Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 05/09/2006 - GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL STABILITY AND FUNDING ALTER DATE : May 9 , Zoos WORK SESSION ITEM STAFF : Darin Atteberry FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL Diane Jones Ann Turnquist SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION General Fund Financial Stability and Funding Alternatives GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED l . Which of the proposed methods or combination of proposed methods does City Council wish to pursue for closing the 2007 General Fund gap? 2 . Does Council want to pursue funding options for the 2007 General Fund which would both address the projected shortfall plus provide funding for new or restored services? BACKGROUND On February 14, 2006, Council and staff met in work session to review several alternatives for addressing the projected funding gap in the 2007 General Fund budget. The gap is projected to be $2 . 3 million and is based upon an assumption that the Council would implement a Transportation Maintenance Fee which would yield $2 . 3 million in additional revenue for the General Fund, plus up to $ 100 ,000 in administrative costs for the TMF program (a total of $2 .4 million of TMF revenue .) At the time the 2006-2007 Budget was adopted, Council asked that other revenue alternatives be considered, and that discussion of this issue should take place early in 2006 . In addition to the $2 . 3 million funding gap, staff continues to monitor the City ' s financial condition as 2006 revenues are received. While the most recent sales and use tax report indicates that the combined revenues for the first quarter in 2006 are up 8 .2% over 2005 , the increase is skewed by February collections. The February collections were approximately $2 . 8 million higher than expected because of sales tax on equipment included in the sale of a local business . Without this substantial increase, sales tax revenues are trending below collections based on seasonal trends . If future collections continue the trend in actual collections for the first quarter, general sales tax collections are projected to end the year below the amount budgeted by approximately $356,000 . The decline in sales tax collections can be attributed to regional retail competition and the closure of two major retailers. Further, if actual collections end the year below the amount budgeted, sales tax revenues will have to be adjusted (decreased) for 2007 . Again, additional service and expenditure reductions and/or options to increase resources would have to be considered. Staff continues to monitor all revenues—particularly all those that apply to the General Fund services—and will have more definitive information in July as we begin to discuss adjustments for 2007 . May 9 , 2006 Page 2 THE PROBLEM : The 2007 budget shortfall relates to the City' s Pavement Management Program (PMP) which is the City ' s street maintenance service. The itemized analysis of the funding for the Pavement Management Program for 2006 and 2007 is as follows : BFO BFO Increase/ % Inc ./ Funding Source 2006 2007 Decrease Dec . Transportation Fund - ongoing 1 /4 cent sales & use tax 5 , 5917935 57845 , 445 253 ; 510 4 . 5% Other revenue (410 Fund ) 6387288 582 , 967 ( 55 , 321 ) -8 . 7 % TMF - Proposed 0 27300 , 000 27300 , 000 100 . 0 % Transportation Fund - one -time 1 /4 Cent BCC - Streets & Transportation Package - Savings 4001000 0 (400 , 000 ) 100 . 0 % General Fund - ongoing 7777175 779 , 549 2 , 374 0 . 3 % General Fund - one -time TABOR - 2004 overage 8007000 0 (800 , 000 ) 100 . 0% Total Funding Sources 8 ,207 , 398 9507 , 961 1 , 300 , 563 15 . 8% 2006 PMP Shortfall 722 , 586 0 7227586 100 . 0% Desired Funding Level 819295984 95507 , 961 577 , 977 6 . 5% For 2006, a combination of ongoing (BOB 1 /4-cent sales taxes ; Transportation revenue; and General Fund) and one-time resources was used to fund street maintenance at $ 8 ,207 ,398 . It should be noted that the full or desired funding level (to maintain of pavement rating of 75 or "good") fell short by $722 ,586 in 2006 . The 2007 budget was funded at the full or desired level of funding of $ 9,507 ,961 . Full funding was predicated on additional resources, through a Transportation Maintenance Fee (TMF), of $2 . 3 million. This means that an ongoing revenue stream from a TMF would be applied in place of one- time funds used in 2006, plus cover the portion which was unfunded in 2006 . See Attachment 3A and 3B for a more in-depth description and analysis of the Pavement Management Program. May 9 , 2006 Page 3 OPTIONS : At the February 14 work session, Council considered eight alternatives for addressing the funding gap . Council eliminated several of the proposed funding alternatives, while asking staff to continue to develop several alternatives for further consideration. The alternatives still under review include the following: Alternative General Fund ImpactYintolementation Method for Service or Expense Various, up to - $2 . 3 Council Appropriations Reductions million Ordinance Library District $2 . 3 - $4 million Voter approval, November Election Transportation Maintenance Up to $2 .3 million Council Ordinance Fee Parks Maintenance Fee $2 . 6- 4. 3 million Council Ordinance Electric Payments-in-Lieu $70000 Council Ordinance of-Taxes Rate Increase The various options are outlined in the attached document, with detailed exhibits and attachments included within each section. Combination Alternatives In addition to examining revenue increases, Council asked that staff provide alternatives which would combine both increasing revenues and decreasing expenses to fill the General Fund gap . Two general alternatives must be considered in balancing the 2007 General Fund budget : • further reductions in expenses and services, and • additional revenue sources. During the 2006-2007 Budgeting for Outcomes process, over $5 million in expenditure and service reductions were implemented. Though additional service reductions can be identified through the BFO process and the various "drilling platforms," an exploration of revenue enhancements should be considered at the same time . Attached is a summary of the alternatives identified by staff. In addition to each of the proposed alternatives, City Council may wish to consider options which implement a combination of revenue sources and expenditure/service reductions . Options 6 — 9 represent a variety of combinations of other proposals which can address the gap . (See Table 1 ) ATTACHMENTS 1 . Financial Stability Options Table 1 Funding Options Summary--2007 General Fund Impact to General Fund Options Service/ Library TMF PMF PILOT Additional TOTAL Revenue Above Expenditure District Increase Cost for Fee Revenue to Gap Available for Reductions (To Admin. General Fund new / restored be Determined) services Option I Reductions Only $ 2 ,300,000 $ 2,300,000 $ - Option 2A Library District 3 mills $ 410009000 $ 49000,000 $ 1 ,700,000 Option 2B Library District 1 . 17 mills $ 213009000 $ 29300,000 $ - Option 3A Full TMF $ 29420,000 $ 1209000 $ 2,3009000 $ - Option 3B Reductions and reduced TMF $ 19210,000 $ 11210,000 $ 120,000 $ 25300,000 $ - Option 4A PMF (Community Parks Only) $ 29800,000 $ 69,000 $ 21731 ,000 $ 4319000 == Option 4B PMF (Community and Neigh. Parks) $ 492009000 $ 699000 $ 491319000 $ 1 ,831 ,000 Option 5 Electric PILOT Increase $ 700,000 $ 7009000 $ (19600,000) Combination Alternatives Option 6 TMF, PMF (partial) $ 19210,000 $ 114009000 $ 1899000 $ 294219000 $ 1219000 == Cuts, TMF (partial), $ 510.000 $ 19210,000 $ 700,000 $ 1209000 $ 293009000 $ - Option 7 PILOT Option 8 Cuts and PILOT $ 116009000 $ 700,000 $ 293009000 $ - Library District and $ 31500,000 $ 700,000 $ 4,2001000 $ 1 ,900,000 == Option 9 PILOT City of Fort Collins--Financial Stabilty Work Session, May 9, 2006 City of Fort Collins Financial Stability Work Session City of Fort Collins May 9, 2006 Table of Contents Section 1 : Service and Expenditure Reductions Page Attachment 1 A—Preliminary Service Reduction 1-6 Proposals Attachment 1 B-2007 BFO Drilling Platforms 1-12 Attachment 1 C—City Outsourcing and Local 1-23 Businesses Attachment 1 D—Average Actual Salary Survey 1-27 and Graphs Attachment 1 E—Employer Pension Contribution 1-37 comparative survey Section 2: Library District Page Attachment 2 A—What does a City Property 2-6 Owner Pay, Property Tax Illustration Attachment 2 B—Library District Community 2-7 Opinion Survey Questions Section 3: Transportation Maintenance Fee Page Attachment 3 A—Pavement Management 3-9 Funding History Attachment 3 B—Budget Reduction Impacts on 3-10 the Pavement Management Program Attachment 3 C—Pavement Management 3-12 Program Funding Detail 2006-2007 Section 4: Parks Maintenance Fee Page Attachment 4 A—Community Park Fee 4-4 Calculations Attachment 4 B—Community and Neighborhood 4-5 Park Fee Calculations Attachment 4 C—Memorandum re: "Green" 4-6 Maintenance Practices in Fort Collins Parks Attachment 4 D—Park Construction Schedule 4-9 2007-2022 Section 5: Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOTS) Page Attachment 5 A—Impact of I% PILOT Increase on 5-3 Residential Customers Attachment 5 B—Survey of Payments in Lieu of 5-4 Taxes, March 2006 SERVICE EXPENDITURE REDUCTIONS • Option l: Expenditure and Service Reductions City Council asked staff to evaluate several methods of closing the 2007 General Fund gap which would not include increasing General Fund revenues. Two general methods for reducing expenditures were considered, including service reductions based on the 2007 Budget Drilling Platforms and analysis of other efficiencies or expenditure reductions which do not tie to specific services to the community. Service and Expenditure Reductions: In considering the option to reduce services to the community, Council should review the funding priorities established through the Budgeting for Outcomes process during the 2006-2007 Budget process, as well as individual services within the offers. The"Drilling Platforms" for each of the seven results areas identified service priorities and funding requirements. These lists of funding priorities should be used in identifying the programs which could be reduced or eliminated to yield at least $2.3 million in expenditure reductions. The following is a list of the types of service cuts and expenditure reductions that staff has compiled would have to be considered to close a $2.3 million gap in the 2007 • General Fund budget. These services and/or specific BFO Offers on the Drilling Platforms would be the types of reductions to consider. The list below includes a brief description of the service reductions. Attachment ]A provides a more detailed description of each of the proposed service reductions. The final Drilling Platforms for-2007 are also included as Attachment 113. • City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session,May 9,2006 Page 1- 1 • Reduction Proposed 2007 Savings Community Planning and Environmental Services Historic Preservation Planner--Eliminate .8 FTE $65,000 Historic Preservation Design Assistance Program $3,500 Human Services Contract Eliminated $335,000 Natural Resources Department (NRD).25% administrative $10,000 assistant. (Currently vacant NRD .50% FTE in the Solid Waste Program %35-000 NRD .50%FTE in the Air Quality Program $40_000 NRD 1 FTE in the Solid Waste Pro am S65-000 South College Corridor Plan $150,000 Charettes $10,000 Business Databases $35,000 Sub-Total $748,500 Transportation Services Harmony Transfer Center $46,000 Pavement Management Pro am Reduction $300,000 Dial a Ride Service Reduction to ADA Minimum $600,000 Parking Subsidy for City employees $93,000 Sub-Total $1,039,000 • Cultural Library and Recreation Services Neighborhood Park Restroom Closure $70,000 Gateway Park $96,000 Downtown Flower Plantings $50,0000 Recreation Scholarship Program $110,000 Library Closure—] day per week $330,000 Sub-Total $1,106,000 Police Services Criminal Investigations Unit $537,656 Traffic Enforcement $ 473,658 School Resource Officers $642,019 Sub-Total $1,653,333 Executive Legislative and Judicial Services Rebate Administration $20,000 Enterprise Resource Planning contingency(Finance) $100,000 Intergovernmental Affairs Program $93,000 Sub-Total $213,000 Grand Total $4,759,833 • Expenditure Reductions through Service Efficiencies: City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session, May 9, 2006 Page 1- 2 • Expenditure Reductions through Service Efficiencies: Council Members also asked staff to review several items for possible expenditure reductions that are more related to improved efficiencies and do not necessarily result in service reductions through the BFO offers. Items mentioned for consideration included: • Outsourcing of City Services See Attachment 1 C • Compensation Policy review re: Average Actual Salaries for Benchmarked positions Attachment 1 D • Pension contribution comparisons Attachment 1 E • Other Service Efficiencies: o Cooperative Administrative Service with other governmental agencies— are there common services and/or purchasing of commodities that can be consolidated to reduce costs? o Vehicle Use Policies—review the City's policies and practices regarding the assignment of vehicles to staff to use/have access to on a 24/7 basis; review the City's rotation schedule for the replacement of vehicles. o Energy Analysis for City Buildings—a study is underway and will be completed by the end of the year regarding an energy analysis of all City buildings; one of the anticipated outcomes will be identification of approaches to reduce energy costs to operate our buildings. • Regardless of the direction related to closing the funding gap, staff will continue to gather information about these and other ways to improve service efficiencies and reduce costs. However, savings estimates are not yet available. Compensation Policy Review: Average Actual Salaries for Benchmarked Positions Council Members asked staff to review data regarding Average Actual Salaries of City Employees and compare the data to the City's Benchmark Labor Market of 18 Cities and Counties. The City's annual salary survey compares salary range maximums amon these benchmark employers, targeting Fort Collins' salary range maximums at the 70' Percentile of the market. The purpose of this survey was to evaluate Fort Collins' relative position in the market when comparing actual salaries paid rather than salary range maximums. Average Actual Pay Analysis The survey covers all regular City employees including 1,124 Classified and Unclassified Management Employees. This survey does not include salaries for Contractual, Hourly, Service Directors, and Legal Unclassified Management employees. • City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session, May 9, 2006 Page 1-3 • Occupational Group % of Total Employees Administrative Support 15% Administrative Professional 17% Management Information Systems 5% Technical/Engineering 11% Operations Skill Trades Table 1 27% Operations Skill Trades Table 11 5% Police Services 3% Collective Bargaining 17% Data from this survey should be reviewed with caution. The results of this type of survey can vary widely based on a number of factors including employee tenure, individual employer pay policies, and the number of incumbents for each survey • respondent. For example, data provided is for a specific point in time. Data gathered at a different date may change based on the number of incumbents in a job and/or the individual incumbent's actual pay. Fort Collins average actual salaries compared to the average actual pay rates for other employers vary widely. This is predictable because actual salaries for incumbent employees are closely tied to years of service and the experience of the incumbent. For those employers with longer average years of service, average actual salaries should be higher than the overall average. When comparing survey samples that may only have one incumbent in the benchmarked job, the actual salary must be evaluated in light of the tenure of a single employee. For example, the City of Fort Collins has an administrative professional position with only one incumbent which is paid 9% over the average actual pay for all other employers in the survey. The incumbent has been with the City of Fort Collins for more than 20 years, creating a strong likelihood that he/she is at or near the top of the pay range. (Noted in Attachment I D, page 2) In terms of compensation philosophies, this circumstance could be very appropriate, given the experience and expertise of the incumbent. In contrast, the City of Fort Collins has a Department Head position which was filled approximately 6 months ago. (Noted in Attachment 1 D, page 3)The • incumbent, with 6 months of experience in the position is likely to be paid in the City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session,May 9, 2006 Page 1-4 lower part of the pay range. It is not surprising that his/her actual salary is 17 % below the average actual salaries for the benchmark comparisons . Reviewing the data as a whole reveals that, though it is difficult to compare individual benchmark positions to the actual pay rates in the market, staff concludes that Fort Collins is in line with the market both in terms of the 701h percentile salary range maximums and the average actual salaries for incumbents. Some benchmark positions are higher than the market average, while approximately an equal number of benchmarks are below the average. Pension Employer Contribution Analysis Council Members asked staff to evaluate the City' s pension plans in relationship to those provided by other benchmark Cities and Counties. Staff conducted a special survey of employer contribution rates to the pensions of all employee groups within the benclimarked employer group. The detailed results of the survey are included as Attachment 1 D . The results of the survey show that Fort Collins' pension contributions are very close to the average of other employers in the region. Total All Plans - Maximum Employer Contributtor Level . Collective Bargaining Unit Unclassified Service Or Classified Mgmt Directors Sworn Fort --- ------ Collins Average 7.5% 7 . 5% 10- 13% 11 % Benchmark Average 7-7.8% 8-8 . 1 % 8-8.3% 9-10. 