004 represents about 2.6% of the total revenue expected.
The estimated project costs are very rough estimates--projects are often scaled back or savings
are realized based on the actual design and engineering. That said, we project a reserve balance
of $1.3 million at the end of 2004. So, while we are planning to reduce the General Fund
allocation for Street Oversizing in 2004 , between our management approaches and our reserves,
the Street Oversizing program should remain financially sound. Preliminary projections of the
Street Oversizing revenues and expenses for 2006 through 2008 indicate an adequate reserve
balance.
However, the fund will have to be closely monitored. The General Fund is still responsible for a
portion of the Street Oversizing program. As revenues begin to come back, the General Fund
allocation to Street Oversizing is one that should be considered for reinstatement ahead of adding
any new or expanding existing services.
Question: In response to the City Council's inquiry as to the extra expense incurred by the City
for providing extra "trailer" bus service to the local schools, the information below is provided.
Response: Besides the regular transit service provided to the community, Transfort operates 2
extra buses specifically for PSD students. These extra "trailer" buses operate on Route 6, serving
Blevins Junior High School, and Route 9, serving Lincoln Junior High School. Annually, these
extra buses cost $15,785 to operate. Ridership is estimated to be 53,399 trips.
UTILITIES
Question: III-39 Light and power shows a $5 million increase between 2004-2005. Is this
because of changes in our costs from our provider and from our energy savings efforts?
Response: The increase is primarily due to increased electric consumption and increased rates
from our provider.
uestion: III-41 I know utilities can pretty much do what they want. But, even taking into
account the 10% increase for storm drain which is part of our major pay as you go improvements,
I see another 10% increase-- 4% in wastewater and 5.3 % in electric, and a question mark on
water. Just how much increased costs must be put on citizens. Are here any ways to cut costs,
delay increases in utility fees?
Response: We are constantly searching for ways to decrease costs. Where possible, those
savings are passed on to the customers.
25 of 37
ATTACHMENT A
Question: What is the percentage increase and dollar amount of the proposed utility fee increases
for the average home owner?
Response:
Proposed
2003 2004 $ Increase % Increase
Water
(50th percentile
117,131 gal/yr) $33.29 $33.29 $0.00 0.0%
Wastewater
(5456 gal./mo. WQC) $16.61 $17.44 $0.83 5%
Electric
(700 kWh per month) $43.34 $46.59 $3.25 7.5%
Stormwater
(8,600 sq. ft. lot, light
runoff) $12.96 $14.26 $1.30 10.0%
Total Monthly
utility Bill $106.20 $111.58 $5.38 5.1%
Total Annual
Utility Bill $1,274.40 $1,338.96 $64.56 5.1%
COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS
Question: The universe of organizations that the City uses to benchmark employee benefits is
too small. Explain why the universe should not be expanded?
Response: The City of Fort Collins benchmarks its benefits programs in accordance with sound
professional standards. These sound professional standards require that our programs be
evaluated on the basis of industry, organizational size and the types of service provided.
Consequently, the City compares its programs with other municipalities of similar size and
service level. These cities include:
Arvada Littleton
Aurora Longmont
Boulder Loveland
Englewood Northglenn
Greeley Thornton
Lakewood Westminster
It has been suggested that the City expand its benefits benchmarking practices to include virtually
every portion of the public sector along with elements of the private sector. On a limited basis,
this is already occurring. The City currently considers data from the public and private sectors, in
the form of published benefit surveys from the Mercer-Foster Higgins Benefit survey, in
26 of 37
ATTACHMENT A
determining our plans' competitiveness with national and regional practices.
However, on a broader scale than is currently practiced, such an expansion of the market that we
benchmark against would be inappropriate. For example, Larimer County and Colorado State
University have confirmed that they do not benchmark their programs to municipalities,
including the City of Fort Collins, because they are not municipalities. In accordance with sound
professional methodology, they compare their programs with other similar organizations, namely
counties and universities.
Just as IBM or Hewlett Packard would not benchmark its programs to King Soopers or
Walgreen's, neither should the City benchmark its programs to dissimilar organizations. To this
end, the City does not even benchmark itself to all cities. Benchmarking to Denver would be
inappropriate, because Denver is far larger than the City and Denver provides different levels and
types of services to its citizens. Since Denver's pay scales tend to be higher than the City's for
many jobs, such a comparison might be beneficial to City employees (in terms of inflating the
average pay rates in this newly-defined market), but inappropriate from a professional standpoint.
By benchmarking its programs to similar organizations, the City seeks to maintain its
competitive position within its established market for the recruitment and retention of qualified
personnel. Comparing our programs with dissimilar organizations would tend to skew our
benefit programs into misalignment with other cities, and would compromise our ability to attract
and retain qualified staff.
uestion: What is the City's contribution for employee benefits for 2003-2004?