3% City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session, May 9, 2006 Page 1 - 5 • Preliminary Service Reduction Proposals Attachment lA 2007 General Fund Budget Gap May 9, 2007 Community Planning and Environmental Services $65,000 Historic Preservation Planner--Eliminate .8 FTE The elimination of the .8 FTE Historic Preservation Planner would save approximately $65,000 in 2007 in salary and benefits. The elimination of this program would reduce by half the FTEs dedicated to the City's Historic Preservation Program. In the BFO process, Historic Preservation staff identified several ways to improve services and reduce city costs. The principal change was the realignment of the Historic Preservation Office into the Commercial Preservation Program and the Neighborhood Preservation Program, with a preservation planner assigned solely to each program. Providing citizens with a single point of contact for all their preservation needs, each planner assists citizens with landmark designation, design review of exterior changes, and applications for financial incentives (grants, zero-interest loans, tax credits, and professional design assistance.) • Additionally, staff continues to write and administer grants, and provide technical assistance and education. If an historic preservation planner position was eliminated, then the remaining planner would assume both the neighborhood and downtown responsibilities. The remaining planner position would be dedicated to providing a few core services and statutory mandates including landmark designation, design review of local landmarks, LPC staff support, land use code review, technical assistance on City projects, and administration of the zero-interest loan program. It should be expected that there would be sharp reduction in staff resources for technical assistance for customers using these services and programs. $3,500 Historic Preservation Design Assistance Program This program assists commercial and residential owners of historic properties with grants up to $900 for professional consultation on structural and design issues. If this program were not funded, the quality of historic rehabilitation would suffer resulting in more disagreement during the design review process. $335,000 Human Services Program Eliminated (formerly known as the County's Community Partnership Program) During the recent BFO process, the Advance Planning Department and CDBG Commission assumed the function as the administrator for oversight of the City's Human Services Program (HSP). The funds are allocated, via the City's • City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session, May 9, 2006 Page 1- 6 • Competitive Process, to local human service agencies. The 2007 funds are $335,000. These are General Fund resources be used for meeting a variety of human service needs. In the 2006 Competitive Process, 12 agencies have been proposed for HSP funding (25 agencies requested funding). The agencies recommended for funding provide a variety of services for low income persons including but not limited to in-home medical and dental care, housing rental assistance, elderly and child meal programs, case management for disable persons and abused women, child care, and housing counseling. These agencies rely heavily upon this funding source due to cuts at all levels (Federal, state, private foundations, etc.). The HSP funds are essential for most of the agencies to serve local needs. $10,000 Natural Resources Department (NRD) .25% administrative assistant This position provides support services to the Natural Resources Department. There would be no front desk help or presence if this position were eliminated. At least for part of each day, the phone would be routed to an answering service and calls would be returned on an as-available basis either that day, or later in the week. Phone calls are typically from citizens who are seeking information about recycling, West Nile virus, bird flu, the plague, etc. • $35,000 NRD .50% FTE in the Solid Waste Program This position is currently unfilled. It provides planning and project based services including service for the Rivendell recycling center, website design/implementation, support for the City's internal recycling program, data management, and various administrative functions. $40,000 NRD .50% FTE in the Air Quality Program This position provides services related to green building, radon, and best management practices related to transportation/air quality issues. $65,000 NRD 1 FTE in the Solid Waste Program Support would be eliminated for various initiatives, such as the City's solid waste master plan, scoping and planning for potential business recruitment/location at the Resource Recovery Farm, management of the Pay as You Throw audits, and data collection regarding diversion rates. $150,000 (one-time) South College Corridor Plan A subarea plan is proposed to identify and resolve predevelopment and redevelopment issues including land use, transportation, and urban design, along with specific actions to enhance the quality and economic vitality of the area. If this project is not funded, the project could be undertaken with staff only, but would delay its completion by eighteen months to 2 years. • City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session,May 9, 2006 Page 1- 7 • $10,000 Charettes These funds were set aside to hire consultants to assist staff in undertaking 1-2 charettes focused on unique development initiatives that have special public interests as driving considerations (city gateways; sensitive environments; sustainable economic development; extraordinary economic benefits; affordable housing; etc.). The elimination of these funds would impact the quality of the charette product. $35,000 Business Databases Contractual services for funding of database subscriptions that will enable staff to provide business specific information not currently available. Transportation Services $46,000 Harmony Transfer Center This would cut maintenance at the Harmony Transfer Center approximately in half. In functional terms, these reductions would result in a reduced schedule for wee trimming, snow removal and sign and stripe maintenance. Additionally, at that level of funding, there would be nothing available for any major maintenance items. This means that when the transfer center needs any major maintenance, additional funds would have to be sought from other sources. • $300,000 Pavement Management Program Reduction A one-time reduction of $300,000 to 2007 program budget will result in the following impacts: • A 5% reduction of streets receiving reconstruction or overlays, or approximately .75 mile out of the 15 miles planned for rehabilitation. • With a reduction in budget, our maintenance philosophy would shift to a primary focus on maintaining the streets in good condition, by trying to keep those streets from falling to a poor condition. This will result in postponing some reconstruction of streets already in poor condition and will result in slightly more potholes and complaints about the worsening condition of these poor streets. A one-time reduction in funding will cause the City's overall condition number to decrease somewhat. $600,000 Dial a Ride Service Reduction to ADA Minimum The City would limit service to the federally mandated minimum requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and would reduce ridership by 30%. The service area would be reduced from the Growth Management Area boundary down to a boundary that is 3/4 mile from the fixed route service. Ridership eligibility would be limited to "ADA Para transit eligible" rather than the current policy which allows anyone 60 or over to ride. The City would also eliminate reduced fares for low-income people since that is not an ADA • requirement. Finally, service hours would be limited to the hours of the fixed City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session, May 9,2006 Page 1- 8 • route system, which would eliminate some night service. It would also eliminate DAR service to Foothills Gateway and the PVH Harmony campus. $93,000 Parking Subsidy for City employees Currently, City employees who use a parking permit pay $10 of the $36 cost of the permit. The General Fund pays $26 of the $36 cost. This cut would eliminate the $26 subsidy. Two things could happen--first, many employees would no longer buy a permit, increasing competition for parking on-street. Second, the revenues that support the operations and maintenance in the parking structure would decrease, which may require additional funding to be found from some other source due to our IGA with Larimer County and the DDA. Cultural, Library and Recreation Services $70,000 Neighborhood Park Restroom Closure There are 20 restrooms in neighborhood parks. These buildings are only partially heated and as a result are not open year-round. Traditionally they have been opened mid March and closed mid November. This proposal would close them all year but would provide portable toilets for a savings of approximately $70,000. Almost every neighborhood park has some scheduled activities, either soccer or baseball, so restrooms of some type are needed. • $96,000 Gateway Park Gateway Park would be closed with a savings of$96,000 to the General Fund but would require a one-time payback of the GOCO grant of approximately$100,000. The parks department can explore the option to transfer management of this part to the Natural Resources Department. This may allow the park to remain open to public use. $50,000 Downtown Flower Plantings This proposal would eliminate all flower plantings in the downtown area with the exception of Old Town Square. The result would be a noticeable lack of color on the comers, medians and city facilities in the central area. All plantings would be eliminated on the corners and in the medians from Laurel Street north to the Gateway Bridge on the Poudre River. This includes the large floral garden at LaPorte and College, and plantings at City Hall, the main library, the Lincoln Center, the Senior Center and EPIC. $110,000 Recreation Scholarship Program For the past 15 years, the Recreation Division has provided scholarship support to individuals who cannot afford to pay full fee for public recreation activities. This support is from a General Fund allocation as described in the Recreation Fee Policy. In 2005, 1,414 youth scholarships were awarded with a value of$80,000. • Adults, senior citizens, and persons with disabilities who qualified have also been awarded scholarships. The allocation for this program was increased through the BFO process from $53,632 to $100,000 in 2006 and to $110,000 in 2007. The City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session,May 9, 2006 Page 1- 9 • scholarship program would not be available for any activities if this funding is eliminated. $330,000 Library Closure day per week This represents over 10% of our personnel budget and a 13.8% reduction in number of staff. The Library is about service and the cuts to staff mean that less service can be provided. It will be necessary to close the Harmony Library 8 hour more per week and the Main Library 8 hours more per week. When combined with hours of operation that were reduced in 2006, library hours will have been reduced 19% since 2005. Current library statistics indicate that being open fewer hours has resulted in a 7% reduction in library visits should the present trend continue. Additional curtailment of hours and services will most likely increase patron dissatisfaction and create a further reduction in use. Other impacts to patrons will be the reduction or elimination of. • Library programs for all ages, including Summer Reading Program, Puppet Shows and story times • Service at staffed desks like readers advisory, reference and phone reference • Special services like interlibrary loan borrowing, computer literacy instruction and homebound delivery • • Limited teen, business and local history resources Police Services $537,656 Criminal Impact Unit This is the unit with the mission to arrest career criminals and fugitives, and to monitor and enforce our laws against the growing number of gang members. The unit currently works on those that have shown the predilection for crime. Also, 90%of their work and arrests are those that are in the Methamphetamine world. $473,658 Traffic Enforcement Traffic Enforcement is a major enforcement issue in Fort Collins. These are the "motorcycle officers". They each have a series of neighborhoods to work with directly as well as special projects. These officers provide security escorts for visiting dignitaries. Elimination of funding for this program would also significantly decrease revenues from traffic enforcement. $642,019 School Resource Officers The City would stop the interaction between officers and school children in the middle and elementary school levels. Police Services will answer emergency and normal calls at these locations from street strength. • Executive, Legislative and Judicial Services City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session, May 9, 2006 Page 1- 10 • $20,000 Rebate Administration This represents contractual labor that originally was going to be needed due to twice as many households applying for rebates under the City's Grocery Tax Rebate program. In 2005 under the new income limits approved by Council, the City assisted 1,106 households with $68,280 as compared to 594 households the prior year totaling $35,360. The Finance Department now estimates that the additional workload can be absorbed by staff in the Accounts Payable Division after the City converts to electronic time sheet processing later this year. Electronic time sheets are estimated to save approximately 20 hours every other week in the Accounts Payable Division. $100,000 Enterprise Resource Planning contingency The 2007 budget includes appropriations for the Finance Department to address issues related to the Enterprise Resource Planning software and the various modules used exclusively by the Finance Department (payroll, purchasing, accounting, and capital assets record keeping). A software upgrade is occurring in 2006 and should be the last major upgrade for the next three years. Finance could reduce these appropriations by $100,000. Finance and MIS will be reviewing their collective resources for funds to address the future needs of the ERP system. • • City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session,May 9, 2006 Page 1- 11 O 9 4t-D OD O N 0 CS CD0 O � In Z Q CD p i ' N M_ 6 q r U � � GC l wt N 0 +r^ CD CJ C1 N [V 0 C7} 40 0 r tD r* C C� SD /D N GD A H N x^ A QSl co lA trJ cl r A h'1 iCs C� 9 .- #. �f P ,• :. / fY .w; 'J ll. C W C1f LA 1` 0 c EU lD N w CD A sT tD N ap 0rm a: c c; C6 IMF, i f 3 � � y 'YY 4� •tt X " 4) u N lL C� k IL %T k o r 41 0 N eery�y cc�� ��p0 pp �py � iC CS9T r ' a) c CL "owl% r- C � Nwto A 41 CV V) LD -4 CJ co i7Y to » �k f ~ b +F ° n C LL u> 00 m G H., <t V N w W iI w ? , O� m y, - t+ to y ny W d O! zt SO CT CT IA CL C� W) h 06 C 3 sty N wrlaN acta � ums `a' Y Ch e�.�2r :. ... R ^ _ z TV uj rz 12 w c c I g A, ccl c C7 rm cr L) 1 �x .A -A �c*x � fI 0 � i5 +u J��^ cx. Q �y .ar of 6 d g c I n a� CA S9 k4 w ti 10 oEE . t nCa�iyU � an` 3az - 4 m ice. 0 r^ tD 0 t+ m 40 0) 0 h. M *• to +3 tv M -r h. 'tM) t 4" m m N 0 00 N O Co W w» CO M A n N [[�� xxYY a) V M cv M N N) 14 E0 �T 0 0 V m %t E0 N lc5 'x N3 SR - �„'' U 61 A r r a r r r r r1 yr .V d � 'tF G Ca d epee d�C* sr ri °rS r.,ri k v =r am cn i» tvs �+'t ` . �: t++i 5A t�f 117 t"! r� tom! N t=s L. ^V 47 re . W) � Y""R In c 9 L ly Q l tesj p(> to Y�„ u '. ty 11 m G7 4t? ^. S _ G CK I IN -1 9 SSA`, i_t 1+ s Cr °i U B ; F CZA l t t7i t1' i'3 r d r t3 C9 C7 t^S iQ t7 CS � C=I f`.1 U') C3 y < 4tl I" KP c 1 Cr -t Z • co �✓ C'+, M) Ca �n .r3 4 c4 -r E' t�s chi n. imps- u"^i ` T chi n v ,= e wt� N O U. sr11 MI D\ _ CDP _ a _ CV C3 C� ctyM K3 >a V 4.R if�Y ♦ A o qp. tt.'?� 4p p mIMP IC`tiCp' !t7" S=? c"»gL'+),. cNi col)MJ 1i} �If7 CM f>.� Ca R7 'V' Y'P t*�x Mom• 1s[�� �M ram-? "� 2 Q� Ko cc _ , Un CL o Me CL Et Ile w nee [ {? L t'3 c'1 0 ^Il1 Ali Fie �I a EG"�i a ro a nGi v � �' k_ _ v" ez trr E tra ' _ — � 22 AIM, Lj n s "� .."�, fi V a t . chi OO, ing U ">4. r-' cis r'rr'v r•" pp .g , '. ,— .rs c6 en hN— cv r"` Guess .� t� -coU; c+l tff CV N N •R �7 tLa R � : ca C <a ai a o c> c C ca 00 cJ C>Cb y % a ra g vi L ID R R c J +A to t9 C7 T 4"J C'v r+, r Bl LO C',! �00 If F I,:, FR bJ lCt ifJ - - 01 (7 1A� � 'A.e to `7 �D � �+*5��1 N €�0j coOD CA (`? W v— tl7 co 9 KAN Im V - y j) H . �' 4 N �w� _ d1��W ``dYy✓ lz�xY s _ xx 3 ab IL in LO �xry }Yy ��: T ♦ r r!- W )'I � li (jC) SOD CC> W) 04 ID C) ® CV) f { ewe g a ^ ¢ * ~ } 5 � ^ rC E a... �+.. _}UPI°` u Col w � V co V +ter a� x v ry xci S� N �.4 f Y 4`1 d! as Q1 D3 � '� �Z� }W L•. `N C gg UWro wLr) t y t v4 41 ■w1111 00 O q ¢ y C N C c") C d a y O 9 fl1 6 G O - Ai N �i z WLL a F � n $ i i m cr) K#) � r� � oG7rsG. csnc� r� r� gr� `� c> t� taoocar�ics � raat> tscacaoat> oaorara 'nn _ � "'' Lei L" t6 F.- h ;2 Fi ip GL Kt l u3 co - COO 9 C yy py rU. � co C �. ©rn d• w c� rSMp tri fG�h C O r� t_> +- V'.+ u'� Qi P+x1 �JN w .pp• rEJ � '9 �'•' Y) STi 0 05 Qa CD OD � � Fes- 10 4m0 Cpp � (R v t- 'V v N US G''Y N N5 fl U LL too n' r . N v s t7 n04 n - ✓qDq m j A< b jo q`i 7 srt r9 W GSi M1" r iCI ufi i{{T��+ � �5 'r5't$'{� op sp a� {{pq G7 f6 n3 'J 16 � 04 n8bN � Py�} mM1 P• pi Gn I(Y[�f �5tpj r' wi Idi 411 � v> � cyV Illw a a, ar k5 © G� 3 COO pill, a; r O to .- ,P o m m t W 0 N nriQp �ryuiipptp� pq Gm1+ Gp co 77 Ol {Q to r C3 KS f^I V C3 C� /9 u3 C7 .- C� r3 b G F. C3 �15 67 !Ci 6'S G N GDtitA ✓> G ri N�ry Ci iD cJ F• ui ^ �i ua it; LLi nl �s ,fi u5 nS 45 NLL W r uGj R» 1cM1TD � in V 0 fh K9 f l Ift 7 h { x tz 9 IL {I LL S o.. m . ' w wcr uvg a F3 C E w ° Lpc� d G r; N g 4 uj 4q fl fie'.. - LZi CF a n7 Ga cn 6t �' E ci ' IrS ° to u E r al . It!rl, (f W 'a a ,r , ' o ) 2' 9 U3 _ Cl. N t�3 a) 4S k3 r _ q v ` vp �sw°"� o r' ve6 ? W " oes a nna+ c? , UUC`aB RrJv afA mn vmbrE a ' u47mv � G> CKc0 i r.. Ll mvv 'o ¢ +t3Qno `� mo Qvc� U. g ° . arc^ otop �# Y" ELe '- ys. r sL a U �o � v v as to p ,t 5es �! _ tad o p - ' $ itJR4 av a+ v vvv m �' mv `y' W" I'* ' va� � vrcrgv v vvoam � j?' r = .L v u y e u y w u u [ a u u u y gq u ana. 0 aa n. m rL aUa. 4) ad7 a .a 4ric �D �` G r cv � �4C24 d R'tr= h ` yc vid�i 9� J cJ N th N N N NS nl rF U Q N ;j v .� 5e, ell, Ile ci oil Me Fm h lee cl k ee i• { 65k „�f Cox, r L> j � ,/qr •fit\ £ F / ell Ile 11 lee Me 4edsi`- Q:I G7 Kx R � rotiJ lee " �NAr . C`b fLs O J lee eaw A C ; . : Il�. • as A* ro � c e, Ilz gar e ' z ;'ee mTr'M � RMell O ZI W C. 1. r y : LLl 'y, ^', ere. it 1114, ; F 6 y L .. E • f cv k > - '.5 l.9 i' rV �r .. ii Oil ap .r y O QT � . . , � .... AL... �. � ;;II r O .r�l U � N � rY GS � c�OCS � h tG�fa UN9� C? fU CaQQG� � p 65 G3 C�J Kd t7 � � .Th f � ph ai � f? � tt' b 9r � © 4"x G. S.s © Ob � � cr 'Z tD h. Y+ V (i CJ M 0 Co - try T h tv N Y- 4 N t"7 u i N t�i P U1 r3 N P ine m �v' N ut ) F. evi r' i o aXD 'V 4s C) r ty N LV «: •t r ¢ c� n IL �• r"3 N +"' 0 D OD N P '7 v Q 't [D h © A t� s�ppy 'v7� C? tp v� 10, Fri rT qp cp« 4 ram- iry u i t�J r1} W C? � M 4r �fi rNn (R i? P.1 [wit e[s r t U.. _ _ . 0 W h N 0 tpp Ms w P N 1 KY r-- r+ N ! 03 pp !Y3 rr) P r'+ Gh h. m 0 V CO ED G r M V 4D 6J 7 6F1 «* t35 t^+ Grs - F N 0 V7 M r r r r iti_ q r r• tV v- rf1 m N (D IFs Ur 43 C LLLL 0 . 49 ;95 x m is J J 06 d U. d ,r, +pper V 0 CY6© C L Qi C3 m 0 Q Q 0 m t� r� a p p C+ iin s i(Nt(�� w (py !D �ypy rls OFN- � t(Yw M0 {pp N 'd F6 � �N,s s�3T M1v � pp �Ns � N [t�Jr eti Uph ha- � gfo3 (3 � ^I N � Q 4+ 0 >••- 0 P'1 t0 T P 9f C W h ( O Y. rJ W to n O} r+ M m G! i�'! 9 9 4 v! �t�s tt33 to C.) P N App 10 0 r t O d r+. � yy 4p� t� a �s g P,, CD tti irl r r r F*1 Cf r+ N in it Es5 nD W kD L �i eP CJ N C6 V €3 N w A P ep r rtY 4k C! r'7 N N fJ ID efi CA +" K} r° *^ 4l r+ ;� i7 M w M N N CJ 4 N N N C. m N m N N CJ v u v en va � rV � i r vr� v y a Ct 0) W) a (0 c wC) a Ow O E n a t u> u� Y. m n is ty m s�v m r5 O tg N q p pp fv o tlQy � ta pp t(D FF�y Px s .Y- C3N fps 4y taffy coC6 � tNp shy h. �1 ttlpD tt+pf co �`i �Mp to tt�� Gy+ +c'�a cG> gyyl C V OR R O 7 O IF M, �? �9f O th ds tp i� d' p t� G1 � iP. N Vi P 4! {}f t'# i» `J_ o �(1. M �t A} Gs t(j SC{Vys rCr�34(ippG q0 Po (((ry) P N '7 edi h «- W r+ w 40 N Nrr^ 60m 0 Wtp E(+ Npp�� 461 CJ C'1 Ch w^ [ii Ui 4 O ('! N CYN 47 C' qJ !Fs7 P .0 W 10 p i» eD tNV C 0CrJ 4h ep i7+ r+ .t7p�p4 +Oh w W .- m. ,- n rrM .^. 4 N K M CV N r r CN . eh O F- CJ U v � m 3 iflli v S>Y m cs 45 ppro L.7 a v .8 ecEa 5 r 3 v m t3 M `(�j aG t it icy �L 3r v [ro} ° � ai° pm3� �. roa c � v ' N c E v ya &wj a m Efi BCD jE a � c O crhOc 'a v �j ' Ea gg V wtfiq asi! - 6 � ro ffi Ciro � 5c ' +- '0w & cw " vw w F -- aW ° w L' W p99p� yl w Ow wn7 a sa ro , =zt' 2 Vol 2D ) 8 - - [ C N 8 Q s x 4 till sO, w wm w wcc cc pr- c ¢ © c ° ycm 4 , [) m © w e0 ° ww � wudt� w w w <e g p ¢ en ¢ a ¢ I S � � � ama ' � � � � W ¢ LL � � �' � : ¢ ny ¢ qwc t1 [L V : tJrr fl i 3 vM t�4v � `s ` vE mea a -- 'a � c „ ro 't"y9 > m4 Fp mu op, WJWa y +uCm � mpy [rm �i! pvCW � � •�j <eBWX' W94 ` nC {pq� eLc) S $ ca� [fry} tM� w4$ 0 sk V6 6 g tQ - ► ` ^ +Nr U�a N C 34 V � r t7 - 2 CC cs tr v ea s ee CJie �Ca t-- cJ � Cs C3 t7 � C� S7a•'. tom+ V �S SRC In CA Ci OD � � 41 PAO � N Lo IU EpEp�+ Ole M .y 11 1- ell W ell, W O y el lll ell 0 � 11 ell Vl ell ell le ell tV � �:: •� th. � Vim, r. ram+ J < c 4 U. Lk CL n .+ t, 9 , ' R U �y z 0 it i.,3 EL. £L Ej. � p � - L rO` 49 h� n a nc �, reioctie� re, rm r-: rb U N kr) 0) r1j ID IQ M 0 1, L N") to to'h 1Cf at R O O) N Cd C+ h- n .Ti fd +C1Ps qt N 01 R Ni co a5 z0 �f r iV •d fri 'd st. M tp�op} RI q7 r 04 o cr fd LL t N S7 0 C] CJ �? rD CD O O �17 �O Cy M M 0 0 Q� W Ct 0 q7 O 9J 0 4 iY M N N M O �' DO J' J 0 6 m to Oi " O O D N W O rP O t'� O .". W OtC1 C} I`. r- SDRph cA Ti}L_ rt7 ¢l1 OD f6 ? N (3dOH1 hffiC1 `SOP- ri. ;`J U1 Pl N r Q C3q 19 1C3 W '+Y Q W 1`. h L9 r n 16 t rMCa R R Rua 4� � a Su3 G R t R r M r r r r 4V 0 f'! Sll v+ 15 Sx3 }D x ai 06 r C7 Va a r c} U U in w �MA"I" I ` _ c U. � w (�rtj5 M dry[ � - p ry^�� M G C V � `Y N 2 CJ " V p 9 { F <Wy,i'J k W 0Is NN to }eiRP*. 