Response:
2003: $542/month/employee (frozen since 2001)
2004: $642/month/employee
2005: $742/month/employee
uestion: What do we consider our market to measure our benefits package?
Response: Our market is considered to be twelve Front Range municipalities, similar to Fort
Collins in terms of size and service level. We have tried to obtain market information from
private sector organizations (HP, Annheuser Busch, Kodak, etc.), but we have been unable to do
so. Private sector organizations consider such information to be proprietary and that releasing
such information will compromise their ability to compete with rival firms.
The twelve communities to which we benchmark our benefits package are: Arvada, Aurora,
Boulder, Englewood, Greeley, Lakewood, Littleton, Longmont, Loveland, Northglenn, Thornton
and Westminster.
Question: How comparable is the benefits package of Colorado State to the benefits package of
the City?
Response: The City and CSU plans are comparable in terms of plan provisions and cost. An
analysis is presented below.
27 of 37
ATTACHMENT A
Plan Types
CSU and the City offer a variety of plan types from which their employees may choose. The
City offers four options, two Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) Plans and two Point-of-
Service (POS) Plans. CSU offers three plans: two major medical indemnity plans and a
POS; for purposes of this comparison, CSU's indemnity plans are compared to the City's
PPO Plans, since they pay benefits as a percentage of covered charges.
Funding Method
CSU and the City both sponsor self-funded plans.
Monthly Employer Contributions
The City contributes a flat $542/month/employee, regardless of plan selected or level of
coverage (individual, family, etc.). This amount is proposed to increase to $642 and $742 in
2004 and 2005 respectively. These funds are deposited directly into the City's Benefits
Fund; they are not added to the employee's paycheck. On January 1, 2002 the City
discontinued the practice of adding benefit contributions to employee pay checks and ended
the cash-back feature for employees whose actual benefit costs were less than the City's
contribution. This change was made in order to stabilize plan reserves, because more than
$300,000 of City contributions was retained by employees whose actual benefit costs were
less than the City's contribution. Since January 1, 2002 all of the City's medical plan
contributions have been used to pay claims, administer the plans and bolster reserves.
CSU's methodology is far more complex. Their contribution levels are not set, but depend
on the retirement plan selected by the employee, a percentage of the average academic salary
and a percentage of the employee's actual salary. Higher salaries generate a higher
contribution from CSU, known as "Benefit Pay." For example, an employee earning
$35,000 per year receives between $213.45 and $258.36 in Benefit Pay, depending on the
employee's retirement plan (either a defined contribution plan or PERA). An employee
earning $70,000 receives between $230.08 and $319.91 per month in Benefit Pay. Benefit
Pay is added to the employee paychecks, and employees use those funds to purchase their
benefits. Employees whose actual cost is less than CSU's contribution may receive cash
back in their pay check. CSU contributions do not take into account the plan selected or the
level of coverage for which employees enroll.
Cafeteria Style
CSU and the City both sponsor cafeteria plans. Required employee contributions can be
made on a pre-tax basis, which reduces the employee's taxable income and therefore tax
liability. However, only CSU adds its contributions to employee paychecks and provides
cash back to employees whose actual cost is less than CSU's contribution
In some areas, the City's premiums are more expensive, but in other areas the City plans are
less expensive. The same is true of employee contributions, though CSU's are more often
higher than the City's. Nonetheless, our contribution rates are indeed competitive with the
twelve Front Range market cities with which we are more closely aligned in terms of
industry.
For purposes of this, City benefits shown are proposed for January 1, 2004.
28 of 37
ATTACHMENT A
PPO Deductible amounts among the three plan sponsors range from $100 to $2,000. At
$200 and $750, the City's deductibles are neither highest nor lowest, but competitive in the
low mid-range. We should note that the City does not have a Family deductible per se. All
covered persons must meet the deductible requirement, until two persons EACH have
satisfied the individual out-of-pocket maximum. At that point, the Plan would pay 100% of
eligible charges. This can lead to higher costs for City employees.
PPO Out-of-Pocket Maximums. The City's out-of-pocket maximums for 2004 are lower
than CSU's. However, it is worthwhile noting that the City's proposed out-of-pocket
maximum for PPO 1 is increasing 48% in 2004, from $1,350 to $2,000; and the out-of-
pocket maximum for PPO 2 is increasing 144.4% in 2004, from $800 in 2003 to $1,450.
Again, we stress that the family out-of-pocket maximum is not met until two covered
persons EACH have satisfied the individual out-of-pocket maximum, which can result in
higher costs for City employees than for CSU employees.
Employee Coinsurance Amounts. After satisfying deductible requirements, each plan
requires employees to pay a percentage of eligible charges. Both the City and CSU require
20% employee coinsurance.
Prescription Drugs. The City and CSU require separate deductibles for medications. CSU's
are higher, but their copay is lower for expensive brand name drugs. The City has a tiered
program, under which employee payments range from 10%-30% depending on the type of
medication (generic, preferred brand or non-preferred brand). CSU has a flat 20%
requirement, regardless of the type of medication.