0 DD0M 0 0 0 CY CM to U1 r i,}` r to R r M 0 co N <l In ..r l�7 4 Qt }A M 4J W IT 10 .,�. 7 ..�., �;` N } ee v y ' wa N le el x _ 2; tCN 0 *4 00rC7QyNC40 rQQQ 40M C? J (9 NoC) 0ik +Aa9,` tJrg' 0 w NI N }t) t0 0 W Rt h'• W 'G-`"' M W w0 o Q O 6 0 0 r R O �� f� a n o m w Qt co iv 5 d co ' C co 0 0r N 1*) QYg4 W N + C? (D OQ1 R09Q r O -r �"t 4 rP }!1 U9 T# C5 Is. '� C t'll T! _ R ICi ry R 4 r �- R ifD [3 ICi QY 4t CS W K V�1 N P+ 0 ,- T+ A M ��yy �C1yI Cq� ,- ir54 d) Pi 00 � �6 � 0> cJrg� h- Cku? Nr�A +� ii7K � •� m Kt 4Y +- M n K�1 0 M St R CJ M . .- r - . th 4 c,l 4 T .- C•) N r) fee m � 0 �+ . . .. Q Ri JS to W ""' tD .r c lee Iry kk Mu c y 7 B �r SRI ,EOM� . i1 a E E 0 n C0 L n CL 0. y V1 Fy d Y M s a ,'7 C W y t) D yke, �r IL i E d, C [3 J _ C CI All, 41 : y U E 4 tFY� R E CY1 '41 _ U, c p ,n Ra. y /.1 �1 v � .3 N �O M1l 4) �Q : h '� i N'.Ai h•I �D55 s�� rJ Nep H v d'' C C N - 2 Sr] 3 ILI 3 s : J g cL ` tjrncr cep Q�j Qam c � v [ v R Ezi "' E 91 N 5 CJ' } C7 Q3 "�r r, r . .t., q} £, F .''x` �•+ 0' w C X 43 k Le D a v I a. g Pa �, C N CL V Q G>'o �i Sp _ N Q M` C R. '0 'y`. dy �i a s v C � C .�` � .�� r. "j 4t � � 2��11 aa ce k,lr : ° -w 00 '1 tP 04 � r M V R tCx 0 071 CJR Y? i111k V "� � �g a� �'':� i' ��y' �'�5F r•rl MU} tII ii'r tit u� tv �' K7 rtlul tti }h e+) NN [V }G a'+ �! R � 'dS A+ h� e � \ _ { \ / tL ƒ 6 k { � e co } f � $ / / f * � } 2 { ( ! \ i ( } — . � CD \ z * { /pi � � & 7 e \ p q ) § � . � / \ ƒ \ . 7 � J . 2 � wl � x � ' 2 � 2 k _7 ( � \ }65 � z _ § \1 } / o � � U yy�� � � pO �+ A S� � p Oc? � p � C.aA 4c+ OG G� AOPAc? b Ap G AAQ � Ar.) A �s004� [s caAO GCJ � r.� C� �r�g' [� A ��+ VT W H � Q J N r N LL O O N O c a wn n`r `v. e`au Ne C - e4e o (Deq) iO inNv ors 1 0 wm U ko a rs` us ro o a w of u'i (m co tv of r•� o ni eri rd ri R ,n cv M rr N uNi .r'- enr r`r i M ((yy V, a m r '+ a to m In O N fJ W M cc (T W, N N o n N *� T^ �r CV r� iP N M N m N a PJ aQ a! N � cv n a]0 U 0 N yyof p} l6 v W p0 ujP P L) CpQ6 ic eWrr CL �r Ili 0. O M Y7 09 G 4O � � t yy rp� W D d N [IC v asp 0 m M 0 1 - -4rMt� oacop _ rnu� yyyy ,nA are v cteppc +� Rn o �ns+tt , GB r I� rhNy� t� $ ��-, v) N CC7y CP e5i tlp M h: N Mc4 NC44q W M2 S(3NN W R- IPS P? t'a ( u5 tf,, [t P- [�7 � vrni rn cs +l 9 SamFyy� M r(� iQRU] trpIq- (tlyY {my 'O {S�G, i^ t�Dp C1 [6 ¢p� �rn/ C[*}t �1]N ko Oi NM co N F RCr ROp Q, Cy .- KN Y UO 03 rrn°9 A h- d rY UPS f .r fir- w r M N •" r(j !'Y � N E � � F 15r � a � 00000au�"- rR"oo � 0000r� o += � ono � 000000 � � g� � � aoa00000000awr"�' o �_ ca © (n(��f sr R yePar, a o cr���p sv ca o Hw�yy (cr�v�r ao iL LL�"1 � hl h F. W N cli �qp� �] tp r F- O m CD f+l CJ N I N O N t0 h 0i w N N rFt R A � � i1S N iX'! 1•S � A n � O R pj 4 N r�rr��Cy�y rppy 09 eQ] �gp) p yA (Q�� N r^ lg O Sp CS �j [p Y. �n CS Cl pQp, rrN� m� h�j- p N 4py� Q� �W� {[> N tV IR 0 N w t[f r� v= V� Mtn 1"1 N lU a � C p � A lJ Q n ( } C li c 0- t] rc W : C 4M�IR c fl c rIn € tF r '�G U od �"� fix? E l 0 p � 4� 7=5 P CL U try Wj"' ' u (3 + r uN a C3aolb a cc ue om y w [Y c !3 it P Y c - . . 0 LL y + w £�' LLl c 'w *,. ,. ? w rn V e• ui IrJ Os 7 LS �' Ti .�.. at _c .� t9 W df 4O (D t1 ro cx - va `w ro m � c m u .y rm S O ' LU a c y da � acne vvY i' pVy y e raj u o9 rs y e� u w n r a E ~' o � .d `R' "' s y 4 F? (`�' c zg o .� S ' O . GS uy iti w rk u� w CP 4'i �� �Y u n�. � F- % '� c1. y isi (.O t`-s' F lL y� .}t �g C W - o 91 'Q 4 e rd,. fl, ro b3 (L 7 N y C "�' ?. U ri7 eL p O .- C cD J Q g r, ( � aa. , vim � G a s n `i m a cc.2 `: c C 7 W _p,.� - @ W cx 4 c N a' y n1 q1 m a, - tY3 o p 45 LS P C d {3 W 5 C n' ., .� 4� C tly C C + =' (`�$ Y 3 g� pC� ( 'U Cry N = rCfl q C 4.. N 'i. .- �F q C a'.• (� {4 Ca Q �` (D [6 6 .3 ,l1 p G t', CL c LJ lL c c , �C ' ' 6'"' ,;: bu F ' Lq 5 2 `w ;iLn (a. a. $ P .c � 'i $i � '� �c .+3 .�an. i} t� liu � m � w3 � 3aauntr" Uno6: L) uci w wUw �wjtz7Q U� wo` r �= Nuptirni to198 +r tl ei uN'a `� vro aN (+1 RV , �' FV (+1M uR inn, r!' �i cfs tP cN4 r+f W �iu'�i 4 ;9 +t 4 .� rv�a vas ,l[SNN ip� �f 'Rtl' a k 4 1 rJ � c� �ao � ca � � � c3 � sac� srr� u> a �sr_> n 00000! nc> a � �'4t? s,� � �tsa > ?� r n Gy u9 r-. ir a g, m o - & r '0 G OOl OOOO i3 '<? C) G? h RO O 0000 F W) OOO O LOO OT+ m � CC00O 't 0 t7 is ttO m �P a r� `t . $ y ' 3 �", `nev ESE mm v � i9e.t'+ QI w- m�l m rd .- en rJ c� _ rr rJ in , tj p r rp �r m CJ °� I n L3 ua _ l N Q ppp a rr��jj p p p v 0) 6) P C? 9 � qq O ? OOPl 4K Qp4"3_ p CP Q 02 5§1 gih � C ff Il mpp t�er lLx K+1 pp iSl Mf LL'i N 57l ppQp Ot F O iA Cfl CS A G+ Ol Ul YX! h.9¢1 __1 Kt Y3 (V r m MCl N'1 CJ F Ul r O y �(y f= r'1 N N S N lb to LL1 �toii s" ¢ C) u1 .,f a? MN 3 >�DVR�y V31 - . hq •Uj K '. J Cj en a aa C E Q y C7 W NU r E [ E b W s+ yU eAa = 9 �INow � �1 C Gn Cc t N v N ' 7 ' •Cel l > W C .� �' 0 1..3 .Y s - i., P �.. .,� lIJ 0�1 N w U C�yy Yy b'3 G O �c t�s ��i a+ C r u MID C o +L N �'C ' W = N tg 0.s A E x , a : kulI u. aC3 xC> LL ;R8 G=r _rJ �, nn r. mFm n3cvrt) mu) m Nkrso N towwcv •t F ;� � �' � al US � ((ryry p� M kl .- CD mm m Ygpp µy. yy pM .- C�jj /yam[ •'y U Attachment• 1C CITY OUTSOURCING AND LOCAL BUSINESSES May 3, 2006 Outsourcing is an important tool in our "too] box" that helps keep our costs low/manageable and enables us to partner with and provide business opportunities for private sector entities. It is also used for those "spikes" in service that are necessary but for which it would not be cost effective to keep employees on the payroll full-time and/or year round and for specialized, one-time projects such as road construction or renovations at the water treatment plant. Outsourcing for services that the private sector can provide is reviewed to see if the City can do it more effectively and efficiently,while minimizing costs. In 2004 the City of Fort Collins commissioned $9.5 million for road work. Of the total commissioned, $1.1 million or 12% was allocated towards City equipment and personnel costs, while the remaining $8.4 million or 88% was paid to private contractors. Our street crews are trained to do patching, pothole filling, street sweeping, snow plowing and all elements of street repair and renovation—so we utilize the capabilities of staff to do a portion of this work in the construction and repair season. Additionally, the nature of work done by the City often requires a bit more customization for customers. Consequently, the following criteria and factors are used by the Streets Department in reviewing what road work is outsourced. • o CONVENIENCE — The City mills and paves each block within a one day turn- around, so that the residents can have access to their houses every day. This has proven difficult for contractors to accomplish. o FLEXIBILTY — By using City forces, we are able to be flexible with our schedule. If we have a citizen concern or a conflict with a planned event, our crews will make adjustments to accommodate this. That is not always the case with private contractors. o QUALITY- The City owns and maintains City streets indefinitely, and has a primary interest in promoting quality, long-lasting roadways. This quality-driven motive is evident in the work performed by City forces. o CUSTOMER SERVICE- Our work is focused on providing good customer service by performing the most cost-efficient maintenance at the appropriate time while minimizing inconvenience to the greatest extent possible. The City demonstrates this philosophy through its flexibility and quality product practices. o COMMUNITY BENEFIT-Fort Collins citizens benefit from the City's ability to sustain a skilled workforce and adequate fleet. For example, heavy equipment and trucks are utilized year-round at maximum efficiency for street maintenance, snow removal and to respond to small and large emergencies including catastrophic events i.e. floods. • City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session,May 9,2006 Page l-23 • ➢ The City periodically reviews services and costs to see if our standards and costs are comparable to those offered in the private sector. For example: o Custodial services: used to be performed by City staff. Now the majority of custodial services are contracted out. o Parking Services: three years ago compared the cost of a private cleaning contractor to the cost of an in-house hourly maintenance person, and found that the City saved about three thousand dollars per year, even after buying tools, equipment and supplies. However, and more importantly, the City got much better coverage and service with our own employee (eight hours a day, five days a week with an employee versus 34 hours a day four times a week with extra fees for special call-outs from the contractor.) o Dial-A-Ride: The cost to provide this service by the City was $26.65/trip. Shamrock Taxi is currently providing this service at $16/ambulatory trip and $20/non-ambulatory trip. In 2005 the City had over 86,000 trips in 2006 demand is up 6.6%. o "Cruise Control:" Traffic control for downtown cruising was brought in house when it was determined purchasing the barricades and setting them up with City staff would save over$10,000. o Milling and Paving: In 2004, the City's Street Department performed milling and paving for the Pavement Management Program. Using the 2004 Asphalt Overlay Project Bid costs as a comparison, the City saved 20%or approximately $600,000 using City forces. Using the 2005 Asphalt Overlay Project Bid as compared to the actual cost of City forces, the City saved 30% or approximately • $1 million. For 2005, outsourcing represents 32% of City expenditures less City debt service, depreciation, personnel costs, land purchases,transfers and purchased power. For 2004 the percentage is 35%. (See below for examples of Items Outsourced) 2. Local vendor participation: • The city strives to ensure local vendors receive every opportunity to participate in the City business. • The City also does an annual workshop, "How to do Business with the City" in conjunction with the Small Business Development (SBD) group. We also are part of a state wide "Reverse Vendor Trade Show" designed to educate vendors about how to do business with local governments. In 2005 and 2006, we also participated in a session SBD sponsored on how to make an effective response to a request for proposal. Fort Collins Spending on equipment,commodities and service contracts w/ rivate vendors. 2005 2004 2003 *Fort Collins $30.2 million/31°/u $29 million/30% $24/21% Colorado non-Fort Collins $38.5 million/40% $44 million/45% $66/58% Out of State $27.8 million/29% $24 million/25% $24/21% • *Note: Fort Collins vendors who are national or Colorado vendors, where the payment location is out of the City,makes the `local amount' appear less City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session, May 9, 2006 Page 1-24 Examples of Items Outsourced by the City: Type 2005 2004 • Camera Radar Systems 490,888 5O0,593 • Consulting/Design Services (For example: Storm Drainage Design, 6,578,431 4,7 44,988 Transportation Modeling,Water and Waste Water Plant Desi • Construction 19,295,806 18,700,000 • Communication Cabling 38,370 50,282 • Dial-A-Ride Ambulato and all service after 7:00 pm 528,034 169,176 • Dry Cleaning,Police Uniforms 35,871 36,000 • Insurance Claim Investigation/Management Services 102,562 92,691 • Electrical Services 309,016 390,631 • Electrical Under-grounding Services 612,506 1,636,050 • Fleet (repair of City vehicles) 232,491 250,000 o Glass o Tire work 0 Paint&Bodywork 0 Spray-in bedliners 0 Police equipment installation in cars o HD hydraulic cylinder repairs(most go out 0 Automatic transmission overhauls 0 HD tire repairs, exc t Transfort o Exhaust work 0 Ali ents o U holstery o Radiators 0 HD weldin and fabrication 0 To, 0 Major engine repair 0 2-way radio install &repair 0 Vehicle detailing o New vehicle decals • Golf Professional Services 153,043 147,166 • Golf Professional In-kind Donation to City (33,000) (32,000) • Golf Course Concession-Revenue to City (73,189) (48,705) • Hauling Services 283,419 188,868 • Janitorial Services 730,082 833,9 9 • Landscaping Services(Medians and Street Scapes,Mowing of Detention 337,473 688,855 Ponds, Weed and Rubbish Removal • Library Courier Services 15,950 16,170 • Linen Services for Lincoln Center and Senior Center 34,824 50,626 • Mosquito Control 229,537 259,993 • Pressure Washina 74,307 65,333 • PrintingfUtility Bill Mailing 361,349 176,000 • Sanitary Pipe Lining 308,755 130,000 • Security Guard Service 190,618 150,859 City of Fort Collins-Financial Stability Work Session,May 9, 2006 Page 1-25 • Rec clin services 43,070 38,346 • Roofing Services 209,250 1 22,315 • Tem orary Personnel Services 222,345 107,700 • Trash removal 996,182 1 33,105 • Traffic Control 142,094 87,422 • Underground Boring Services 314,494 930,595 • Uniform Leasing, Transfort 26,795 31,158 TOTAL $32,491,373 $30,688,206 • • City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session,May 9,2006 Page 1- 26 AVERAGE ACTUAL PAY ANALYSIS Attachment 1 D ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT OCCUPATIONAL GROUP May 9, 2006 L 0 N vQ Q w m d' me ` °'o U o a It Benchmark Q E Q E 00 aU rnm E m c cc E0 E p EJob Title 2 o o x.v A R1 JO mW Q Q 0. °6 6 a. 2f Q Q Admin Secretary 1 28,741 28,963 37,744 25,965 29,494 30,930 37,390 32,976 29,344 29,462 29,540 31 ,250 30,959 $291 0.94 30,930 1 .03 34,424 Admin Clerk II 32,638 33,686 35,516 37,374 35,092 40,331 38,247 33,987 33,368 35,630 37,315 33,432 35,663 35,580 33,810 33,311 35,445 ($2, 134) (6.02) 35,656 (6.58) 37,830 Accounts Payable Rep 39,189 33,089 44,010 39,478 31 ,290 37,877 36,738 32,766 33,912 32,579 37,739 40,429 34,580 32,822 34,854 36,467 31 ,797 38,367 35,860 $2,507 6.99 37,767 1 .59 41 ,600 Cust Sery Rep II 40,588 33,447 35, 159 35,866 31 ,689 35,649 35,592 30,436 35,755 31 ,797 38,687 34,598 $4,089 11 .82 35,681 8.43 41 ,600 Exec Admin Assistant 52,704 43,221 48,853 34,632 45,167 52,065 46,373 38,418 42,338 47,233 44,317 43,763 45,029 ($1 ,266) (2.81 ) 47,233 (7.35) 45,760 Library Assistant 30,722 39,867 33,973 39,357 39,041 41 ,585 40,487 40,934 37,862 $31072 8.11 39,991 2.36 45,760 Payroll Specialist 41 ,974 44,603 45,739 41 ,819 45, 168 37,416 36,691 43,142 43,077 43,576 45, 167 40,147 42,579 ($2,432) (5.71 ) 44,603 (9.99) 45,760 Payroll/AP Supervisor 59,818 64,941 61 ,020 59,405 48,818 61 ,296 ($12,478) (20.36) 61 ,412 (20.51 ) 60,944 NOTE: The Average and 70th %ile may be 70,000 skewed based on longevity or based on the incumbent's years of experience. This is true for incumbents within other organizations or Fort Collins. 60,000 ® Fort Collins Average is not a weighted average Average 50,000 Actual Benchmark 40,000 ■ ■ Average Actual Annual Dollar Difference: ■��-_"_ the dollar difference between Fort Collins Average 0 Benchmark Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual 30,000 70th %ile of Avg Actual Average Percent Difference: the % difference between Fort Collins Average 20,000 -a- Pay Range Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual Maximum 70th %Ile Percent Difference: the % difference between Fort Collins Average 10,000 Actual and the Benchmark 70th %ile Blank Cells: 0LJno match or no data available for that job within the benchmark organization Admin Admin Clerk 11 Accounts Cust Sery Rep Exec Admin Library Payroll Payroll/AP Secretary I Payable Rep II Assistant Assistant Specialist Supervisor Data Gathered From: Colorado Municipal League Survey 03-17-06 or follow-up done by Comp & Benefits Manager Prepared'. 042606 Page 1 AVERAGE ACTUAL PAY ANALYSIS ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONAL OCCUPATIONAL GROUP - Page 1 May 9, 2006 % a a a`p c v d d Q Ou um Ama w Q d crio>. f o c; m ° wopd dmc d m T EBenchmark v d E 0 ) E 3 d d o o d ern E t Job Title x B c 0 > d 0Oo ° o O 1 A LL C CoJW 3 ' a a xm Planning Tech 43,368 41 ,000 34,902 41 ,226 45,236 38,985 37,294 36,838 41 ,899 37,934 44,722 399868 $4,854 12.17 41 ,428 7.95 47,944 Recreation Coordinator 429297 49,483 52,458 36,744 48,194 40,287 45,490 50,773 49,283 1 43,896 46,913 45,891 $1 ,023 2.23 49,343 (4.92) 52,754 Deputy City Clerk 51 ,067 45,760 54,699 45,454 50,835 48,612 45,039 48,511 53,312 43,461 1 54,080 51 ,180 490166 $2,014 4. 10 51 ,067 0.22 58,032 Accountant 54,132 51 ,760 48,502 59,116 52,019 54,558 52,212 50,712 52,731 45,243 58,731 57,739 53,347 51 ,438 509930 48,840 53,501 49,830 52,677 ($2,847) (5.40) 53,627 (7.08) 58,032 Buyer 559824 40,469 66,218 58,580 45,926 469675 47,133 53.882 55,301 45,528 56,964 469522 53,303 54,750 51 ,717 $3,033 5.86 55,510 (1 .37) 58,032 Librarian 469320 55,210 48,723 50,556 51 ,228 47,838 49,630 46,433 52,619 52,226 49,840 $2,386 4.79 50,959 2.49 58,032 Sales Tax Auditor 59,501 45,787 53,620 47,902 51 ,792 53,736 47,519 499977 50,344 50,783 51 ,131 ($348) (0.68) 52,889 (3.98) 58,032 City Planner 58,580 53,495 53,622 53,226 52,749 55,579 59,743 57,557 56,124 53,303 60,530 55,398 $59132 9.26 56,554 7.03 63,804 Environmental Planner 1 63,208 1 1 67,943 479064 62,067 53,303 57,133 58,717 ($1 ,584) (2.70) 62,980 (9.28) 63,804 Landscape Architect 49,905 64,498 56,784 58,205 66,639 51 ,408 70,022 61 ,870 59,637 $29233 3.74 64,926 (4.71 ) 63,804 Sr HR Representative 1 500774 1 1 57,026 1 53,320 1 56,472 1 1 58,268 1 1 63,458 1 63,298 50,394 55,609 60,333 56,513 $3,820 6.76 57,771 4.43 63,804 70,000 NOTE: The Average and 70th %ile may be skewed based on longevity or based 60,000 -�� Fort Collins on the incumbents years of experience. This is true for incumbents within other I Average organizations or Fort Collins. Actual 50,000 r..- Average is not a weighted average Benchmark 40,000 Average Actual Annual Dollar Difference: 30,000 the dollar difference between Fort Collins Average 0 Benchmark 9 70th %ile of Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual 20,000 Avg Actual Average Percent Difference: the % difference between Fort Collins Average 10,000 -s- Pay Range Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual Maximum 70th %Ile Percent Difference: 0 _ __ LA I the % difference between Fort Collins Average Actual and the Benchmark 70th %ile c t t a e �eor a�°t �etV ap Jae t�ec a��o c°e o°e -.00 �� ago °moo `rta Po Qua Qua for ecta Blank Cells: ri P a+ �� ,1� P �i no match or no data available for that job within the Q�ac o G QJc1 Q `e G sec y�� �eQt benchmark organization 4aear pe 9a o°xa°c VP°a 5t4� Data Gathered From: Q-e Colorado Municipal League Survey 03-17-06 or follow-up done by Comp 8 Benefits Manager Prepared: 042606 Page 2 AVERAGE ACTUAL PAY ANALYSIS ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONAL OCCUPATIONAL GROUP - Page 2 May 9, 2006 Q0 Q cc t7 m c Jy e VmyoVd u v, uan u u end c c 0 t •) E v ° ° m m cu c Q A2 E E o m tBenchmark ° EE o 2 E a u Io 4 1 Job Title m o Ao p Lu it al° G a.ul J J U.J Q> Q> City Forester 64,334 83,018 73,349 679486 63,066 58,608 1 61 ,716 53,991 1 70,200 65,696 $49504 6.86 67,171 4.51 70,200 Comm & Public Involve Coord 57,999 61 ,675 59,519 1 689851 75,343 55,000 63,648 68,970 68,085 63,876 $4,209 6.59 68,331 (0.36) 70,200 Chief Planner 66,586 69,849 68,081 74,492 679161 67,191 72,264 63,312 60,214 70,096 65,466 60,539 75,679 599758 77,081 63,202 74,207 67,561 $6,646 9.84 69,973 6.05 77,194 Rec Facil & Services Admin 79,875 64,809 61 ,693 60,210 669231 72,675 60,902 68,016 74,891 66,801 $8,090 12. 11 67,838 10.40 77,194 Risk Manager 76,107 71 ,591 78,072 72,238 71 ,253 77,397 75,000 78,485 74,891 75,018 ($127) (0, 17) 77,268 (3.08) 77, 194 Acct & Financial Reporting Mgr 87,559 74,256 83,820 76,875 65,693 80,002 77,641 $2,361 3.04 82,431 (2.95) 84,942 Manager of Golf 84,285 67,652 81 ,732 90,189 82,383 80,965 $1 ,419 1 .75 849875 (2.94) 84,942 City Clerk 89,460 799694 97,039 76,911 84,053 83,288 83,820 65,000 68,563 86,840 79,950 73,445 75,504 86,491 80,274 $6,217 7.74 83,913 3.07 89, 154 Library Director 93,983 86,604 1 91 ,800 879046 1 1 1 76,964 1 1 81 ,682 1 1 1 1 86,491 86,347 $145 0.17 89,423 (3.28) 89,154 Recreation Manager 84,218 77,002 84,924 90,069 91 ,182 85,024 86,491 85,403 $1 ,088 1 .27 87,547 (1 .21 ) 89, 154 Street Superintendent 89,418 94,916 84,218 67,486 98,010 89,328 76,020 107,516 86,840 84,767 84,203 69,846 89,868 63,202 86,491 84,688 $1 ,803 2.13 89,463 (3.32) 89, 154 HR Director 109,5651 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100,5281 100,290 106*107 1 108,7401 100,0001 89,760 1 1 105,664 96,094 102,582 ($6,488) (6.32) 106,063 (9.40) 103,012 Finance Director 120,681 1 113,721 1 1 1 113,9041 1 95,422 1 1 1 1 126,6051 1 118,0231 1 94,769 114,726 ($19,957) (17.40) 119,352 (20.60) 113,594 1209000 NOTE: The Average and 70th %ile may be skewed based on longevity or based ti Fort Collins on the incumbent's years of experience. 