For purposes of this, City benefits shown are proposed for January 1, 2004.
Both of the City's PPO Plans distinguish between Network and Non-network providers.
CSU's plans do not distinguish between network and non-network charges; all eligible
charges are treated equally, which can increase CSU's cost.
For purposes of this, City benefits shown are proposed for January 1, 2004.
The City's POS 1 is actually an EPO (self-funded HMO). The City's POS 2 pays network
benefits exactly the same as POS 1, but provides the latitude to use non-network providers.
Benefits shown here for the City's POS 2 are for non-network charges.
No deductible is required by any plan for network charges, and out-of-pocket maximums
vary, with the City's network out-of-pocket maximum being the highest. Network
copayments for doctors' visits, etc. are also similar. For example, CSU is $10 and the City
is $15.
Non-network provisions are also similar. The City's deductible and out-of-pocket
maximums are lower than CSU's. However, both the City and CSU pay non-network
charges at 30% after the deductible.
From the information gathered, it is clear that neither the City nor CSU enjoys any distinct
or significant advantage over the other. In some areas, CSU's plans are more generous; in
other areas the City's program is more generous. On balance, benefit plan costs and
provisions are comparable, though CSU's employee contributions are higher; this is due to
CSU benchmarking off of other universities rather than non-academic public sector
organizations.
29 of 37
ATTACHMENT A
The scope and types of plans are similar for both organizations. Both plan sponsors are self-
funded and provide cafeteria style plans, but only CSU adds benefit costs to employee
paychecks and provides cash back to employees whose actual costs are less than CSU's
contribution.
Plan provisions and costs are also similar, although there are some expected differences in
deductible amounts and out-of-pocket maximums. The changes proposed for the 2004 Plan
Year are therefore reasonable and prudent, not only with respect to the twelve Front Range
Communities to which we benchmark our plans, but with respect to CSU as well.
Question: How much in real dollars does the proposed employee share of benefits of 5%-10%-
15% translate into? If the employee's share moves to 15%-20%-30%, what are related costs
(savings to the City)
Response:
2003 contributions at 5%: $ 643,644
2004 contributions at 10%: $1,289,885, an additional $646,241 over 2003.
2005 contributions at 15%: $1,934,828, an additional $644,943 over 10%.
2004 contributions at 20%: $2,579,770, an additional $644,942 over 15%
2005 contributions at 30%: $3,869,656, an additional $1,289,886 over 20%
These figures are based on September 2003 enrollment distribution, and assume no change in
2004.
Employee contributions at our Front Range market cities average:
PPO: 15-21%
HMO: 10-21%
POS: 15-25%
Because we realize that our contribution levels are low relative to the twelve Front Range market
cities, we have proposed stepped increases to 10% in 2004 and 15% in 2005. Clearly, an
increase to 30% would make our plans uncompetitive with our market. Even an increase to 20%
would place us at the high end of the market and lessen our competitive position for recruiting
and retaining quality candidates.
uestion: What are the proposed out of pocket benefit expenses for employees?
Response: Increases in employee out-of-pocket expenses effective January 1, 2004 are estimated
to be $392,000, in addition to the $646,000 increase in proposed employee
contributions for 2004. Together with increased employee contributions, these
changes were implemented to reduce the City's contribution for 2004 and 2005.
Proposed Medical Plan Design Changes
Effective January 1, 2004
30 of 37
ATTACHMENT A
PPO Plans Current Proposed Savings $ Savings
%Payable by Plan 90%Network 80%Network 1.50% $ 39,324
70%Non- 60%Non-
Network Network
Coinsurance Maximum
PPO 1 Network $400 $1,000
PPO 1 Non-Network $800 $1,200 1.90% $ 49,810
PPO 2 Network $400 $1,000
PPO 2 Non-Network $600 $1,000 1.80% $ 47,189
Failure to preauthorize $250 penalty 50% reduction 0.50% $ 9,870
Total Savings - PPO 1 & 2 3.50% 146,193
POS Plans (Network) Current Proposed Savings $ Savings
Office Visit Copayment
Primary Care $10 $15 0.30% $ 29,516
Specialist $10 $30 0.40% $ 39,355
Inpatient Hospital
Copay $100 $500 0.60% $ 59,033
Emergency Room $50 $100 0.20% $ 19,678
Outpatient Surgery $50 $100 0.10% $ 9,839
Outpatient Injectables $8/15/30 20% 0.20% $ 19,678
Chiropractor $10 $15 0.10% $ 9,839
$10 in
Allergy Injections $5 if physician recognition 0.00% $ -
not seen of office visit
Ambulance $25 $50 0.10% $ 9,839
Maternity(Physican) $10/visit $100 flat fee 0.00% $ -
Reduce
Failure to preauthorize $250 penalty benefits 0.50% $ 49,194
to 50%
31 of 37
ATTACHMENT A
Total Savings - POS 2.60% $ 245,971
Total Savings 3.20% $392,164
Estimated savings provided by our consulting actuary, Mercer Human
Resource Consulting.