1009000 Average This is true for incumbents within other Actual organizations or Fort Collins. 80,000 ■ ■ Average is not a weighted average ■ ■ • Benchmark ■ ■ Average 60,000 Actual Annual Dollar Difference: l� Benchmark the dollar difference between Fort Collins Average 40,000 70th %Ile of Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual Avg Actual Average Percent Difference: 20,000 the % difference between Fort Collins Average sPay Range Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual Maximum 0I I L - 70th %Ile Percent Difference: met to e� �O 0� �� owl ejt �o� e° O` �oA o� the % difference between Fort Collins Average e K F 4 4` C� o a° am a Z` dote , Go° tQ`p0 yQa ��ca o0 `o `C GG O`�e �a� c`ec 0��2 Q`�e Actual and the Benchmark 70th /oile G`� c,°� Gr`e �`oe �`yt yQ° cafe G `a� C�oc �r �� �p� Blank Cells: �`c` q,m a&Q �a �� e�ea � q4 RN ,ge 5� �.c no match or no data available for that job within the � ` A ` aca` �e e benchmark organization a Qc 0 F� moo �4Y Data Gathered From: G° VP or Colorado Municipal League Survey 03-17-06 or follow-up done by Comp & Benefits Manager Prepared: 042606 Page 3 AVERAGE ACTUAL PAY r-AALYSIS Management Information Systems (MfS) Occupational Group May 9, 2006 Qmn m y >. NO N J J dm `mu nyo U � E Benchmark O - E m y 0 E u y0 E a ° E B E o Job Title m urn o m C R O O O C d O O O QW 2 m J Q Qm Jtx0 PC Hardware & Software Spec 42,071 41 ,434 40,595 50,136 41 ,884 46,776 45,552 39,273 38,142 43,465 ($5,323) ( 12.25) 45,204 ( 15.62) 52, 182 Senior Network Specialist 64,256 58,930 61 ,422 72,816 80,526 58,448 64,092 61 ,369 63,717 64,371 70,824 71 ,474 65,525 $5,949 9.08 64,371 11 .03 76,388 GIS System Administrator 74,675 58,604 58,198 59,034 58,836 55,278 63,426 72,824 54,191 54,080 60,098 58,846 60,840 ($1 ,994) (3.28) 60,098 (2.08) 76,388 Systems Analyst 69,179 71 ,831 70,980 60,371 71 ,474 68,090 $3,384 4.97 71 ,065 0.58 76,388 LAN & System Admin Spvr 79,276 73,805 74,360 85, 188 79,603 76,895 87,443 85,939 70,824 78,611 79,259 ($648) (0.82) 82,954 (5.24) 84,006 Network Engineer 70,411 76,911 83,163 82,433 81 ,658 77,084 78,915 ($1 ,831 ) (2.32) 82,278 (6.31 ) 92,404 GIS Manager 114,000 88,306 61 ,942 90,227 80,309 88,619 ($8,310) (9.38) 92,604 (13.28) 92,404 NOTE: The Average and 70th %ile may be 100,000 skewed based on longevity or based on the incumbent's years of experience. This is true for incumbents within other 90,000 organizations or Fort Collins. ■ 80,000 0111111111111 Fort Collins Average is not a weighted average /� Average Actual 70,000 I Benchmark 60,000 Average Actual Annual Dollar Difference: 50,000 ■ the dollar difference between Fort Collins Average l� Benchmark Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual 70th %ile of 40,000 Avg Actual Average Percent Difference: the % difference between Fort Collins Average 30,000 Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual -i- Pay Range Maximum 70th %ile Percent Difference: 20,000 the % difference between Fort Collins Average Actual and the Benchmark 70th %ile 10,000 Blank Cells: no match or no data available for that job within the 0 L6 I I benchmark organization PC Hardware & Senior Network GIS System Systems Analyst LAN & System Network Engineer GIS Manager Software Spec Specialist Administrator Admin Spvr Data Gathered From: Colorado Municipal League Survey 03-17-06 or follow-up done by Comp & Benefits Manager Prepared: 042606 Page 4 AVERAGE ACTUAL PAY ANALYSIS hnical / Engineering Occupational Group May 9, 2006 rn � 'u m 'O t wu um "o - ° o 0 U ° E Q °w w' o ° QBenchmark o •o E o E Q Amm e a E to E o o E Ua Job Title m o > o > CU mK o o t o¢ o ¢o O aU ul J Z r m m O m ° ¢ Q Land Survey Tech 41 ,578 35,345 41 ,829 46,862 47,496 40,901 37,347 41 ,911 41 ,623 $288 0.69 42,836 (2. 16) 46,852 Engineering Tech 45,030 50,131 50,294 57,902 43,947 44,275 37,347 47,585 46,989 $596 1 .27 50, 164 (5. 14) 51 ,532 Construction Inspect 45,710 55,349 47,310 51 ,572 51 ,096 49,674 48,242 55, 157 54,213 44,710 53, 153 50,630 50,562 $68 0. 13 53, 153 (4.75) 56,680 Survey Party Chief 56,418 41 ,556 50,835 55,827 55,584 52,352 52,044 $308 0.59 55,778 (6. 14) 56,680 Plans Analyst 55,123 50, 131 53,290 57,980 53,004 56,352 56,066 50,895 51 ,532 58,725 58,085 63,939 52,272 61 ,961 53,015 55,668 ($2,653) (4.77) 57,991 (8.58) 58,344 Environ Reg Spec 63,208 49,096 60,694 49,754 49,076 54,854 44,415 50,633 57,587 52,716 $4,871 9.24 54,432 5.80 62,348 Chemist 60,713 56,514 57,335 52,200 52,621 57,734 51 ,325 55,526 67,079 59,774 56,783 $21991 5.27 57,574 3.82 64, 194 Civil Engineer 1 57,627 47,518 69,912 54,931 52,527 60,582 60,555 54,706 53,217 55,758 56,842 ($1 ,084) (1 .91 ) 59,384 (6. 11 ) 68,588 Civil Engineerll 55,255 56,056 67,952 54,392 70,930 67,219 64,704 61 ,967 $29737 4.42 67,586 (4.26) 75,452 Lab Supervisor 78,443 72, 117 70,238 59,732 66,912 61 ,734 80,922 70,075 67,697 69,683 69,763 ($80) (0.12) 71 ,365 (2.36) 75,452 Civil Engineer11) 75,482 70,704 66,336 86,413 65,991 81 ,006 82,572 82,046 71 ,383 60,377 88, 158 73,783 70,769 73,882 73,227 77,611 75,280 74,984 $296 0.40 79,309 (5.08) 82,992 Sr Electrical Engr 79,962 89,052 89,232 82,429 86,082 ($30653) (4.24) 89, 124 (7.51 ) 91 ,286 Traffic Engineer 86,813 107,814 88,344 99,029 87,264 83,676 89,958 93,839 77,699 82,909 77,611 84,315 88,632 ($4,317) (4.87) 89,958 (6.27) 91 ,286 Bldg & Zoning Direct 86,813 84,218 64,305 85, 155 86,436 89,640 89,738 69,401 100,528 86,784 78,351 74,006 88,900 85,656 69,060 88,530 82,599 $5,931 7.18 86,807 1 .98 95,862 City Engineer 96,864 88,392 87,567 108,493 93,552 96,911 89,372 99,849 92,654 91 ,021 98,571 103,428 80,650 95,556 ($14,906) (15.60) 98,073 (17.77) 100,672 NOTE: The Average and 70th %ile may be 120,000 -- skewed based on longevity or based j on the incumbent's years of experience. This is true for incumbents within other 100,000 organizations or Fort Collins. a ■-�- ■'�� Fort Collins Average is not a weighted average /■ Average Actual 80,000 ■ ■ Benchmark ■ Average ■60,000 Actual Annual Dollar Difference: s-•" ^�_ O hm the dollar difference between Fort Collins Average Benchmark■ Beth hm of Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual 40,000 Avg Actual Average Percent Difference: -+F Pay Range the % difference between Fort Collins Average Maximum Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual 20,000 Beth %ile Percent Difference: the % difference between Fort Collins Average 116M Actual and the Benchmark 70th We 0 G,c G,c 4,v `e& e� e° `yv �� `�� o� \�� e� o� el. Blank Cells: ,fie ,Qe Qe Gr a�� 5Q F ee ee �y e� �p ,`ce `fie `ce no match or no data available for that job within the fee o c�c ' a� ypS �e4 Gre cA•c c�.a JQe� ��oe `�� �cA c�� �cA benchmark organization 5J ee . 0 Q \ac oc � `Q .0 `�a ec}� `° °o` �cl acJ coo y�`JG J�e� Data Gathered From: Colorado Municipal League Survey 03-17-06 or follow-up done by Comp & Benefits Manager Prepared'. 042606 Page 5 AVERAGE ACTUAL PAY ANALYSIS OPERATIONS SKILL TRADES TABLE I OCCUPATIONAL GROUP - Page 1 May 9, 2006 v 2: o „ A R m d ° >` o c c e c .c°. m tt d v chi L' o c m u w c°1i m .. �' m ° °i �- u drn E Benchmark v v ° m o Q ° m d c �: c V V ' Q E Q c rn e e E d •- c c c ° A 3 'm 3 d E rn c m o y ,. o m2 A �+ a u 2" �+ d mE d m m rn d t E 9 E „ v_ o U d t m p t a' Q .. rY •- Job Title Z o $ c > o o E w u of c d 4) m u t m x Q Q m e C7 m o o c t m o •c m C A c A c > a c w W o d >. m W J J J 2 H d ° m d J 3 N LL m m N Q O Q G m o Q a 0 1 ?' m ' rn Q Q r Meter Reader 34,342 37,583 34,424 32,667 36,522 42,623 36,170 36,360 ($190) (0.52) 37,053 (2.38) 39,884 S/T Equipment Operator 1 38,496 33,284 39, 190 32,432 39,950 43,241 33,220 34,132 33,566 45,573 40,634 36,471 44,973 31 ,970 37,200 38,305 37,622 $683 1 .82 39,798 (3.75) 43,862 Maintenance Tech - Bldg 35,133 36,000 44,529 40,879 43,680 43,908 38,832 45,048 44,262 359080 41 ,000 38,473 36,491 54,991 40,224 41 ,712 41 ,235 $477 1 .16 43,862 (4.90) 46,254 Water Meter Technician 35,726 32,937 43,139 48,355 49,187 33,301 46,254 40,441 $5,813 14.37 45,747 1 . 11 46,254 Water Util Maint Operator 46,091 37,211 38,876 39,478 32,768 49,130 43, 139 45,573 47,303 34,940 45,188 41 ,451 $3,737 9.02 45,728 (1 . 18) 46,354 Compliance Inspector 44,929 419797 49,754 450706 310175 460765 50,064 469680 40,000 39,691 48,692 47,888 45,032 42,105 44,475 ($2,370) (5.33) 47,214 (10.82) 48,256 S/T Equipment Operator II 47,224 42,350 43,176 42,160 49,130 39,471 43,202 46,061 50,773 479303 499193 43,303 41 ,569 43,930 44,006 44,918 ($912) (2.03) 47,232 (6.83) 48,256 Street Sign Technician 47,224 41 ,817 42,640 33,145 33,946 43,272 40,416 44,387 45,385 40,856 $49529 11 .09 43,209 5.04 48,256 Mechanic 46,681 37,265 39,347 44,695 37,990 51 ,340 48,972 44,780 44,803 48,031 49,754 32,040 45,510 45,382 45,534 43,904 48,739 44,127 $4,612 10.45 469108 5.71 50,882 Traffic Signal Tech11 47,.5 49,733 39,236 46,249 44,040 50,161 58,777 46,342 43,032 45,334 47,282 ($1 ,948) (4. 12) 49,026 (7.53) 53,092 60,000 NOTE: The Average and 70th %ile may be skewed based on longevity or based on the incumbent's years of experience. ■50,000 This is true for incumbents within other ■ ■ ■ ■ organizations or Fort Collins. ■ � Fort Collins Average is not a weighted average Average Actual 40,000 ■ Benchmark Annual Dollar Difference: 30,000 Average Actual the dollar difference between Fort Collins Average Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual 0 Benchmark Average Percent Difference: 20,000 70th %ile of the % difference between Fort Collins Average Avg Actual Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual 70th %Ile Percent Difference: t Pay Range the % difference between Fort Collins Average 10,000 Maximum Actual and the Benchmark 70th %ile Blank Cells: no match or no data available for that job within the 0 Lu benchmark organization Meter Reader SIT Equipment Maintenance Water Meter Water Util Compliance SIT Equipment Street Sign Mechanic Traffic Signal Operator I Tech - Bldg Technician Maint Inspector Operator II Technician Tech 11 Data Gathered From: Operator Colorado Municipal League Survey 03-17-06 or follow-up done by Comp & Benefits Manager Prepared 042606 Page 6 AVERAGE ACTUAI PAY ANALYSIS OPERATIONS SKILL TRADES TABL"- I OCCUPATIONAL GROUP - Page 2 May 9, 2006 70 Q Q m °c a oJ c w 'c to Q u _° u c c� E °o EBenchmark a a ° E E u E d° E EJob Title > ° o mO c : a,0 o 9cJ o Qa a a 6 W Z m > > Q Q Maintenance Specialist 52,319 45,054 51 ,842 49,299 45,648 65,551 56,905 53,312 41 ,725 50,415 55,978 51 ,207 $4,771 9.32 52,617 6.39 55,978 Building Inspector 57,661 41 ,472 49,614 58,399 44,762 55,720 56,712 54, 144 49,150 45,023 61 ,815 54,481 52,574 54,226 55,776 55,978 54,786 53, 153 54,882 53,080 $1 ,802 3.39 55,770 (1 .59) 55,978 Plant Operator 52,651 52,900 47,587 49,733 53,733 50,068 54,038 49,482 53,869 52,560 46,072 48, 137 55,978 50,903 $5,076 9.97 52,825 5.97 55,978 Bldg Maint Supervisor 48,072 57,580 59,625 58,580 61 ,255 62,899 67,440 60,996 61 ,591 61 ,716 52,859 50,772 62,489 54,836 58,913 ($4,077) (6.92) 61 ,641 (11 .04) 64,220 Crew Chief 61 ,259 56,972 61 ,399 61 ,826 52,371 54,498 54,662 61 ,593 63,276 57,900 52,569 52,357 52,965 51 ,312 52,438 61 ,583 56,493 $5,090 9.01 60,587 1 .64 64,220 Shop Supervisor 50,896 59,934 69,564 58,962 56,796 60,379 61 ,716 57,444 61 ,583 59,461 $2, 122 3.57 60,335 2.07 64,220 Superintendent of Golf 63,537 61 ,417 60,577 59,970 55,660 64,013 61 ,583 60,862 $721 1 . 18 62,477 (1 .43) 64,220 Bldg Codes & Inspect Admin 70,041 63,012 71 ,444 72,357 64,800 66,602 61 ,961 67,782 67,174 $608 0.91 70,322 (3.61 ) 70,668 Process Control Superviosr 62,060 1 64,848 1 56,514 1 82,075 1 65,502 1 1 1 63,556 68,544 1 76,880 1 1 1 1 1 62,422 67,782 66,933 $849 1 .27 67,327 0.68 70,668 80,000 - NOTE: The Average and 70th %ile may be skewed based on longevity or based on the incumbent's years of experience. 70,000 ■ ■ This is true for incumbents within other organizations or Fort Collins. ■ ■ Fort Collins Average Actual Average is not a weighted average 60,000 ■ _ ._.. 50,000 Benchmark Average Actual Annual Dollar Difference: the dollar difference between Fort Collins Average 40,000 Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual O Benchmark Average Percent Difference: 30,000 70th %ile of the % difference between Fort Collins Average Avg Actual Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual 70th %ile Percent Difference: 20,000 - -f- Pay Range the % difference between Fort Collins Average Maximum Actual and the Benchmark 70th %ile 10,000 Blank Cells: no match or no data available for that job within the benchmark organization 0 Building Plant Operator Bldg Maint Crew Chief Shop Supervisor Superintendent Bldg Codes & Process Control Data Gathered From: Inspector Supervisor of Golf Inspect Admin Superviosr Colorado Municipal League Survey 03-17-06 or follow-up done by Comp & Benefits Manager Prepared: 042606 Page 7 AVERAGE ACTUAL PAY ANAI YSIS .)PERATIONS SKILL TRADES TABLE II (ELECTRIL) OCCUPATIONAL GROUP May 9, 2006 L 0¢Nm N d 0 ° O U N° � oU m `onO ¢C yY Oc N o o o U m - c ° Oc> , ir E¢ E ¢ EBenchmark E c Q E o m Eo O O Job Title > o E xp >¢ m o J o 9 o a o m O a oa2J ° U w z � > > °Electric Meter Tech 55,448 54,558 65,894 43,032 5,11740 54,733 ($2,993) (5.47) 56,493 (8.41 ) 51 ,740 Electric LineWorker 64, 166 59,333 62,566 58,065 62,022 ($3,957) (6.38) 63,206 (8. 13) 62,582 Substation Specialist 61 , 118 61 ,356 66,706 62,582 63,060 ($478) (0.76) 63,496 (1 .44) 62,582 Line Crew Chief 67,392 65,784 68,910 68,848 67,362 $1 ,486 2.21 67,999 1 .25 68,848 7 ij ) NOTE: The Average and 70th %ile may be 80,000 skewed based on longevity or based on the incumbent's years of experience. This is true for incumbents within other 70,000 organizations or Fort Collins. Fort Collins Average is not a weighted average I 60,000 J Average Actual 50,000 Benchmark - Average Actual Annual Dollar Difference: 40,000 _ the dollar difference between Fort Collins Average 0 Benchmark Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual 70th %ile of 30,000 Avg Actual Average Percent Difference: the % difference between Fort Collins Average - - Pay Range Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual 20,000 Maximum 70th %ile Percent Difference: the % difference between Fort Collins Average Actual and the Benchmark 70th %ile 10,000 Blank Cells: no match or no data available for that job within the 0I LA I benchmark organization Electric Meter Tech Electric LineWorker Substation Specialist Line Crew Chief Data Gathered From: Colorado Municipal League Survey 03-17-06 or follow-up done by Comp & Benefits Manager Prepared: 042606 Page 8 AVERAGE ACTUAL PAY ANALYSIS POLICE SERVICES OCCUPATIONAL GROUP May 9, 2006 o -ii QN Q o c «U dd ci o •_ c d M O O O O M Ucd mdc E O NdJ Benchmark Q ; E o E -m M E • o u mE4) c Job Title a o pp ° O o aw z Q 2 y Q Q Property & Evidence Tech 45,915 36,228 43,372 43,534 35,311 39,939 43,662 44,327 42,200 40,522 43, 108 46,675 39,826 31 , 117 44,570 41 ,124 $3,446 8.38 43,547 2.35 46,5 Victim Services Coordi 92nator 48,298 46,800 51 ,932 56,356 37,492 55,224 55,608 58,777 54,662 59,051 52,839 44,845 51 ,250 51 ,824 ($574) (1 . 11 ) 55,493 (7.65) 53,560 Criminalist 62,921 47,763 50,232 61 ,593 55,292 59,384 61 ,797 63,307 56,424 61 ,337 54,552 58,005 ($3,453) (5.95) 61 ,654 (11 .52) 56,316 Crime Analyst 56,203 38,531 67,318 50,835 53,019 60,348 41 ,208 58,023 61 ,716 53,303 56,347 54,050 $2,297 4.25 58,721 (4.04) 58,890 Police Records Supervisor 51 , 135 48,918 53,497 43,680 59, 124 59,472 59,472 48,027 50,843 59,701 52,892 60,445 46,478 1 48,095 56,347 52,984 $3$ 63 6.35 59, 159 (4.75) 58,890 Police Captain 102,921 95,430 106,287 92,218 101 ,688 102,236 100,747 112,689 105,554 100,290 103,870 98,779 100,608 102,879 1 92,976 101 ,704 101 ,278 $426 0.42 102,913 (1 . 17) 101 ,704 NOTE: The Average and 70th %ile may be 120,000 skewed based on longevity or based on the incumbent's years of experience. This is true for incumbents within other 100,000 PmNM Fort Collins organizations or Fort Collins. Average Actual Average is not a weighted average 80,000 Benchmark Average Actual Annual Dollar Difference: 60,000 ■ - .y.-. the dollar difference between Fort Collins Average ■ T' Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual ■ O Benchmark 40,000 70th %ile of Average Percent Difference: Avg Actual the % difference between Fort Collins Average Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual Pay 70th %ile Percent Difference: 20,000 + Max mume the % difference between Fort Collins Average Actual and the Benchmark 70th %ile 0 _. - ___ ._. Blank Cells: �, Property & Evidence Victim Services Criminalist Crime Analyst Police Records Police Captain no match or no data available for that job within the Tech Coordinator Supervisor benchmark organization Data Gathered From: Colorado Municipal League Survey 03-17-06 or follow-up done by Comp & Benefits Manager Prepared: 042606 Page 9 AVERAGE ".,3TUAL PAY ANALYSIS Aft .-ahnrent 1 D COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OCCUPATIONAL GROUP May 9, 2006 Z °Qmm m y _ N° Q w° _ ° > ° t- 0c oc 'E ° ° c m Benchmark E EQ 3 E w ` m E°Job Title > o A m >a w tc Q m o am > p Q a. 0 aW Z im Q Q j - Emergency Srvcs Dispatcher 47,376 42,245 47,025 41 , 129 38,030 40,650 44,889 40,508 46,535 43,200 42,786 45,243 45,336 37,265 48, 196 43,016 $5,181 12.04 45,252 6.51 50,518 Emergency Dispatch Sprvsr 56,037 54,834 60,096 58,742 51 ,611 61 ,325 64,584 52,932 60,912 55,917 61 ,990 54,038 52,935 65,407 57,381 $8,026 13.99 60,422 8.25 65,407 Police Officer 58,020 59,278 55,887 56,731 59,246 62,842 58,417 58,790 56,842 53, 156 57,056 57,650 56, 127 57, 140 58,656 56,772 62,427 57,663 $4,764 8.26 58,537 6.65 64,099 Police Sergeant 76,836 75,447 75,715 71 ,304 78,780 75,263 75,144 76,649 71 ,529 72,856 73,368 76,353 76,605 74,752 78,598 68,844 81 ,100 74,878 $6,222 8.31 76,479 6.04 81 ,100 Police Lieutenant 92,801 85,232 93,907 89,638 91 ,244 87,552 95,854 95,472 91 ,702 91 ,029 81 ,244 92,496 90,516 $1 ,980 2. 19 92,801 (0.33) 92,496 NOTE: The Average and 70th %ile may be 100,000 - skewed based on longevity or based on the incumbent's years of experience. 90,000 This is true for incumbents within other organizations or Fort Collins. 80,000 - Fort Collins Average is not a weighted average Average Actual 70,000 Benchmark 60,000 Average Actual 50,000 r Annual Dollar Difference: the dollar difference between Fort Collins Average l� Benchmark Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual 40,000 70th %ile of Avg Actual Average Percent Difference: 30,000 the % difference between Fort Collins Average --W- Pay Range Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual Maximum 20,000 70th %ile Percent Difference: the % difference between Fort Collins Average 10,000 Actual and the Benchmark 70th %ile 0 _. Blank Cells: no match or no data available for that job within the Emergency Srvcs Emergency Dispatch Police Officer Police Sergeant Police Lieutenant benchmark organization Dispatcher Sprvsr Data Gathered From: Colorado Municipal League Survey 03-17-06 or follow-up done by Comp & Benefits Manager Prepared: 042606 Page 10 AVERAGE ACTUAL PAY ANALYSIS Attachment 1 D ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT OCCUPATIONAL GROUP May 9, 2006 L 0 N vQ Q w m d' me ` °'o U o a It Benchmark Q E Q E 00 aU rnm E m c cc E0 E p EJob Title 2 o o x.v A R1 JO mW Q Q 0. °6 6 a. 2f Q Q Admin Secretary 1 28,741 28,963 37,744 25,965 29,494 30,930 37,390 32,976 29,344 29,462 29,540 31 ,250 30,959 $291 0.94 30,930 1 .03 34,424 Admin Clerk II 32,638 33,686 35,516 37,374 35,092 40,331 38,247 33,987 33,368 35,630 37,315 33,432 35,663 35,580 33,810 33,311 35,445 ($2, 134) (6.02) 35,656 (6.58) 37,830 Accounts Payable Rep 39,189 33,089 44,010 39,478 31 ,290 37,877 36,738 32,766 33,912 32,579 37,739 40,429 34,580 32,822 34,854 36,467 31 ,797 38,367 35,860 $2,507 6.99 37,767 1 .59 41 ,600 Cust Sery Rep II 40,588 33,447 35, 159 35,866 31 ,689 35,649 35,592 30,436 35,755 31 ,797 38,687 34,598 $4,089 11 .82 35,681 8.43 41 ,600 Exec Admin Assistant 52,704 43,221 48,853 34,632 45,167 52,065 46,373 38,418 42,338 47,233 44,317 43,763 45,029 ($1 ,266) (2.81 ) 47,233 (7.35) 45,760 Library Assistant 30,722 39,867 33,973 39,357 39,041 41 ,585 40,487 40,934 37,862 $31072 8.11 39,991 2.36 45,760 Payroll Specialist 41 ,974 44,603 45,739 41 ,819 45, 168 37,416 36,691 43,142 43,077 43,576 45, 167 40,147 42,579 ($2,432) (5.71 ) 44,603 (9.99) 45,760 Payroll/AP Supervisor 59,818 64,941 61 ,020 59,405 48,818 61 ,296 ($12,478) (20.36) 61 ,412 (20.51 ) 60,944 NOTE: The Average and 70th %ile may be 70,000 skewed based on longevity or based on the incumbent's years of experience. This is true for incumbents within other organizations or Fort Collins. 