Even though some changes do not result in plan savings, these changes are in line with
industry standards and therefore
are made to enhance plan
administration.
Question: Could you please tell me how many full time employees the City of Fort Collins has,
including frozen positions? Do we have part time employees, and how many if we do, that have
health care coverage?
Response: For 2004, there is budgeted 1,264.46 classified/unclassified and 366.56
hourly/seasonal/contractual. For 2005, there is budgeted 1,271.96 classified/unclassified and
366.66 hourly/seasonal/contractual. The number of part-time employees that have elected to
participate in the City's medical benefit plans is 86.
Question: How many full time actual employees (butts in chairs) does the city currently
have in 2004 and projected for 2005?
Response: We do not have a position tracking system so the best we can do is to estimate the
number of full time actual employees (butts in chairs) through a rough calculation. The
calculation assumes that all budgeted classified/unclassified positions will be filled.
There were 1,926 pay checks issued in the last pay period. Using the ratio of pay checks issued to
total FTE's and extrapolating out to 2004 and 2005 gives an estimated number of paychecks
issued for each of those years. We then calculated the percentage of classified/unclassified FTE's
to the total FTE's. This percentage was applied to the estimated number of paychecks for 2004
and 2005. By using this calculation we arrived at a number of full time actual employees for
2004 of 1,506 and 1,513 for 2005.
Question: Employee benefits for medical costs need to be overhauled. The evidence shows that
the City's employees cannot exercise self-control. A prime example is the $240,000 the City paid
last Nov. and Dec. for stomach stapling surgeries because the City announced that these would
no longer be covered as of Jan 1, 2003.
Response: The City proactively took steps to limit these charges by excluding the stomach
stapling procedure. We are unable to confirm the dollar amount paid for these procedures, as the
City does not maintain data on an individual employee basis.
Question: The City has to increase both the co-pay portions of medical treatments and the overall
deductibles because the City employees largely view the benefits program as without cost. Since
32 of 37
ATTACHMENT A
they cannot exercise self-control, the Council must provide impediments to their use of the
charge card.
Response: The City Manager has proposed increases to both employee contributions and
employee copayments and coinsurance. Together, these changes will increase employee costs by
an estimated $1 million in 2004. Another increase in employee premium contributions is
proposed for 2005, which will increase employee costs even further. We realize that employee
cost sharing needs to increase, and we are taking responsible steps in that direction.
Question: On Sept 17th, Prylosec became available as an OTC drug. These pills cost $1 each as
an OTC drug. Want to place any bets on how many of the employees switched their drug of
choice to a generic product by prescription costing the City $4 per pill as a medical benefit with
no cost to the employee instead of paying the reduced $1 charge from their own pockets?
According to figures I obtained 6 months ago, our medical charges were $10.5 million in 2002
and are expected to rise $12.0 million in 2003 and go to $15.0 million by 2005. Our city pays
92% of our employees medical costs. With our 15 comparable cities, we rank at the absolute top
for this benefit. The system is out of control and it will not stop until a cost sharing formula is
adopted.
Response: As more medications become OTC, we are investigating ways to encourage the use of
OTC medications instead of more expensive prescription drugs. Ultimately, the decision for
treatment is between the doctor and his/her patient, and it would be inappropriate for the City to
interfere in that relationship. Medical claims in 2002 total $8.4 million and are projected to be
$10.3 million in 2003, $12.1 million in 2004 and $14 million in 2005. As these costs continue to
rise, so will the share that employees pay in accordance with data we receive from the 12 cities to
which we benchmark our plans. Again, this data shows the need to increase employee cost
sharing, which we are doing.
Question: If you reference today's business section of the Coloradoan you will find a piece on the
planned increase of Medicare Premiums. The article states that the 40 million Americans
covered by Medicare will see their monthly premiums for physician services rise by 13.5 percent
next year. "Reflecting rapidly rising health care costs, premiums for the portion of Medicare that
pays doctor visits and other expenses outside of hospital care will jump $7.90 a month to $66.60.
Congress has required that premiums cover a fourth of the costs of the health care program for
the elderly."
Let me repeat the last sentence, Congress requires that premiums cover a fourth of the costs of
the health care program for the elderly. The incomes of the elderly don't even begin to compare
with what the city employees make. The measly 5% increase we are asking the employees to pay
doesn't even begin to compare with what the real world is paying (CSU, Larimer County, State,
Federal employees). Worst yet, with the dramatic increase in health care costs, and no "real"
increase in health insurance contributions by the employees, spells financial trouble for the City
in future years. Realistically, how long can the City (and taxpayers) absorb 20% increases per
year in health care costs? This is not fair to the taxpayer and is not financially responsible.
Response: The article mentions that Medicare premiums "for physician services [will] rise by
13.5 percent next year." Further, it states that "Congress has required that premiums cover a
fourth of the costs of the health care program for the elderly."
33 of 37
ATTACHMENT A
Keep in mind that the City is proposing much larger increases than the 13.5% Medicare
increase. The average increase in employee medical premiums is 98% in 2004, with some
increases as high as 165% An additional employee premium increase of 72% is proposed for
2005.
It is also important to note that a comparison between active employee premiums and Medicare
premiums is problematic. Why? Medicare is intended to cover the elderly, whereas the City
plan is intended to cover active employees. The average age of persons receiving Medicare is at
least 65 years old, whereas the average age of City employees is 43. This is significant because
the cost of providing medical coverage increases dramatically with age. That means that
Medicare costs are considerably greater, on a per capita basis, than the City's costs to cover our
younger population. It is only reasonable to expect that the higher costs would be passed on to
the more expensive Medicare population.
Another quick point: for retired persons, Medicare is primary in terms of coverage, and any
retiree health benefits become secondary. This adds to the cost of Medicare, as mentioned above.
Question: Are the medical claims in 2002 (total $8.4 million) and are projected to be $10.3
million in 2003, $12.1 million in 2004 and $14 million in 2005 included in the City portion of
the Health Insurance Costs (see attachment)?
Response: The data provided on the table titled "Premium Cost Sharing: City Contributions &
Employee Contributions" lists only medical premium data, and not the actual or projected cost of
claims. This table was constructed in response to a Council question and to illustrate actual and
projected premium contributions for both employees and the City.
As such, the City contributed approximately $8.4 million in 2002 toward medical premiums, and
employees contributed approximately $633,540 towards medical premiums, or approximately
7% of the total premium. The table indicates that the City is projected to contribute $8.6 million
toward medical premiums in 2003, $10.2 million in 2004, and $11.7 million in 2005.
uestion: Also, the employee premiums rise a 100% percent in 2004, and another 74% in 2005
based on the numbers you provided. How is this possible? Are the numbers you provided
inflated because of the inclusion of employee out of pocket expenses?
Response: No, the numbers listed are solely a result of increased employee premiums in 2004
and 2005, and do NOT include the additional revenue generated (approximately $1 million in
2004) from medical plan design changes. The increase in employee medical premiums range
from 0% to 165% in 2004, with an average of approximately 98%, and range from 10% to 73%
in 2005, with an average of 72%
Question: You may have already answered this question, but I wasn't sure if the figures included
the Benefits Reserve Funds. Including the Benefits reserve Fund, how much will the City spend
on Health Care Benefits from all public/city sources for 2002-2005?
Response: Yes, Eric. The figures distributed yesterday include ALL expenses.
34 of 37
ATTACHMENT A
Question: What are the benefit increases in our market cities for 2004? Are the percent of the
premium employees pay being increased?
Response: The following spreadsheet provides all of the detail on this question. In summary:
• Eight of the twelve market cities have responded to our request for information.
• 6 Cities Retaining 2003 Employer/Employee Split
Englewood: 85/15
Greeley Base Plan: 80/20
Littleton: 80/20
Northglenn: 100/0 for employee only; 80/20 for dependents
Thornton: 100/0 for employee only; 83/17 for 1 dependent; 80/20 for family
Westminster: Exempt: 90/10 for employee only; 82/18 for 1 dependent; 75/25 for family
Non-Ex.: 90/10 for employee only; 87/13 for 1 dependent; 85/15
for family
• 3 Cities Increasing Employee Share for 2004
Aurora (HMO 2)
Employee 93/7 increases to 84/16
+1 Dep. 93/7 increases to 84/16
+Family 71/29 increases to 64/36
Aurora Point-of-Service
Employee 85/15 increases to 71/29
+ 1 Dep. 85/15 increases to 71/29
+Family 65/35 increases to 55/45
Longmont Point-of-Service
Employee 100/0 increases to 90/10
+ 1 Dep. 92/8 increases to 85/15
+Family 89/11 increases to 83/17
• 1 City Reducing Employee share for 2004
Aurora (HMO 1)
Employee 100/0 remains 100/0
+1 Dep. 100/0 remains 100/0
+Family 85/15 decreases to 92/8
Note: the number of responses cited is greater than the number of cities responding. This is
because,depending on the plan Aurora and Greeley followed multiple courses:
increasing/decreasing/leaving employee share unchanged.
Question: Provide a side-by-side comparison of CSU and City benefit costs, in terms of
employee contributions and percent of the premium paid by employees.
35 of 37
ATTACHMENT A
Response: Please see the attached spreadsheet.
Question: How were the benchmark cities chosen?