60,000 ® Fort Collins Average is not a weighted average Average 50,000 Actual Benchmark 40,000 ■ ■ Average Actual Annual Dollar Difference: ■��-_"_ the dollar difference between Fort Collins Average 0 Benchmark Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual 30,000 70th %ile of Avg Actual Average Percent Difference: the % difference between Fort Collins Average 20,000 -a- Pay Range Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual Maximum 70th %Ile Percent Difference: the % difference between Fort Collins Average 10,000 Actual and the Benchmark 70th %ile Blank Cells: 0LJno match or no data available for that job within the benchmark organization Admin Admin Clerk 11 Accounts Cust Sery Rep Exec Admin Library Payroll Payroll/AP Secretary I Payable Rep II Assistant Assistant Specialist Supervisor Data Gathered From: Colorado Municipal League Survey 03-17-06 or follow-up done by Comp & Benefits Manager Prepared'. 042606 Page 1 AVERAGE ACTUAL PAY ANALYSIS ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONAL OCCUPATIONAL GROUP - Page 1 May 9, 2006 % a a a`p c v d d Q Ou um Ama w Q d crio>. f o c; m ° wopd dmc d m T EBenchmark v d E 0 ) E 3 d d o o d ern E t Job Title x B c 0 > d 0Oo ° o O 1 A LL C CoJW 3 ' a a xm Planning Tech 43,368 41 ,000 34,902 41 ,226 45,236 38,985 37,294 36,838 41 ,899 37,934 44,722 399868 $4,854 12.17 41 ,428 7.95 47,944 Recreation Coordinator 429297 49,483 52,458 36,744 48,194 40,287 45,490 50,773 49,283 1 43,896 46,913 45,891 $1 ,023 2.23 49,343 (4.92) 52,754 Deputy City Clerk 51 ,067 45,760 54,699 45,454 50,835 48,612 45,039 48,511 53,312 43,461 1 54,080 51 ,180 490166 $2,014 4. 10 51 ,067 0.22 58,032 Accountant 54,132 51 ,760 48,502 59,116 52,019 54,558 52,212 50,712 52,731 45,243 58,731 57,739 53,347 51 ,438 509930 48,840 53,501 49,830 52,677 ($2,847) (5.40) 53,627 (7.08) 58,032 Buyer 559824 40,469 66,218 58,580 45,926 469675 47,133 53.882 55,301 45,528 56,964 469522 53,303 54,750 51 ,717 $3,033 5.86 55,510 (1 .37) 58,032 Librarian 469320 55,210 48,723 50,556 51 ,228 47,838 49,630 46,433 52,619 52,226 49,840 $2,386 4.79 50,959 2.49 58,032 Sales Tax Auditor 59,501 45,787 53,620 47,902 51 ,792 53,736 47,519 499977 50,344 50,783 51 ,131 ($348) (0.68) 52,889 (3.98) 58,032 City Planner 58,580 53,495 53,622 53,226 52,749 55,579 59,743 57,557 56,124 53,303 60,530 55,398 $59132 9.26 56,554 7.03 63,804 Environmental Planner 1 63,208 1 1 67,943 479064 62,067 53,303 57,133 58,717 ($1 ,584) (2.70) 62,980 (9.28) 63,804 Landscape Architect 49,905 64,498 56,784 58,205 66,639 51 ,408 70,022 61 ,870 59,637 $29233 3.74 64,926 (4.71 ) 63,804 Sr HR Representative 1 500774 1 1 57,026 1 53,320 1 56,472 1 1 58,268 1 1 63,458 1 63,298 50,394 55,609 60,333 56,513 $3,820 6.76 57,771 4.43 63,804 70,000 NOTE: The Average and 70th %ile may be skewed based on longevity or based 60,000 -�� Fort Collins on the incumbents years of experience. This is true for incumbents within other I Average organizations or Fort Collins. Actual 50,000 r..- Average is not a weighted average Benchmark 40,000 Average Actual Annual Dollar Difference: 30,000 the dollar difference between Fort Collins Average 0 Benchmark 9 70th %ile of Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual 20,000 Avg Actual Average Percent Difference: the % difference between Fort Collins Average 10,000 -s- Pay Range Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual Maximum 70th %Ile Percent Difference: 0 _ __ LA I the % difference between Fort Collins Average Actual and the Benchmark 70th %ile c t t a e �eor a�°t �etV ap Jae t�ec a��o c°e o°e -.00 �� ago °moo `rta Po Qua Qua for ecta Blank Cells: ri P a+ �� ,1� P �i no match or no data available for that job within the Q�ac o G QJc1 Q `e G sec y�� �eQt benchmark organization 4aear pe 9a o°xa°c VP°a 5t4� Data Gathered From: Q-e Colorado Municipal League Survey 03-17-06 or follow-up done by Comp 8 Benefits Manager Prepared: 042606 Page 2 AVERAGE ACTUAL PAY ANALYSIS ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONAL OCCUPATIONAL GROUP - Page 2 May 9, 2006 Q0 Q cc t7 m c Jy e VmyoVd u v, uan u u end c c 0 t •) E v ° ° m m cu c Q A2 E E o m tBenchmark ° EE o 2 E a u Io 4 1 Job Title m o Ao p Lu it al° G a.ul J J U.J Q> Q> City Forester 64,334 83,018 73,349 679486 63,066 58,608 1 61 ,716 53,991 1 70,200 65,696 $49504 6.86 67,171 4.51 70,200 Comm & Public Involve Coord 57,999 61 ,675 59,519 1 689851 75,343 55,000 63,648 68,970 68,085 63,876 $4,209 6.59 68,331 (0.36) 70,200 Chief Planner 66,586 69,849 68,081 74,492 679161 67,191 72,264 63,312 60,214 70,096 65,466 60,539 75,679 599758 77,081 63,202 74,207 67,561 $6,646 9.84 69,973 6.05 77,194 Rec Facil & Services Admin 79,875 64,809 61 ,693 60,210 669231 72,675 60,902 68,016 74,891 66,801 $8,090 12. 11 67,838 10.40 77,194 Risk Manager 76,107 71 ,591 78,072 72,238 71 ,253 77,397 75,000 78,485 74,891 75,018 ($127) (0, 17) 77,268 (3.08) 77, 194 Acct & Financial Reporting Mgr 87,559 74,256 83,820 76,875 65,693 80,002 77,641 $2,361 3.04 82,431 (2.95) 84,942 Manager of Golf 84,285 67,652 81 ,732 90,189 82,383 80,965 $1 ,419 1 .75 849875 (2.94) 84,942 City Clerk 89,460 799694 97,039 76,911 84,053 83,288 83,820 65,000 68,563 86,840 79,950 73,445 75,504 86,491 80,274 $6,217 7.74 83,913 3.07 89, 154 Library Director 93,983 86,604 1 91 ,800 879046 1 1 1 76,964 1 1 81 ,682 1 1 1 1 86,491 86,347 $145 0.17 89,423 (3.28) 89,154 Recreation Manager 84,218 77,002 84,924 90,069 91 ,182 85,024 86,491 85,403 $1 ,088 1 .27 87,547 (1 .21 ) 89, 154 Street Superintendent 89,418 94,916 84,218 67,486 98,010 89,328 76,020 107,516 86,840 84,767 84,203 69,846 89,868 63,202 86,491 84,688 $1 ,803 2.13 89,463 (3.32) 89, 154 HR Director 109,5651 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100,5281 100,290 106*107 1 108,7401 100,0001 89,760 1 1 105,664 96,094 102,582 ($6,488) (6.32) 106,063 (9.40) 103,012 Finance Director 120,681 1 113,721 1 1 1 113,9041 1 95,422 1 1 1 1 126,6051 1 118,0231 1 94,769 114,726 ($19,957) (17.40) 119,352 (20.60) 113,594 1209000 NOTE: The Average and 70th %ile may be skewed based on longevity or based ti Fort Collins on the incumbent's years of experience. 1009000 Average This is true for incumbents within other Actual organizations or Fort Collins. 80,000 ■ ■ Average is not a weighted average ■ ■ • Benchmark ■ ■ Average 60,000 Actual Annual Dollar Difference: l� Benchmark the dollar difference between Fort Collins Average 40,000 70th %Ile of Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual Avg Actual Average Percent Difference: 20,000 the % difference between Fort Collins Average sPay Range Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual Maximum 0I I L - 70th %Ile Percent Difference: met to e� �O 0� �� owl ejt �o� e° O` �oA o� the % difference between Fort Collins Average e K F 4 4` C� o a° am a Z` dote , Go° tQ`p0 yQa ��ca o0 `o `C GG O`�e �a� c`ec 0��2 Q`�e Actual and the Benchmark 70th /oile G`� c,°� Gr`e �`oe �`yt yQ° cafe G `a� C�oc �r �� �p� Blank Cells: �`c` q,m a&Q �a �� e�ea � q4 RN ,ge 5� �.c no match or no data available for that job within the � ` A ` aca` �e e benchmark organization a Qc 0 F� moo �4Y Data Gathered From: G° VP or Colorado Municipal League Survey 03-17-06 or follow-up done by Comp & Benefits Manager Prepared: 042606 Page 3 AVERAGE ACTUAL PAY r-AALYSIS Management Information Systems (MfS) Occupational Group May 9, 2006 Qmn m y >. NO N J J dm `mu nyo U � E Benchmark O - E m y 0 E u y0 E a ° E B E o Job Title m urn o m C R O O O C d O O O QW 2 m J Q Qm Jtx0 PC Hardware & Software Spec 42,071 41 ,434 40,595 50,136 41 ,884 46,776 45,552 39,273 38,142 43,465 ($5,323) ( 12.25) 45,204 ( 15.62) 52, 182 Senior Network Specialist 64,256 58,930 61 ,422 72,816 80,526 58,448 64,092 61 ,369 63,717 64,371 70,824 71 ,474 65,525 $5,949 9.08 64,371 11 .03 76,388 GIS System Administrator 74,675 58,604 58,198 59,034 58,836 55,278 63,426 72,824 54,191 54,080 60,098 58,846 60,840 ($1 ,994) (3.28) 60,098 (2.08) 76,388 Systems Analyst 69,179 71 ,831 70,980 60,371 71 ,474 68,090 $3,384 4.97 71 ,065 0.58 76,388 LAN & System Admin Spvr 79,276 73,805 74,360 85, 188 79,603 76,895 87,443 85,939 70,824 78,611 79,259 ($648) (0.82) 82,954 (5.24) 84,006 Network Engineer 70,411 76,911 83,163 82,433 81 ,658 77,084 78,915 ($1 ,831 ) (2.32) 82,278 (6.31 ) 92,404 GIS Manager 114,000 88,306 61 ,942 90,227 80,309 88,619 ($8,310) (9.38) 92,604 (13.28) 92,404 NOTE: The Average and 70th %ile may be 100,000 skewed based on longevity or based on the incumbent's years of experience. This is true for incumbents within other 90,000 organizations or Fort Collins. ■ 80,000 0111111111111 Fort Collins Average is not a weighted average /� Average Actual 70,000 I Benchmark 60,000 Average Actual Annual Dollar Difference: 50,000 ■ the dollar difference between Fort Collins Average l� Benchmark Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual 70th %ile of 40,000 Avg Actual Average Percent Difference: the % difference between Fort Collins Average 30,000 Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual -i- Pay Range Maximum 70th %ile Percent Difference: 20,000 the % difference between Fort Collins Average Actual and the Benchmark 70th %ile 10,000 Blank Cells: no match or no data available for that job within the 0 L6 I I benchmark organization PC Hardware & Senior Network GIS System Systems Analyst LAN & System Network Engineer GIS Manager Software Spec Specialist Administrator Admin Spvr Data Gathered From: Colorado Municipal League Survey 03-17-06 or follow-up done by Comp & Benefits Manager Prepared: 042606 Page 4 AVERAGE ACTUAL PAY ANALYSIS hnical / Engineering Occupational Group May 9, 2006 rn � 'u m 'O t wu um "o - ° o 0 U ° E Q °w w' o ° QBenchmark o •o E o E Q Amm e a E to E o o E Ua Job Title m o > o > CU mK o o t o¢ o ¢o O aU ul J Z r m m O m ° ¢ Q Land Survey Tech 41 ,578 35,345 41 ,829 46,862 47,496 40,901 37,347 41 ,911 41 ,623 $288 0.69 42,836 (2. 16) 46,852 Engineering Tech 45,030 50,131 50,294 57,902 43,947 44,275 37,347 47,585 46,989 $596 1 .27 50, 164 (5. 14) 51 ,532 Construction Inspect 45,710 55,349 47,310 51 ,572 51 ,096 49,674 48,242 55, 157 54,213 44,710 53, 153 50,630 50,562 $68 0. 13 53, 153 (4.75) 56,680 Survey Party Chief 56,418 41 ,556 50,835 55,827 55,584 52,352 52,044 $308 0.59 55,778 (6. 14) 56,680 Plans Analyst 55,123 50, 131 53,290 57,980 53,004 56,352 56,066 50,895 51 ,532 58,725 58,085 63,939 52,272 61 ,961 53,015 55,668 ($2,653) (4.77) 57,991 (8.58) 58,344 Environ Reg Spec 63,208 49,096 60,694 49,754 49,076 54,854 44,415 50,633 57,587 52,716 $4,871 9.24 54,432 5.80 62,348 Chemist 60,713 56,514 57,335 52,200 52,621 57,734 51 ,325 55,526 67,079 59,774 56,783 $21991 5.27 57,574 3.82 64, 194 Civil Engineer 1 57,627 47,518 69,912 54,931 52,527 60,582 60,555 54,706 53,217 55,758 56,842 ($1 ,084) (1 .91 ) 59,384 (6. 11 ) 68,588 Civil Engineerll 55,255 56,056 67,952 54,392 70,930 67,219 64,704 61 ,967 $29737 4.42 67,586 (4.26) 75,452 Lab Supervisor 78,443 72, 117 70,238 59,732 66,912 61 ,734 80,922 70,075 67,697 69,683 69,763 ($80) (0.12) 71 ,365 (2.36) 75,452 Civil Engineer11) 75,482 70,704 66,336 86,413 65,991 81 ,006 82,572 82,046 71 ,383 60,377 88, 158 73,783 70,769 73,882 73,227 77,611 75,280 74,984 $296 0.40 79,309 (5.08) 82,992 Sr Electrical Engr 79,962 89,052 89,232 82,429 86,082 ($30653) (4.24) 89, 124 (7.51 ) 91 ,286 Traffic Engineer 86,813 107,814 88,344 99,029 87,264 83,676 89,958 93,839 77,699 82,909 77,611 84,315 88,632 ($4,317) (4.87) 89,958 (6.27) 91 ,286 Bldg & Zoning Direct 86,813 84,218 64,305 85, 155 86,436 89,640 89,738 69,401 100,528 86,784 78,351 74,006 88,900 85,656 69,060 88,530 82,599 $5,931 7.18 86,807 1 .98 95,862 City Engineer 96,864 88,392 87,567 108,493 93,552 96,911 89,372 99,849 92,654 91 ,021 98,571 103,428 80,650 95,556 ($14,906) (15.60) 98,073 (17.77) 100,672 NOTE: The Average and 70th %ile may be 120,000 -- skewed based on longevity or based j on the incumbent's years of experience. This is true for incumbents within other 100,000 organizations or Fort Collins. a ■-�- ■'�� Fort Collins Average is not a weighted average /■ Average Actual 80,000 ■ ■ Benchmark ■ Average ■60,000 Actual Annual Dollar Difference: s-•" ^�_ O hm the dollar difference between Fort Collins Average Benchmark■ Beth hm of Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual 40,000 Avg Actual Average Percent Difference: -+F Pay Range the % difference between Fort Collins Average Maximum Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual 20,000 Beth %ile Percent Difference: the % difference between Fort Collins Average 116M Actual and the Benchmark 70th We 0 G,c G,c 4,v `e& e� e° `yv �� `�� o� \�� e� o� el. Blank Cells: ,fie ,Qe Qe Gr a�� 5Q F ee ee �y e� �p ,`ce `fie `ce no match or no data available for that job within the fee o c�c ' a� ypS �e4 Gre cA•c c�.a JQe� ��oe `�� �cA c�� �cA benchmark organization 5J ee . 0 Q \ac oc � `Q .0 `�a ec}� `° °o` �cl acJ coo y�`JG J�e� Data Gathered From: Colorado Municipal League Survey 03-17-06 or follow-up done by Comp & Benefits Manager Prepared'. 042606 Page 5 AVERAGE ACTUAL PAY ANALYSIS OPERATIONS SKILL TRADES TABLE I OCCUPATIONAL GROUP - Page 1 May 9, 2006 v 2: o „ A R m d ° >` o c c e c .c°. m tt d v chi L' o c m u w c°1i m .. �' m ° °i �- u drn E Benchmark v v ° m o Q ° m d c �: c V V ' Q E Q c rn e e E d •- c c c ° A 3 'm 3 d E rn c m o y ,. o m2 A �+ a u 2" �+ d mE d m m rn d t E 9 E „ v_ o U d t m p t a' Q .. rY •- Job Title Z o $ c > o o E w u of c d 4) m u t m x Q Q m e C7 m o o c t m o •c m C A c A c > a c w W o d >. m W J J J 2 H d ° m d J 3 N LL m m N Q O Q G m o Q a 0 1 ?' m ' rn Q Q r Meter Reader 34,342 37,583 34,424 32,667 36,522 42,623 36,170 36,360 ($190) (0.52) 37,053 (2.38) 39,884 S/T Equipment Operator 1 38,496 33,284 39, 190 32,432 39,950 43,241 33,220 34,132 33,566 45,573 40,634 36,471 44,973 31 ,970 37,200 38,305 37,622 $683 1 .82 39,798 (3.75) 43,862 Maintenance Tech - Bldg 35,133 36,000 44,529 40,879 43,680 43,908 38,832 45,048 44,262 359080 41 ,000 38,473 36,491 54,991 40,224 41 ,712 41 ,235 $477 1 .16 43,862 (4.90) 46,254 Water Meter Technician 35,726 32,937 43,139 48,355 49,187 33,301 46,254 40,441 $5,813 14.37 45,747 1 . 11 46,254 Water Util Maint Operator 46,091 37,211 38,876 39,478 32,768 49,130 43, 139 45,573 47,303 34,940 45,188 41 ,451 $3,737 9.02 45,728 (1 . 18) 46,354 Compliance Inspector 44,929 419797 49,754 450706 310175 460765 50,064 469680 40,000 39,691 48,692 47,888 45,032 42,105 44,475 ($2,370) (5.33) 47,214 (10.82) 48,256 S/T Equipment Operator II 47,224 42,350 43,176 42,160 49,130 39,471 43,202 46,061 50,773 479303 499193 43,303 41 ,569 43,930 44,006 44,918 ($912) (2.03) 47,232 (6.83) 48,256 Street Sign Technician 47,224 41 ,817 42,640 33,145 33,946 43,272 40,416 44,387 45,385 40,856 $49529 11 .09 43,209 5.04 48,256 Mechanic 46,681 37,265 39,347 44,695 37,990 51 ,340 48,972 44,780 44,803 48,031 49,754 32,040 45,510 45,382 45,534 43,904 48,739 44,127 $4,612 10.45 469108 5.71 50,882 Traffic Signal Tech11 47,.5 49,733 39,236 46,249 44,040 50,161 58,777 46,342 43,032 45,334 47,282 ($1 ,948) (4. 12) 49,026 (7.53) 53,092 60,000 NOTE: The Average and 70th %ile may be skewed based on longevity or based on the incumbent's years of experience. ■50,000 This is true for incumbents within other ■ ■ ■ ■ organizations or Fort Collins. ■ � Fort Collins Average is not a weighted average Average Actual 40,000 ■ Benchmark Annual Dollar Difference: 30,000 Average Actual the dollar difference between Fort Collins Average Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual 0 Benchmark Average Percent Difference: 20,000 70th %ile of the % difference between Fort Collins Average Avg Actual Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual 70th %Ile Percent Difference: t Pay Range the % difference between Fort Collins Average 10,000 Maximum Actual and the Benchmark 70th %ile Blank Cells: no match or no data available for that job within the 0 Lu benchmark organization Meter Reader SIT Equipment Maintenance Water Meter Water Util Compliance SIT Equipment Street Sign Mechanic Traffic Signal Operator I Tech - Bldg Technician Maint Inspector Operator II Technician Tech 11 Data Gathered From: Operator Colorado Municipal League Survey 03-17-06 or follow-up done by Comp & Benefits Manager Prepared 042606 Page 6 AVERAGE ACTUAI PAY ANALYSIS OPERATIONS SKILL TRADES TABL"- I OCCUPATIONAL GROUP - Page 2 May 9, 2006 70 Q Q m °c a oJ c w 'c to Q u _° u c c� E °o EBenchmark a a ° E E u E d° E EJob Title > ° o mO c : a,0 o 9cJ o Qa a a 6 W Z m > > Q Q Maintenance Specialist 52,319 45,054 51 ,842 49,299 45,648 65,551 56,905 53,312 41 ,725 50,415 55,978 51 ,207 $4,771 9.32 52,617 6.39 55,978 Building Inspector 57,661 41 ,472 49,614 58,399 44,762 55,720 56,712 54, 144 49,150 45,023 61 ,815 54,481 52,574 54,226 55,776 55,978 54,786 53, 153 54,882 53,080 $1 ,802 3.39 55,770 (1 .59) 55,978 Plant Operator 52,651 52,900 47,587 49,733 53,733 50,068 54,038 49,482 53,869 52,560 46,072 48, 137 55,978 50,903 $5,076 9.97 52,825 5.97 55,978 Bldg Maint Supervisor 48,072 57,580 59,625 58,580 61 ,255 62,899 67,440 60,996 61 ,591 61 ,716 52,859 50,772 62,489 54,836 58,913 ($4,077) (6.92) 61 ,641 (11 .04) 64,220 Crew Chief 61 ,259 56,972 61 ,399 61 ,826 52,371 54,498 54,662 61 ,593 63,276 57,900 52,569 52,357 52,965 51 ,312 52,438 61 ,583 56,493 $5,090 9.01 60,587 1 .64 64,220 Shop Supervisor 50,896 59,934 69,564 58,962 56,796 60,379 61 ,716 57,444 61 ,583 59,461 $2, 122 3.57 60,335 2.07 64,220 Superintendent of Golf 63,537 61 ,417 60,577 59,970 55,660 64,013 61 ,583 60,862 $721 1 . 18 62,477 (1 .43) 64,220 Bldg Codes & Inspect Admin 70,041 63,012 71 ,444 72,357 64,800 66,602 61 ,961 67,782 67,174 $608 0.91 70,322 (3.61 ) 70,668 Process Control Superviosr 62,060 1 64,848 1 56,514 1 82,075 1 65,502 1 1 1 63,556 68,544 1 76,880 1 1 1 1 1 62,422 67,782 66,933 $849 1 .27 67,327 0.68 70,668 80,000 - NOTE: The Average and 70th %ile may be skewed based on longevity or based on the incumbent's years of experience. 70,000 ■ ■ This is true for incumbents within other organizations or Fort Collins. ■ ■ Fort Collins Average Actual Average is not a weighted average 60,000 ■ _ ._.. 50,000 Benchmark Average Actual Annual Dollar Difference: the dollar difference between Fort Collins Average 40,000 Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual O Benchmark Average Percent Difference: 30,000 70th %ile of the % difference between Fort Collins Average Avg Actual Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual 70th %ile Percent Difference: 20,000 - -f- Pay Range the % difference between Fort Collins Average Maximum Actual and the Benchmark 70th %ile 10,000 Blank Cells: no match or no data available for that job within the benchmark organization 0 Building Plant Operator Bldg Maint Crew Chief Shop Supervisor Superintendent Bldg Codes & Process Control Data Gathered From: Inspector Supervisor of Golf Inspect Admin Superviosr Colorado Municipal League Survey 03-17-06 or follow-up done by Comp & Benefits Manager Prepared: 042606 Page 7 AVERAGE ACTUAL PAY ANAI YSIS .)PERATIONS SKILL TRADES TABLE II (ELECTRIL) OCCUPATIONAL GROUP May 9, 2006 L 0¢Nm N d 0 ° O U N° � oU m `onO ¢C yY Oc N o o o U m - c ° Oc> , ir E¢ E ¢ EBenchmark E c Q E o m Eo O O Job Title > o E xp >¢ m o J o 9 o a o m O a oa2J ° U w z � > > °Electric Meter Tech 55,448 54,558 65,894 43,032 5,11740 54,733 ($2,993) (5.47) 56,493 (8.41 ) 51 ,740 Electric LineWorker 64, 166 59,333 62,566 58,065 62,022 ($3,957) (6.38) 63,206 (8. 13) 62,582 Substation Specialist 61 , 118 61 ,356 66,706 62,582 63,060 ($478) (0.76) 63,496 (1 .44) 62,582 Line Crew Chief 67,392 65,784 68,910 68,848 67,362 $1 ,486 2.21 67,999 1 .25 68,848 7 ij ) NOTE: The Average and 70th %ile may be 80,000 skewed based on longevity or based on the incumbent's years of experience. This is true for incumbents within other 70,000 organizations or Fort Collins. Fort Collins Average is not a weighted average I 60,000 J Average Actual 50,000 Benchmark - Average Actual Annual Dollar Difference: 40,000 _ the dollar difference between Fort Collins Average 0 Benchmark Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual 70th %ile of 30,000 Avg Actual Average Percent Difference: the % difference between Fort Collins Average - - Pay Range Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual 20,000 Maximum 70th %ile Percent Difference: the % difference between Fort Collins Average Actual and the Benchmark 70th %ile 10,000 Blank Cells: no match or no data available for that job within the 0I LA I benchmark organization Electric Meter Tech Electric LineWorker Substation Specialist Line Crew Chief Data Gathered From: Colorado Municipal League Survey 03-17-06 or follow-up done by Comp & Benefits Manager Prepared: 042606 Page 8 AVERAGE ACTUAL PAY ANALYSIS POLICE SERVICES OCCUPATIONAL GROUP May 9, 2006 o -ii QN Q o c «U dd ci o •_ c d M O O O O M Ucd mdc E O NdJ Benchmark Q ; E o E -m M E • o u mE4) c Job Title a o pp ° O o aw z Q 2 y Q Q Property & Evidence Tech 45,915 36,228 43,372 43,534 35,311 39,939 43,662 44,327 42,200 40,522 43, 108 46,675 39,826 31 , 117 44,570 41 ,124 $3,446 8.38 43,547 2.35 46,5 Victim Services Coordi 92nator 48,298 46,800 51 ,932 56,356 37,492 55,224 55,608 58,777 54,662 59,051 52,839 44,845 51 ,250 51 ,824 ($574) (1 . 11 ) 55,493 (7.65) 53,560 Criminalist 62,921 47,763 50,232 61 ,593 55,292 59,384 61 ,797 63,307 56,424 61 ,337 54,552 58,005 ($3,453) (5.95) 61 ,654 (11 .52) 56,316 Crime Analyst 56,203 38,531 67,318 50,835 53,019 60,348 41 ,208 58,023 61 ,716 53,303 56,347 54,050 $2,297 4.25 58,721 (4.04) 58,890 Police Records Supervisor 51 , 135 48,918 53,497 43,680 59, 124 59,472 59,472 48,027 50,843 59,701 52,892 60,445 46,478 1 48,095 56,347 52,984 $3$ 63 6.35 59, 159 (4.75) 58,890 Police Captain 102,921 95,430 106,287 92,218 101 ,688 102,236 100,747 112,689 105,554 100,290 103,870 98,779 100,608 102,879 1 92,976 101 ,704 101 ,278 $426 0.42 102,913 (1 . 17) 101 ,704 NOTE: The Average and 70th %ile may be 120,000 skewed based on longevity or based on the incumbent's years of experience. This is true for incumbents within other 100,000 PmNM Fort Collins organizations or Fort Collins. Average Actual Average is not a weighted average 80,000 Benchmark Average Actual Annual Dollar Difference: 60,000 ■ - .y.-. the dollar difference between Fort Collins Average ■ T' Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual ■ O Benchmark 40,000 70th %ile of Average Percent Difference: Avg Actual the % difference between Fort Collins Average Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual Pay 70th %ile Percent Difference: 20,000 + Max mume the % difference between Fort Collins Average Actual and the Benchmark 70th %ile 0 _. - ___ ._. Blank Cells: �, Property & Evidence Victim Services Criminalist Crime Analyst Police Records Police Captain no match or no data available for that job within the Tech Coordinator Supervisor benchmark organization Data Gathered From: Colorado Municipal League Survey 03-17-06 or follow-up done by Comp & Benefits Manager Prepared: 042606 Page 9 AVERAGE ".,3TUAL PAY ANALYSIS Aft .-ahnrent 1 D COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OCCUPATIONAL GROUP May 9, 2006 Z °Qmm m y _ N° Q w° _ ° > ° t- 0c oc 'E ° ° c m Benchmark E EQ 3 E w ` m E°Job Title > o A m >a w tc Q m o am > p Q a. 0 aW Z im Q Q j - Emergency Srvcs Dispatcher 47,376 42,245 47,025 41 , 129 38,030 40,650 44,889 40,508 46,535 43,200 42,786 45,243 45,336 37,265 48, 196 43,016 $5,181 12.04 45,252 6.51 50,518 Emergency Dispatch Sprvsr 56,037 54,834 60,096 58,742 51 ,611 61 ,325 64,584 52,932 60,912 55,917 61 ,990 54,038 52,935 65,407 57,381 $8,026 13.99 60,422 8.25 65,407 Police Officer 58,020 59,278 55,887 56,731 59,246 62,842 58,417 58,790 56,842 53, 156 57,056 57,650 56, 127 57, 140 58,656 56,772 62,427 57,663 $4,764 8.26 58,537 6.65 64,099 Police Sergeant 76,836 75,447 75,715 71 ,304 78,780 75,263 75,144 76,649 71 ,529 72,856 73,368 76,353 76,605 74,752 78,598 68,844 81 ,100 74,878 $6,222 8.31 76,479 6.04 81 ,100 Police Lieutenant 92,801 85,232 93,907 89,638 91 ,244 87,552 95,854 95,472 91 ,702 91 ,029 81 ,244 92,496 90,516 $1 ,980 2. 19 92,801 (0.33) 92,496 NOTE: The Average and 70th %ile may be 100,000 - skewed based on longevity or based on the incumbent's years of experience. 90,000 This is true for incumbents within other organizations or Fort Collins. 80,000 - Fort Collins Average is not a weighted average Average Actual 70,000 Benchmark 60,000 Average Actual 50,000 r Annual Dollar Difference: the dollar difference between Fort Collins Average l� Benchmark Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual 40,000 70th %ile of Avg Actual Average Percent Difference: 30,000 the % difference between Fort Collins Average --W- Pay Range Actual and the Benchmark Average Actual Maximum 20,000 70th %ile Percent Difference: the % difference between Fort Collins Average 10,000 Actual and the Benchmark 70th %ile 0 _. Blank Cells: no match or no data available for that job within the Emergency Srvcs Emergency Dispatch Police Officer Police Sergeant Police Lieutenant benchmark organization Dispatcher Sprvsr Data Gathered From: Colorado Municipal League Survey 03-17-06 or follow-up done by Comp & Benefits Manager Prepared: 042606 Page 10 Attachment 1 E Pension Plans EMPLOYER Contributions Only May 9, 2006 Money Purchase Plan 401 Deferred Compensation 457) OTHER Total Contribution All Plans - Class Unclass Unclass CBU CBU Class Class Unclass Unclass CBU CBU Classified ified Mgmt Mgmt Service or Class Unclass Service or ified ified Mgmt Mgmt Service or OTHER Class Unclass Service or ORGANIZATION Non-GERP GERP Non-GERP GERP Directors Sworn ified Mgmt Directors Sworn Non-GERP GERP Non-GERP GERP Directors Sworn Descri . ified Mgmt Directors Sworn Fort Collins 7.5% 3% 7.5% 3% 10% 8% 0-3% 0-3% 4 .5% 4.5% GERP 7.5% 7.5% 10-13% 11 % Arvada 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% GERP (DB Aurora 10% 10% 10% 5.5% Plan) 5.5% 10% 10% 9.6-10% Boulder 9.6-13.8% 10.5% 10.5% 10.2% PERA 10.5% 10.5% 10.2% 13.8% Boulder Cty 10.5% 10.5% 10.5% 10.5% PERA 10.5% 10.5% 10.5% 10.5% Broomfield 6% 6% 6% 6-10% 6% 6% 6% 6-10% Englewood 3% 3% 6% 9% 3% 3% 6% 9% Greeley 5% 5% 5% 10% 1% 1 % 1 % 401K 6% 6% 6% 10% Jefferson Cty 6-8% 6-8% 6-8% 6-8% 24% 24% 24% 2-4% 8-12% 8-12% 8-12% 8-12% Lakewood 10% 10% 10% 10% varies 10% 10% 10% 10% Larimer Cty 3-7.75% 3-7.75% 3-7.75% 3-7.75% 3-7.75% 3-7.75% 3-7.75% 3-7.75% Littleton 4% 4% 4% 10% 4% 4% 4% 10% Longmont 5% 5% 5% 8% $1300/yr` 5% 5% 5% DB Plan 10% 10% 10% 8% Loveland 5% 5% 5% 11 % 5% 5% 5% 11 % Northglenn 8-10% 8-10% 8-10% 8-10% 8-10% 8-10% 8-10% 8-10% RHS- Thornton 5% 5% 5% 9% 0-2% 0-2% 0-2% 0-2J6 $312' $312` $312' $312' Varies Yrly 5-7% 5-7% 5-7% 5-7% Weld County 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% DB Plan 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% Westminster 10.25% 10.25% 10.25% 10.25% 10.25% 10.25% 10.25% 10.25% State of Colo 10.65% 10.65% 10.65% 13.35% PERA 10.65% 10.65% 10.65% 13.35% Benchmark Average 7-7.8% 8-8.1% DEFINITIONS: GERP General EmployeeS Reitrement Plan PERA Public Employer Retirement Association DB Defined Benefit RHS Retiree Health Savings NOTES: Fort Collins 457 Plan - employee must contribution in order to receive match Boulder CBU or Sworn OTHER Plan - nonswom employees receive 9.6%, swom employees receive 13.8% Broomfield CBU or Sworn 401 Plan - nonswom employees receive 6%, sworn employees receive 10% Jefferson Cty 401 and 457 Plan - Employer matches 100% of employee contribution Larimer Cty 401 Plan - contribution based on years of service Northglenn 401 Plan - contribution based on years of service Thornton 457 Plan - employee must contribution in order to receive match Social Security: Social Security may be in addition to the employer pension plan contributions - not all employers participate in SS Dollar amounts are not included in total contribution calculations Prepared: 042606 Data Gathered: 041006 LIBRARY DISTRICT Option 2: Implement Library District Option 2A Option 2B Applies to: All taxable property in the All taxable property in District the District Annual Yield to $4 million $2.3 million General Fund Tax/Fee Amount 3 mills 1.17 mills Approval Voter Approval required Voter Approval required Annual Cost to Average $ 60 per year $34.50 per year Household Annual Cost to Average $522 per year $204 per year Business (County Average= $600,000 How does it Work? • A Library District is a political subdivision of the state governed by a Board of Trustees that operates libraries within a region and is supported by property taxes. A Library District which includes unincorporated areas of the County may be established by legislative action of the City and County together or by a petition (signed by 100 or more voters) submitted to County Commissioners and passed by the voters. Taxes for a District require approval of a majority of voters residing within its boundaries at a November election. The boundaries of the District could be the same as the Poudre School District boundaries and Fort Collins urban management areas in the south. This would include approximately 200,000 residents or 56,000 households. Option 2A The cost to provide the current level of services, reinstate services that have been cut and to operate a new Southeast Branch would be about $5,850,000. A mill rate of 3 mills could be sought from voters in the District. This amount would yield approximately $6 million per year from the entire district. $4 million of current General Fund resources used to support the Library could thus become available for other uses. However, about $400,000 of this amount is the value of support services paid by the General Fund, not dollars for other uses. The Library District would yield • enough revenue to cover current operating expenses plus additional City of Fort Collins Financial Stability Work Session, May 9,2006 Page 2- 1 • revenue that would be used to improve services and provide for the operation of a future Southeast Branch Library. Option 2B Council could also consider asking voters to create a Library District, but limit property tax revenue to the amount needed to free up the $2.3 million needed to balance the budget. The projected General Fund contribution to library services in 2007 is $4 million. Assuming the District provides the same level of service as the City is providing today (recent cuts in service are not restored and the new Southeast Branch is not funded) and assuming the City continues to provide support services to the district (financial, FIR, legal, building maintenance, insurance etc.) voters would be asked to fund the district at a level of 1.17 mills or $34.50 annually on the average home. The 1.17 mills generate approximately $2.3 million. Under this model, the City General Fund would continue to provide funding for library services, in the amount of$1, 700,000. This partial library district funding model is not recommended. Although it reduces the amount of requested property tax revenue, the amount requested is directly tied to resolving the 2007 budget shortfall, with no improvement in library service. It is unlikely voters will approve formation of a library district and a $2.3 million property tax with no improvement in library services. This partial model also creates a library district that is heavily dependant on City • General Fund support, which is subject to reduction if the City continues to experience revenue shortfalls. The partial model also removes governance from the City and places it with the district board of trustees. This change in governance, coupled with significant financial dependence on the City, could greatly hinder the board's effectiveness and create unnecessary conflict. Who pays? Property owners (residential and commercial) throughout the District would see increased property taxes. Allocating the cost of library services to residents both inside and outside the City limits would more accurately apportion costs to the actual users of Library services. About 15% of Fort Collins Public Library cardholders live outside of Fort Collins but use City libraries without cost. The cost of property taxes is illustrated in Attachment 2A. CITZEN SURVEY City Staff is currently conducting a statistically valid citizen survey regarding the creation of a Library District. The purpose of the survey is to determine whether sufficient community support exists to approve funding for a library district if it were placed on the November 2006 ballot. The results will also provide valuable information regarding the desires of the community for library services, should a District be established. The survey will also evaluate the level of property taxes that voters might be willing to support for these library services. (See Attachment • 2B) City of Fort Collins Financial Stability Work Session, May 9, 2006 Page 2- 2 • The survey is being conducted during the week of May 1, and staff anticipates preliminary results will be available for City Council review on approximately May 8. Staff will email the results to individual Council Members as soon as possible and copies will be included in Council's "Read Before" packet at the May 9 Work Session. History of Revenue Source in Fort Collins Fort Collins has not previously used a Library District for funding Library Services. Election Process: State Library law governs the establishment of a Library District, and the election that would be conducted to seek voter approval would be governed by regulations set out by the State of Colorado. Key provisions about the process include the following: Placing a District on the Ballot a. A Library District may be created by ordinance or resolution of the County(because the proposed district is larger than the City limits) alternately b. A Library District may be established by petition of 100 registered electors. The petition must be delivered to the County Commissioners at least 90 days before the election date. • Election Date: Library District elections must be held at the November election • in an odd numbered year, or on a November General Election ballot. • Election costs: How the cost of the election is paid somewhat complicated for Library District elections because of these State law requirements: a. If the election passes and the district is formed, the new district pays the cost of the election. b. If the election fails and the formation was by ordinance or resolution, the city or county pays. c. If the election fails and the formation was by petition, a bond filed with the city or county by the petitioners pays for the election. The city or county can waive the bond requirement and pay for the election, or if the petition was signed by at least 5% of the total votes cast for Secretary of State, the board of county commissioners must pay no less than 50% of the cost of the election. Library District Governance: Appointment and Removal of Governing Board The governing body of a library district is the Library Board of Trustees. The process of choosing the first Board is prescribed by C.R.S. § 24-90-108 (2)(c) as follows: Two representatives from each governmental unit participating in the formation of the library district make up the nominating committee to select the first 5— 7 Board members. • Trustees must be residents of the district. • • Candidates are ratified within 60 days by a two-thirds majority of the participating bodies, in this case the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session, May 9, 2006 Page 2- 3 • • Failure of a legislative body to act on the nomination constitutes approval for all Board appointments. Subsequent Board members may be selected in the same manner as the initial Board of Trustees or the existing Board can recommend its own replacement trustees. In either case, the legislative bodies must approve of the new trustees within 60 days. • Initial members are appointed for terms of I — 5 years. Subsequent terms are determined by the district's bylaws. • A Trustee may be removed only by a majority vote of the legislative bodies, and only upon a showing of good cause as defined in the District's bylaws. Grounds might include: o Gross neglect of duties; o Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; o Violation of a statute or ordinance that could result in substantial damage to the District; o Failure to attend three consecutive meetings without justification. In summary, the opportunity for the legislative bodies, i.e., the City Council and the County Commissioners, to exercise direct governance control over the Board is found in the ability to appoint trustees through the process described above. Though the terms of the initial trustees are prescribed by statute,the subsequent terms of the trustees are set by the district's bylaws. • Shorter rather than longer terms for the Trustees could be created.' • Legislative bodies could allow the Board to recommend its own replacement trustees. • • Terms of the trustees could be longer, e.g., five years, rather than shorter. Again, the legislative bodies' direct input would be to approve or reject the recommended trustees. Although direct influence over the Board is limited, the Board's obligation to be responsive to both the legislative bodies and the public can also be found in the ways described below. Bylaws The bylaws of the Board are adopted by the Board after the District is formed. C.R.S. § 24-90- 109 (1). In addition to specifying the causes for which trustees may be removed, the bylaws also provide the number of terms trustees may serve and the length of those terms. Accountability Trustees selected by the Council and Commissioners are citizens who want to have a strong and effective library. Ideally, these volunteers are selected for their civic interest and desire to serve. Nearly three million people in Colorado depend on public libraries successfully administered by appointed boards. Public participation is enhanced because Library District budgets and controlling documents are adopted in public meetings, with public input, focusing specifically on library needs. Voters decide how well the library is serving their needs. Constituents of the district vote to tax themselves for more services or not. Successful growth of services is only possible with a high approval rate of satisfied customers. If the library and its board are not performing satisfactorily, • ' Obviously, short terms for trustees could have other,adverse effects such as a lack of continuity for Board policy and lack of"institutional memory." City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session,May 9,2006 Page 2-4 • citizens have a say through their votes. Eight of the eleven library funding questions placed before voters in 2005 were approved. Ongoing Ties • City oversight and involvement can continue through other means as well. • Contracting for support services is a logical way to transition to a district while maintaining ties with the City. Districts have done this through contracts for personnel services (HR), budgeting, purchasing and