Response: The Human Resources Department has been unable to locate any documentation that
specifically identifies how Cities were chosen as benchmark cities when performing salary and benefit
market analyses. We have found information that provides some indication as to the rationale for the
cities chosen.
The Longmont Survey was the primary survey source used by the City prior to the new pay plan
in 1999. The Longmont Survey provided data for both private and public sector employers. The
practice prior to 1999 was to select cities to compare against that met the following criteria:
• comparable size
• front range cities
• cities that provide similar services as Fort Collins
• cities in the same competitive market as Fort Collins
Eleven out of the 12 current benchmark cities participated in the Longmont Survey, with the
exception of the City of Arvada. After 1999, the Longmont Survey merged with the Mountain
States Employers Council (MSEC) survey.
During 1996 the City completed a RFP process and selected Watson Wyatt as the consultant to
aid the City in the preparation of its new pay plan (recall that wages had significantly slipped
below market level). One of the items listed under the scope of services was for Watson Wyatt
to:
"conduct a salary and total compensation survey on benchmark positions from like sized
public sector employers in the State of Colorado and select private sector employers in
Northern Colorado"
Watson Wyatt concluded that these same cities, in addition to City of Arvada, met the criteria as
listed above, and recommended that the City continue its practice of benchmarking against these
cities. These cities continue to participate in public (CML) and private (MSEC) survey, which
are the same survey sources used by the City.
Question: How do other cities define their competitive market in setting wages and benefits?
Response: The attached chart illustrates that the City's practices of benchmarking against other
cities of similar size and service level is the standard practice in Colorado. None of the other
cites include in their definition of the market specific private sector employers, the federal
government, or dissimilar organizations.
Question: Will raising the level of employee contributions free up resources that could be used
for other purposes?
36 of 37
ATTACHMENT A
Response: Possibly. Any additional revenue into the Benefits Fund would initially be retained in
the Fund in order to ensure that sufficient resources were available to pay claims. If it was
determined that sufficient resources were available, those additional funds could be used for
other purposes. What is unknown at this point is how much of that additional revenue would be
needed to pay for additional recruitment and placement costs associated with employee turnover
caused by triple-digit benefit premium increases.
Question: How much does the City contribute for each employee for [medical] benefits? For the
planned increases in 2004 and 2005, what is the percentage increase for the City's increased
benefits' costs and what is the percentage increase for the employees' increased benefits' costs?
Response:
Proposed Monthly Increases for Employer and Employee
2003 2004 2005
Amt. Amt. % Increase Amt. % Increase
Contributed Contributed Contributed
Em toyer $542 $642 19% $742 16%
Employee 98% (avg.) 72% av .
Question: Two requests:
First, I wanted to get the cost of the Benefits Reserve Funds for 2001 through 2006. Second, I
wanted to get the cost of the medical claims for the same years. If you could just populate the
attached spreadsheet I would appreciate it.
Response: The attached sheet provides the information Eric requested, as best as we can
determine what he was asking. The new % columns are left blank, since we do not know what
this is a%of.
This may look familiar, since we have provided this information several times before. I suspect
that some may try to get the "true" cost of medical benefits to the City by adding the Medical
Claims column to the Benefit Reserves column. That would not be appropriate, given that the
cost to the Benefit Reserves is already in the Medical Claims cost figures.
37 of 37
m 0 0 0 ¢ O
O O O O Z C
a'
E
w
N oq CO ¢ M
N W O �
N Z O
r a V r N
� a
000 ¢ o
o z
a'
E
W
Z,O Z
v IL
w w w n
0
0
0
0
m 000 ¢ o
T N T O O O Z C m
Z Z M m O
y E E
L W C.