accounting, facilities maintenance and IT services. • Communication channels can be kept open by appointing a liaison. A representative from the District Board could be designated to attend Council meetings to address District topics and a Councilperson could attend Board meetings to keep current on the latest proposals and ideas being considered. • All Board meetings would be open to the public. • Written minutes will be available for public and Council to maintain oversight of Library District affairs. Pros: Cons: • Allocates costs to residents throughout the • City governance of the District is limited to district,including County residents who do approval of District Trustees. not fully contribute to Library services • • Diversifies the City tax base and reduces the • Voter approval required dependence on sales and use taxes • Provides stable,dedicated funding for • Must cover support services(maintenance, current library services and restores library insurance,Human Resources, legal,financial) services that have been lost due to budget although City could offer to continue to provide shortfalls. these services without charge. • Could result in freeing up General Fund • Businesses pay a portion of the tax that is resources greater than the$2.6 million in higher than the share paid by residential 2007,therefore making funds available to properties because of the impact of the either enhance or restore services(police, Gallagher Amendment on apportioning the fire,or other) property tax burden. • Can provide funding for additional facilities • Other levels of government may also want to such as a Southeast branch. impose a property tax,thus"crowding the field" • Property tax provides more stable funding • Staff does not recommend Option 2B because it during economic downturns and maintains a would not provide any additional or restored higher level of service than sales tax services to the community. Without enhancing revenues offer. services,voters would have little reason to approve the change in governance or increase in property taxes. • All who benefit pay the cost to construct and operate the libraries. • I Contractual services are subject to budgetary considerations for Library District operations. City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session, May 9,2006 Page 2- 5 • Attachment 2 A WHAT DOES A CITY PROPERTY OWNER PAY? 2006 Property Tax Based on 2005 Assessment MILL LEVY CITY COUNTY' SCHOOL DISTRICT' OTHER TOTAL 9.797 22.683 50.715 3.167 86.362 • 11.3% 26.3% 58.7% 3.7% To illustrate the City property tax portion payable in 2006 by an individual owning a home valued at $200,000 and a business owning property valued at $600,000: Based on current Colorado statutes, residential property is assessed at 7.96% of its actual value and commercial and industrial property is assessed at 29%. ACTUAL VALUE ASSESSED VALUE $ 200,000 X .0796 = $ 15,920 $ 600,000 X .2900 = $ 174,000 The 2006 City mill levy is 9.797 mills based on the 2005 assessed value of property (a mill equals one dollar for every thousand dollars of assessed valuation). ASSESSED VALUE MILL LEVY CITY PROPERTY TAX $ 15,920 X .009797 = $ 155.97 $ 174,000 X .009797 = $1,704.68 • City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session,May 9, 2006 Page 2-6 • City of Fort Collins Community Opinion Survey Attachment 2B May, 2006 STA # Hello my name is [NAME OF INTERVIEWER]. I am calling on behalf of the City of Fort Collins. May I please speak with ? We're conducting a public opinion survey this evening about local public library issues. The survey takes 10 minutes to complete and includes answering questions and obtaining your opinion on local issues. Your number was chosen at random. Most people find it interesting. Is this a convenient time? Let me begin by asking: Q1 a. Generally speaking, do you think things in the City of Fort Collins are going in the right direction or do you feel things are off on the wrong track? Right Direction .................................................. 1 Wrong Track ..................................................... 2 • Don't Know/ No Answer/ Refused [DON'T READ] 3 Q1 b. Generally speaking, do you think things in the State of Colorado are going in the right direction or do you feel things are off on the wrong track? Right Direction .................................................. 1 WrongTrack ..................................................... 2 Don't Know/ No Answer/ Refused [DON'T READ] 3 Q2. The following statements represent a range of possible viewpoints about the Fort Collins Public Library. As I read each statement, please tell me if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree or have no opinion. Strongly Smwhl Smwhl Strongly No DIVNA Agree Agree Disagree Disagree opinion Ref a. The library uses our tax dollars wisely and deserves more funding.............1 ........2 ....... 3........4........5 ....... 6 b. The library is doing just fine the way it is1 ..2 ....... 3........4........5 ....... 6 c. The library should cut back on services, hours of operation, and new books .1 ........2 ....... 3........4........5 ....... 6 Q3. Currently, the City of Fort Collins has money available through developer fees to • construct a new Southeast Branch Library. However, the City does not have funds to operate the library. The City Council and County are considering asking voters to City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session, May 9, 2006 Page 2- 7 • approve a proposal which would increase property taxes to establish a library district to operate the existing libraries, a new Southeast Branch Library and to restore library services cut during the past 3 years. If an election were held today, would you vote yes in support or no to oppose the establishment of a library district? Is that definitely or probably? Definitely Yes.................................................. 1 Probably Yes .................................................. 2 ProbablyNo.................................................... 3 Definitely No ................................................... 4 Don't Know/No Answer/Refused [DON'T READ] 5 Q4. Would you be willing to increase your property taxes by $60 per year to operate existing libraries and a new Southeast Branch Library, restore hours of service, staffing and community book drops? Is that definitely or probably? Definitely Yes.................................................. 1 ProbablyYes .................................................. 2 ProbablyNo.................................................... 3 Definitely No ................................................... 4 • Don't Know/No Answer/Refused [DON'T READ] 5 Q5. Would you be willing to increase your property taxes by $ 75 per year to operate existing libraries and a new Southeast Branch Library, restore hours of service, staffing, community book drops AND upgrade and expand the main library? Is that definitely or probably? Definitely Yes.................................................. 1 ProbablyYes .................................................. 2 ProbablyNo.................................................... 3 Definitely No ................................................... 4 Don't Know/No Answer/Refused [DON'T READ] 5 • City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session,May 9,2006 Page 2- 8 Q6. Now I would like to read you some statements that may be made by • people who support a measure to establish a library district. If you heard each statement and believed it to be true, please tell me whether it would make you much more likely to favor, somewhat more likely to favor, somewhat less likely to favor, much less likely to favor a library district proposal or whether it makes no difference to you one way or another? [ROTATE QUESTIONS] Much More Smwht More Smwht Less Much Less No DK/NA/ Likely Likely Likely Likely Diff Ref a. A new branch library in Southeast Fort Collins would be constructed in the next 2-3 years............................... I......... 2......... 3.........4......... 5......... 6 b. The library district would include residents living outside the city limits who can now use the libraries without charge ................... 1 ........2 ....... 3........4........5 ....... 6 Much More Smwht More Smwht Less Much Less No DK/NA/ Likely Likely Likely Likely Diff Ref c. The City has reduced its budget by 11 million dollars in the past three years. Without a • property tax increase, further cuts to library hours and services are likely as the City preserves critical fire and police services...........................................1 ........2 ....... 3........4........5 ....... 6 d. Local library usage 9 has increased 34% since 2000. ..... 1 ........2 ....... 3........4........5 ....... 6 e. Current and popular materials would be purchased to decrease wait time ....1 ........2 ....... 3........4........5 ....... 6 f. The existing library would be expanded to allow additional space for more books and seating areas............................1 ........2 ....... 3........4........5 ....... 6 g. Book drops would be installed throughout the City and outlying county areas ..1 ........2 ....... 3........4........5 ....... 6 h. Residents checked out over 2 million items from the local library last year ........ 1 ........2 ....... 3........4........5 ....... 6 I. A library district would provide additional programs and services for residents of allages............................................1 ........2 ....... 3........4........5 ....... 6 • City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session, May 9,2006 Page 2- 9 • QT Now I would like to read you some statements that might be made by people who oppose a proposal to establish a library district. if you heard each statement please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with each statement or whether it makes no difference to you. Strongly Smwht Smwht Strongly No DK/NA/ Agree Agree Disagree Disagree DiH Rat a. Taxes are already high enough and shouldn't be increased to fund library services...........................................1 ........2 ....... 3........4........5 ....... 6 b. Property taxes aren't a good way to fund library services ................................1 ........2 ....... 3........4........5 ....... 6 c. The City has not proven to voters that it is lean and efficient in the way it spends our tax dollars.................................. 1 ........2 ....... 3........4........5 ....... 6 d. A library Board of Trustees would not be Elected, but rather appointed by theCounty.......................................1 ........2 ....... 3........4........5 ....... 6 Q8. Now that you have heard more about the proposal which would increase property taxes to establish a library district to operate the existing libraries, a new Southeast Branch Library and to restore library services cut during the past 3 years, if an election were held today, would you vote yes in support or no to oppose the establishment of a • library district? Is that definitely or probably? Definitely Yes.................................................. 1 ProbablyYes .................................................. 2 ProbablyNo.................................................... 3 Definitely No ................................................... 4 Don't Know/No Answer/Refused [DON'T READ] 5 Q9. Would you be willing to increase your property taxes by $60 per year to operate existing libraries and a new Southeast Branch Library, restore hours of service, staffing and community book drops? Is that definitely or probably? Definitely Yes................... .............................. 1 ProbablyYes .................................................. 2 ProbablyNo.................................................... 3 Definitely No ................................................... 4 Don't Know/No Answer/Refused [DON'T READ] 5 • City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session,May 9, 2006 Page 2- 10 • 010. Would you be willing to increase your property taxes by $ 75 per year to operate existing libraries and a new Southeast Branch Library, restore hours of service, staffing, community book drops AND upgrade and expand the main library? Is that definitely or probably? Definitely Yes.................................................. 1 ProbablyYes .................................................. 2 ProbablyNo.................................................... 3 Definitely No ................................................... 4 Don't Know/No Answer/Refused [DON'T READ] 5 1 would now like to ask you about a related community issue. Q11. Larimer County is considering asking voters to approve a law enforcement proposal which would increase property tax by $100 per year on the average home, plus an increase of 20 cents per $100 dollars of purchases in the sales tax. The funds would be used to expand the county jail and operate the community corrections program. If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor or no to oppose the law enforcement proposal? Is that definitely, or probably? • Definitely Yes............................................. 1 Probably Yes............................................. 2 Probably No............................................... 3 Definitely No.............................................. 4 Don't Know/No Answer/Refused [DON'T READ] 5 012. 1 am going to read you four statements regarding the library district proposal and Larimer County law enforcement proposal. After I read the four statements, please tell me which statement comes closest to your personal point of view. [PROMPT AS NECESSARY] a. I would support both a proposal to fund library services and operate the county jail and correction program. ................1 b. I would ONLY support a proposal to fund library services..........2 c. I would ONLY support a proposal to construct and operate the county jail and corrections program. ...................................3 d. I would not support either project ...............................................4 Don't Know/No Answer/Refused [DON'T READ]............................5 • City of Fort Collins Financial Stability Work Session,May 9,2006 Page 2- 11 • Now a few background questions. Q13. At this time next year, do you expect your family will be financially better off than it is now o it be worse off? Betteroff......................................................... 1 Worseoff ........................................................ 2 Refused [DON'T READ]................................. 3 Q14. Do you or someone in your family possess a library card? Yes.................................................................. 1 No................................................................... 2 Don't Know ..................................................... 3 Refused [DON'T READ]................................. 4 Q15. How many school-age children under 19 years old do you currently have living at home? One................................................................. 1 Two................................................................. 2 Threeor more................................................. 3 • None............................................................... 4 Refused [DON'T READ]................................. 5 Q16. Please stop me when I've read a category that best describes your present age: 18 - 24............................................................. 1 25 - 34............................................................. 2 35 - 44............................................................. 3 45 - 54............................................................. 4 55 -64.............................................................. 5 65 and over..................................................... 6 Refused [DON'T READ] ............................... 7 Q17. Do you own or rent your home? Own ................................................................ 1 Rent................................................................ 2 Refused [DON'T READ] ............................... 3 Q18. How long have you lived in the Fort Collins area? • Less than 5 years............................................ 1 5 - 10 years..................................................... 2 City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session,May 9, 2006 Page 2- 12 • 10 - 20 years................................................... 3 More than 20 years......................................... 4 Lifetime ........................................................... 5 Refused [DON'T READ] ............................... 6 Thank you for participating in our survey. Good afternoon / Evening / Night. [FROM FILE] Gender Male................................................................ 1 Female............................................................ 2 Party Republican...................................................... 1 Democrat........................................................ 2 Independent / Other........................................ 3 Council District District1 .......................................................... 1 District2.......................................................... 1 • District 3.......................................................... 1 District4.......................................................... 1 District5.......................................................... 1 District6.......................................................... 1 Precinct City: City of Fort Collins........................................... 1 Unincorporated Larimer County...................... 2 Vote History [USE THE LAST FOUR NOVEMBER ELECTIONS] 1 or2of4........................................................ 1 3 of 4............................................................... 2 4 of 4............................................................... 