w m
C m¢ ¢ _0 N N -: z 0 m
V d � ZZic;im O N M71 O
'L U O L'N V 1 m N 4
W m U 8 U a m
C m N
U ua w n m y
T U
O n m
VY y d m
o ¢ ¢ v r v mT C o 0 0 ¢o
i T O O i Z 0
C p 6zzvcO $ O m
O as m n' m
w 0 o
M w m N
Y O V ¢ ¢ N M N N¢ m C t�
cc N Z O O
L' C 0U oZ Z � m �N v �r° m m t
:) N V U m
N
4 m
C � U vi us rn O" m
10 m 5 K y
`o m
V! 0 m co 1p m No m m o Om' o
� Z
V Q T O i a a 0>t h U T ¢ Z N e p OM
Oa ZZvaO m o e mw c E
W E E �m`oD
U
r ¢ ¢ nr m umi � � �n in
O c rn m q u Z Z an d
N ma zZv a M m O s
K 7 m
U W N N N m y G C U
N 4 O U
m m N
O n N
C m
m ivaavvr p
o
NZznn o nZoO m m
W W � v
L mm
O QQ Z z m m U QQ rn Z Z m m m
ow
UWa a _
U ei ww w ww m �
m
T
C m m
O m W m
s E v
0
n n �
m y n m m y n c m U
U 2 QO.E h or 0'
a � 333um. z a E ; 33ii zo3
U
3 era omTX
F _
O -
x
aX
OA 2om mrryo mryN�
C ��
a_ X
N ry ry a
O
d • 0 = Ylrym rymry„
^N
NN O O O O
O O L L w q N p
O
O
a O O 0 x O O X X O O2 2 h
O
$X
eo oSeB S$S8
xxxX xxxx xxX XxX xxX xxxX oxmm
f ONIOV° OlOY 10V0 Ono ^ ONN ^bN .-•-
O
X 0
N O $� • OXXx XXD'x XxT XXX Xmm mXXXX XT'TX
` � CL — G0f- ONV ryry0 NO
a n o X
0
• w O Z NNN NN N N N
C C
W m
y c
t.+ XXx XXXX xXXX XXX xXX a'XX F O ommX eeeX_ Or OryN„ OryryO OFO Oft t2
em o o mo$ g °e o088
m ° oo eoo oe 88 e
w$v mmry `a�° G1ry "nnn
W N N N N
LL w
a
0
H
xxxx xXxm
2 Vat -
0 _ XXxx XxxX
a �
`o X
o = o� orvna
o L f�fmim� n$w°1
O e a wwnN wwNw
c c °
d s xxx
9 f ONIwV XXXX XT'XX
O m m ry O M^n
O
t O
oX
N< O O O O O O O O
w N N N N
G
E
iu c U
c w w
o w
2 W
V
C L •� y S• 7
` O O p j • Y O Y O � O C � p y � b C 4 V Wp T C O � T
t o33'�E — qqvg tpTpa �E igOyc � ppobq qqoq ET9OE
roza. of L s° t'G c° t9� ctvG t�^t tQ'`1 °
X f
• mmn m •c
'oE 'Nm n n
a X c
• 6 ��a O
N O O O
q O
4
C
i 9 �XX XXXX xxxx
O
ox
8y00 5888
p»N NN
s xxx xxx Xxx
F O O N N N
8
X m
p • xom xxX xNx • C m g
0
Q� c zo °
W �
�a
axx xxx Xxx Xxxx mxxx mmmx Xxxx
`o
m o s a X
�LG , pgp 0. $g8 oo ygo 000 mo 00 p0$ o$moo
� \ O� rN �0°� rIN�1�C lNI CIO mm�n
G 4 N w» N N N N N N p N
0
O
H
9 XXXX XX
F ry 0 0 O N N
O
a'
a xxxx xx
ow N N N
6
C a
O N X p
m O m ° CmOP t ! 0 OIN°
u n Y L d^ °ry L L L
O o o c N» o 0 o w N
co c c
u` o � rvrvrvry nn
a �
. oX
6 0 0 0 y o O O
N m m b
6 6
E E
• Wm Ea U
E E w
i i w of t
ON o u m °o o n > o° ^°' n r
t p•NpE £ paE ° pTaE ag� � m cS� 3_o9 Qq 3_onE : o9 Qm �_9Qm mom U
Eaci m W s E u u m C -
u
Survey Sources and Benchmark Entities
September 26,2003
City of Fort Collins Survey Surveyed
Benchmark City Sources Entities
Fort Collins CML Employee City of Arvada
Management City of Aurora
MSEC Public City of Boulder
Private City of Englewood
Own Special Survey City of Greeley
City of Lakewood
City of Littleton
City of Longmont
City of Loveland
City of Northglenn
City of Thornton
City of Westminster
For Electric Utility Positions Add: Colo Springs Utilities
Arvada CIVIL Employee City of Aurora
Management City of Boulder
MSEC Public City/County of Broomfield
Private City of Colorado Springs
City of Englewood
City of Fort Collins
City of Greeley
Greenwood Village
City of Lakewood
City of Longmont
City of Loveland
City of Northglenn
City of Thornton
City of Westminster
Aurora CIVIL Employee City of Arvada
Management City of Colorado Springs
MSEC Public City of Denver
Private City of Englewood
Own Special Survey City of Lakewood
City of Thornton
City of Westminster
Arapahoe County
Adams County
Jefferson County
12 Bench Cities-Who they bench against-survyes 9130/2003 Page 1 of 7
Survey Sources and Benchmark Entities
September 26, 2003
City of Fort Collins Survey Surveyed
Benchmark City Sources Entities
Boulder CML Employee City of Arvada
Management City of Aurora
MSEC Public City of Colorado Springs
Private City of Denver
Own Special Survey City of Fort Collins
City of Greeley
City of Lakewood
City of Longmont
City of Loveland
City of Thornton
City of Westminster
Arapahoe County
Adams County
Boulder County
Douglas County
El Paso County
Jefferson County
Larimer County
State of Colorado
Englewood CML Employee City of Arvada
Management City of Aurora
MSEC Public City of Boulder
Private City/County of Broomfield
City of Denver
Greenwood Village
City of Lafayette
City of Lakewood
City of Longmont
City of Littleton
City of Louisville
City of Thornton
City of Westminster
For Wastewater Positions Add: Colo Springs Utilities
City of Fort Collins
Metro Wastewater District
City of Pueblo
Parker Water&Sanitation District
12 Bench Cities -Who they bench against-survyes 9/30/2003 Page 2 of 7
Survey Sources and Benchmark Entities
September 26, 2003
(City of Fort Collins Survey Surveyed
Benchmark City Sources Entities
Greeley CIVIL Employee City of Arvada
Management City/County of Broomfield
MSEC Public City of Fort Collins
Private City of Lakewood
City of Loveland
City of Longmont
City of Northglenn
City of Thornton
City of Westminster
City of W heatridge
Lakewood CIVIL Employee City of Arvada
Management City of Aurora
MSEC Public City of Boulder
Private City/County of Broomfield
ICMA Department Directors City of Denver
City of Englewood
City of Fort Collins
City of Littleton
City of Thornton
City of Westminster
Arapahoe County
Boulder County
Douglas County
Jefferson County
For Police Sworn Positions Add: City of Golden
City of Colorado Springs
12 Bench Cities -Who they bench against-survyes 9/30/2003 Page 3 of 7
Survey Sources and Benchmark Entities
September 26, 2003
City of Fort Collins Survey Surveyed
Benchmark City Sources Entities
Littleton CML Employee City of Arvada
Management City of Aurora
MSEC Public City of Boulder
Private City/County of Broomfield
City of Englewood
City of Fort Collins
City of Golden
Greenwood Village
City of Lakewood
City of Longmont
City of Loveland
City of Northglenn
City of Thornton
City of Westminster
Arapahoe County
Jefferson County
For Grounds Worker Positions Add: South Suburban Parks & Rec District
Foothills Park& Recreation District
For Library Positions Add: Arapahoe Library District
Jefferson County Library District
Douglas County Library District
For Streets Positions Add: State of Colorado
12 Bench Cities -Who they bench against-survyes 9/30/2003 Page 4 of 7
Survey Sources and Benchmark Entities
September 26,2003
(City of Fort Collins Survey Surveyed
Benchmark City Sources Entities
Longmont CIVIL Employee City of Arvada
Management City of Aurora
MSEC Public City of Boulder
Private City/County of Broomfield
City of Denver
City of Englewood
City of Fort Collins
City of Greeley
City of Lafayette
City of Lakewood
City of Littleton
City of Louisville
City of Loveland
City of Northglenn
City of Thornton
City of Westminster
City of Wheatridge
Adams County
Arapahoe County
Boulder County
Denver County
Douglas County
Jefferson County
Larimer County
Weld County
State of Colorado
12 Bench Cities -Who they bench against-survyes 9/30/2003 Page 5 of 7
Survey Sources and Benchmark Entities
September 26,2003
City of Fort Collins Survey Surveyed
Benchmark City Sources Entities
Loveland CML Employee City of Arvada
Management City of Aurora
MSEC Public City of Boulder
Private City/County of Broomfield
City of Colorado Springs
Commerce City
City of Fort Collins
City of Golden
City of Grand Junction
City of Greeley
City of Lafayette
City of Lakewood
City of Littleton
City of Longmont
City of Louisville
City of Northglenn
City of Westminster
City of W heatridge
Boulder County
Larimer County
Northglenn CML Employee City of Arvada
Management City/County of Broomfield
Own Special Survey City of Englewood
City of Littleton
City of Thornton
City of Westminster
Thornton CML Employee City of Arvada
Management City/County of Broomfield
MSEC Public City of Fort Collins
Private City of Lakewood
City of Longmont
City of Loveland
City of Westminster
12 Bench Cities-Who they bench against-survyes 9/30/2003 Page 6 of 7
Survey Sources and Benchmark Entities
September 26,2003
City of Fort Collins Survey Surveyed
Benchmark City Sources Entities
Westminster CIVIL Employee City of Arvada
Management City of Aurora
MSEC Public City of Boulder
Private City of Englewood
City of Fort Collins
City of Lakewood
City of Littleton
City of Thornton
For Library Positions Add: Arapahoe Library District
Jefferson County Library District
Douglas County Library District
For Recreation Positions Add: South Suburban Parks & Rec District
Foothills Park & Recreation District
12 Bench Cities -Who they bench against-survyes 9/30/2003 Page 7 of 7
�9\g�\! �
S02 :. . � �.�. .a ... ;
&Q #\ #se
ma g9< !
q| // ®%to
rz
§ R#:{
§E 2E
CL
m° /
§§ °
k§ ' #G
/ �,,{ !;>!/ g2
\/ g
!
O)! !!,!
om
. )!
1.
. \