3 • City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session, May 9,2006 Page 2- 13 TRANSPORTATION MAINTENANCE FEE • Option 3: Transportation Maintenance Fee i Option 3A Option 3B Applies to: All residential and All residential and commercial properties, commercial properties, based on trip generation based on trip generation data data Annual Yield to General $2.42 million $1.21 Million Fund Annual Administrative $120,000 $120,000 Costs Tax/Fee Amount $1.32 per month, per $0.66 per month, per residential unit residential unit Non-residential fee by Non-residential fee by category (see table below) category (see table below) Approval Council approval required Council approval required • Annual Cost to Average $15.84 per year $7.92 per year Household Annual Cost to Average See Table below See Table below Business How does it Work? The proposed Transportation Maintenance Fee (TMF) would be a charge on City utility bills for maintaining City streets, bike lanes, medians (excluding landscaping), and city maintained sidewalks. Maintenance includes such work as keeping pavement surfaces in good condition, performing seal coats as needed, repairing potholes and cracks, repaving and other work to keep our transportation system safe. This work is done to maintain the community's investment in transportation infrastructure. The revenue from the fee could not be used for anything except street maintenance. Other city resources provide the majority of funds for this program. Other funding sources include revenue from the Street Maintenance quarter-cent sales tax approved by voters in 2005, and General Fund on-going funding. Each residential unit would be charged a flat dollar amount ($0.66- $1.32 per month) for the fee. Commercial, industrial and institutional properties are assessed a fee based on trip generation data—land uses which generate more trips are charged a higher fee than those which generate fewer trips on the transportation system. This "nexus" or direct relationship between the fee and the amount that a user utilizes the service is a key aspect • of developing the fee. City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session,May 9,2006 Page 3- 1 • Staff has developed two alternative calculations for the Transportation Maintenance Fee for Council's review. Option 3A This option fully implements the proposal which was preliminarily accepted as a part of the 2006-2007 BFO process. The adoption of a Transportation Maintenance Fee in the amount of $2.3 million plus implementation costs was assumed in the 2007 Budget adopted by Council in 2005. The full $2.3 million in revenue would be received if $1.32 fee per residential unit (non-residential varies by use) were implemented in January 2007. This fee is calculated based on the assumptions that the City of Loveland used in developing its Street Maintenance Fee. Option 3B This option maintains the same relationship or nexus of trip costs, but yield only one-half of the revenue assumed in the 2007 BFO offer. This option would yield approximately $1.2 million, after administrative costs are covered. Who pays? • The basis of this fee is to charge users of the City's transportation system for its maintenance. By charging a fee for the cost of maintenance, a portion of the system would be funded by the parties most frequently using the streets and most directly benefiting from its maintenance. The fee would be based on the actual cost of maintaining the system, including City streets, bike lanes, medians (excluding landscaping), and city maintained sidewalks. The fee would be allocated to different users based on the average number of trips each type of user takes in a day. This results in a fee structure in which users pay in rough proportion to the extent they use the system. For example,users who add 10 trips per day to the transportation system pay a fee much lower than those user types (i.e. high traffic businesses) that average 300 trips per day. This trip generation theory is similar to the method used to calculate street oversizing fees, and has also been recognized by courts as a fair and legally appropriate way of apportioning costs. Proposed Fee Structure: Staff has developed a proposed fee structure which would allocate 36% of the fee to residential properties and 64% to non-residential uses. By using the same fee methodology as was adopted by the City of Loveland, the TMF in Fort Collins would equal $1.32 per residential unit and would generate $2.42 million per year for Transportation Maintenance. Fees for each use category would be as follows: • City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session,May 9, 2006 Page 3-2 • Parcel Use Category Monthly Transportation Maintenance Fee Residential $1.32 perunit Commercial $20.52 per acre High-Traffic Retail $156.19 per acre Retail $64.47 per acre Industrial $16.34 peracre Institutional $20.52 per acre Proposed Transportation Maintenance Fee Parcel Use Category Definitions Residential: Any single family,two family,or multi-family dwelling premises.Includes single family detached housing units,townhouses/patio homes and condominium units,mobile home trailers and multifamily units,including apartments and duplexes. Commercial:Any premises not devoted to Residential,Retail,High-Traffic Retail,Industrial or Institutional purposes. High-Traffic Retail:Any retail establishment which has automobile volumes greater than 1,000 trips per day/per acre.These retail purposes often have gas pumps or drive-through windows(but are not a necessary criteria). • Retail: (as opposed to High-Traffic Retail)Any establishment engaged in the sale or rental of goods or services related to the sale or rental of goods to the public. Industrial: Any business devoted primarily to manufacturing,processing or assembly or storage of tangible personal property,research facilities,experimental or testing laboratories,warehouses, distribution or wholesale uses,utility service facilities,aircraft hangars and repair facilities for aircraft, and caretaker's quarters and other accessory buildings reasonably required for maintenance or security of the uses set out in this section. (City of Loveland definition)Includes all manufacturing,construction contracting,transportation,utilities,wholesaling,warehousing and mineral extraction uses. Institutional:Any unit devoted primarily to schools,hospitals,churches,libraries, and similar public and quasi-public uses.Includes churches,cemeteries,hospitals,and other charitable,civic or religious uses. Trip generation data serves as the basis for developing the proposed fee structure. Truck trips and other vehicle trips are estimated for each land use based on generally accepted trip generation data provided by Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manuals. The general formula for allocating costs by traffic data includes the following data: • City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session,May 9,2006 Page 3- 3 • For Each category: Average Daily Trips D.U. Total Daily 365 Total Per D.U. or x or Acres = Trips x days = Annual Acre by Category Trips Target Annual Trips per Cost Per Total Annual Annual Revenue — Year = Trip x Trips per D.U. = Fee or Acre D.U. = Dwelling Unit Acres =Parcel acreage for each non-residential utility billing customer This method of fee calculation closely ties the number of trips generated by a type of business with the cost of maintaining roads. Imbedded in this calculation is the assumption that some types of businesses generate greater volumes of truck traffic (which cause more significant road damage) and that some businesses generate greater volumes of other vehicle traffic such as passenger vehicle passing through fast-food restaurants. High volumes or high truck traffic lead to greater costs per acre of development thus resulting in higher fees in some categories such as "High Traffic Retail" and "Industrial." • In addition to allocating costs to non-residential uses, the proposed fee structure acknowledges that a share of the fees should be allocated to businesses which attract traffic from residents outside the City. These trips cannot be allocated to Fort Collins residential uses, and should be attributed to the businesses or institutions which generate the traffic. The effect of this assumption is to allocate the cost of maintenance 36% to residential and 64%to non-residential uses. The Pavement Management Program is funded through a variety of sources. In 2007, if the TMF were approved, 61% of the program would be funded through the Building on Basics Pavement Management Sales Tax (one-quarter cent), 24% through TMF revenue, and 15% by other sources such as the General Fund and Fort Collins' share of State and County transportation taxes. Though the TMF portion of the program is allocated 64%to business uses, the funding of the entire program is more heavily weighted to the individual residential tax or fee payer. Some examples of the impact of the proposed fee on various non-residential uses are provided to illustrate the relative impact of the fees on various businesses in Fort Collins. • City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session,May 9, 2006 Page 3-4 • Proposed Transportation Maintenance Fee Examples (Option 3A) May 2006 Fee Monthly Yearly Lot Size Category Use Fee (1) Fee in Acres Industrial Manufacturing $88.25 $1,059 5.4 Manufacturing $1,144.03 $13,728 70 Retail Drug Store $135.38 $1,625 2.1 Old Town Restaurant $12.89 $154 0.2 Old Town Shop $7.74 $93 0.12 Large Retail (Discount) Store $638.21 $7,658 9.9 Institutional Church(large lot) $102.58 $1,231 5 Church(small lot) $10.26 $123 0.5 Elementary School $110.79 $1,329 5.4 High School $206.61 $2,479 12 High Traffic Retail Fast Food $281.13 $3,374 1.8 Bank(with drive thru) $187.42 $2,249 1.2 • Convenience Store $124.95 $1,499 0.8 Grocery Store $921.49 $11,058 5.9 Commercial Law Office $5.13 $62 0.25 Motel $28.72 $345 1.4 Daycare Center $15.80 $190 0.77 (1) Examples are for illustration only. Specific fees for each property will be determined by property acreage and fee category. Loveland's Example: In 2000, the City of Loveland established a Street Maintenance Fee which is charged to all properties within the Loveland city limits. As an example of one method of setting these fees, Staff collected information about the methodology used for Loveland's fee. Loveland assumes that 68% of trips are generated by non-residential uses, and uses property acreage as a part of its fee calculation. Both of these assumptions will be key parts of the policy development process if the City of Fort Collins pursues implementing a Transportation Maintenance Fee. Both assumptions have a significant impact on the ultimate cost of the fee to various properties. Several other theories regarding the apportionment of costs should be considered. • City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session,May 9,2006 Page 3- 5 • Residential units in Loveland pay $1.40 per unit per month. Residential properties pay 32% of the cost of the service while other property types pay 68%. Non-residential fees are based on the use of the property. These uses tie to trip generation data to determine the property's relative share of the cost of maintaining the transportation system. Commercial, industrial and institutional uses are divided into seven categories. History of Revenue Source in Fort Collins The Transportation Maintenance or Transportation Utility Fee has a long history in Fort Collins, dating back to its adoption by City Council in 1988, and a subsequent review of the fee by the Colorado Supreme Court. A court challenge regarding the ability of the City to levy such a fee was made and the case was argued at the Colorado State Supreme Court. In the case, the court found that the fee was not a property tax, excise tax or special assessment, but rather a special service fee. Though the fee was upheld, the fee was discontinued. More recently, other cities have used a Special Services Fee and those fees have been found to be appropriate despite challenges regarding the application of the TABOR amendment requirements on the imposition of a fee. A recent Court of Appeals decision reaffirms a home rule city's ability to impose a special service fee and to do so without a TABOR vote as long as: (1) the fee is imposed on persons or property to defray the costs of a particular government service, and not the general expenses of government; (2) the • amount generated by the fee must be reasonably related to the overall cost of the service; (3) the methodology used to determine the amount paid by individual fee payers has a rational basis; and (4) revenues generated by the fee are segregated and used only for the purpose for which the fee was imposed. An additional concern has been raised that the City is transferring the "tax" liability for services to fee payers. Adopting the TMF would, in fact, shift part of the cost of street maintenance from the general citizenry to those who use the streets most often and most heavily. Several discussions were held during the budget process suggesting that citizens are already burdened with too many fees that support general government services. If Council adopts the TMF, it would be the City's only special service fee that is imposed on a City-wide basis for a general government service. The other fees are either impact fees paid by developers to offset the impacts of their developments, or user fees paid by individuals who use City facilities (such as EPIC or the Lincoln Center), or who use services such as those involved in processing permit and license applications. • City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session,May 9,2006 Page 3- 6 • Pros: Cons: • Provides a stable and predictable funding • May be perceived as a tax increase source for a basic City service • Shift part of the cost of street maintenance • Costs are distributed more heavily to certain from the general citizenry to those who use businesses,especially those which generate the streets most often and most heavily. high traffic volumes • Ensures that both the portion of the program • Voters approved a '/e cent sales and use tax funded by the Street Maintenance sales tax extension for pavement management in April and the general fund portion of the program 2005. This may appear to be double-dipping have adequate funding levels • Doesn't require voter approval so could be • Some businesses may perceive that they pay a implemented in timely manner for 2007 disproportionate share of the cost Budget year. • Relatively easy to implement via existing • Increases utility bills utility bills Implementation Issues: If City Council directs staff to pursue implementation of the Transportation Maintenance Fee by January 1, 2007, several issues must be resolved and further data must be collected to finalize the fee calculations. Remaining issues to be addressed include: • Final Database development: For the purposes of this Work Session, staff has created a database of non-residential properties. A number of property owners • will need to be contacted individually and properties reviewed to ensure that they are placed in the appropriate category. This work will finalize the fee calculations. • Community outreach and information sharing: Staff has not worked with potentially affected interests to develop awareness of either the problem being addressed by the proposed fee or the impact of the proposal on individuals and businesses. • Implementation costs: Finalize an agreement with Utility Services for the cost of billing the fee on existing utility bills. Currently, a rate of$.10 per utility bill, per month is being discussed. If this billing cost is finalized, the total billing cost will be approximately $100,000 per year including the cost of staff to maintain the database and address customer service questions. This is significantly less than the original projection of$300,000 per year. • Staffing: Short-term staffing to implement the program and on-going staffing needs must be reviewed and addressed. • Collection of delinquencies: The City must determine how delinquencies will be handled. • Institutional Accounts: Several property owners, such as Poudre School District, Larimer County, Front Range Community College and the City of Fort Collins have large parcels which would be assessed the fee. Contacting those specific agencies will be helpful in ensuring compliance with the fee structure. A total of approximately $170,000 per year in revenue would be expected from all • governmental properties if they are obligated to pay. City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session,May 9, 2006 Page 3- 7 • Exceptions: Data must be reviewed to determine if there should be some adjustments to fees for special circumstances. Examples that may require review may include examining large parcels with small portions developed (i.e. less trip generation because a significant portion of the parcel is not yet developed), and multi-use sites (i.e. mixed housing and commercial properties. • • City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session, May 9,2006 Page 3- 8 * 0 m o o �ic o 0 � o c c o o w LL O O O to enO O N � Q 00 P �+ 00 0 0 R o 0 0 0 �+ d R o 00 rn rn rn (0 00 N M m O c0cli a ~ N to r- n o0 of 69 E» U) o` = O O y o U Oi Q A C o a oa4) o a CL « lL M y C C1i F � O O p N D\ CC) co 00 O W P O 0LO co ai W 11J O 69 N O O O O • if•-•li y o ri o c N too 0 O 0 co03 M M M I I I I C� �y = O O yR Z d cc N voi o •C 16 C m L cc age k. 0 I a, y 00 o O N �= R ooco � o o U OD -IT m M M F» e» > o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c 4) � � U d C O o o r-_ rn LL v_ co n c # � toW 06 _c y _ o 0 0 0 0 L Gl V V O C) Q • O O m rn p a V L J.- m OD~ N � LL 69 F N N N f9 69 N U L R 00 O O C N 00 O O • Attachment 3B Budget Reduction Impacts on the Pavement Management Program The City of Fort Collins assigns pavement condition numbers to streets on a scale of I to 100. It is the City's goal to maintain an overall street pavement condition number of at least 75. That number decreased to 73 in J 998 and 1999 because the program was under funded. The program was again fully funded in 2000 and 2001. We approached a street pavement condition number of 75 again by 2003. For the most part we have been fully funded in 2004 and 2005 we are now facing a $722,586 shortfall in 2006 A one-time reduction of$722,586 in the 2006 program budget will result in the following impacts: • A 10%reduction of streets receiving reconstruction or overlays, or approximately 1.5 miles out of the 15 miles planned for rehabilitation. • This will result in a reduction of 20,000 tons of asphalt placed by our Streets Department, or a 30% reduction in the Work for Others performed by Streets for Engineering. • With a reduction in budget, our maintenance philosophy would shift to a primary • focus on maintaining the streets in good condition, by trying to keep those streets from falling to a poor condition. This will result in postponing the reconstruction of streets already in poor condition and will result in more potholes and complaints about the worsening condition of these poor streets. A one-time reduction in funding will cause the City's overall condition number to decrease somewhat. An ongoing reduction to the Pavement Management Program budget would result in the following impacts in addition to the above listed impacts: • If the onetime funding or the shortfall amounts totaling about $2.3 million per year are not funded over the next five years, we will see the overall pavement condition fall to a 65. It will then cost between 30 and 40 million dollars to bring the condition back to the current condition of 75. • From our experiences in 1998 and 1999 where we saw a two point lowering of our pavement condition from the budget shortfall, we anticipate about a 1 point drop per year per million dollar shortfall • With the shift in our maintenance philosophy, the number of streets in the poor to very poor category would increase, thus worsening the average overall condition. At some point we will need to reconstruct the streets in poor condition as they • become unserviceable. This would reduce the number of overlays performed on City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session, May 9, 2006 Page 3- 10 the better streets, causing deterioration in their condition . The result would be a downward spiral of the average condition number. The biggest impact will be in the cost to bring the system back to an acceptable level . Once the street system average condition falls below the good level, what now costs $ 1 to maintain will cost $4 to $ 5 improve in the future. • An ongoing reduction to the Pavement Management Program budget would most likely result in a reduction of staff assigned to the Pavement Management Program . Good Roads Cost Less To Mcantain Pavement Condition Index Goal - 75 100 $1 for B5 Vi I ' renovation < < - , here 75 will COSt Pavement $4 t0 $5 Condition soF;M r here ;4 > Index ` ' " ' 45 Dh t � 5 3 0 5 YEARS 1O YEARS 15 YEARS 20 YEARS 25 YEARS City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session, May 9, 2006 Page 3- 11 Attachment 3C 2006-2007 Pavement Management Program 1 -May-06 BFO BFO Increase % Inc. Funding Source 2006 2007 Decrease Dec. Transportation Fund - ongoing 1 /4 cent sales & use tax 515917935 59845 ,445 2530510 4 . 5% Other revenue ( 410 Fund ) 6387288 582 , 967 ( 55 , 321 ) -8 .7% TMF - Proposed 0 27300 ,000 213002000 100 .0% Transportation Fund - one-time 1 /4 Cent BCC - Streets & Transportation Package - Savings 4007000 0 (4002000 ) 100 .0% General Fund - ongoing 777, 175 779 , 549 21374 0 . 3% General Fund - one-time TABOR - 2004 overage 8002000 0 (800 ,000) 100 . 0 % Total Funding Sources 8, 2071398 9, 507 , 961 1 , 300 , 563 15.8% r x i' s , y zi" f°. T,±,,'•^ afj n DC36 PMP Shortfall _ ',- 722= 8 �`>� .:,E, r {) 2'L;586 1 OOX, Desired Funding Level 87929, 984 9, 5071961 5777977 6 .5% BFO BFO Increase % Inc. Expenditures by Funding Source 2006 2007 Decrease Dec. Transportation Fund - ongoing Transportation Administration 2417778 262 , 486 207708 8 .6% PMP - Program Costs 5 ,9882445 6 , 165 , 926 1773481 3.0 % PMP - Program Costs (TMF ) 0 2 , 3001000 27300, 000 100 .0% Transportation Fund - one-time PMP - Program Costs 11200 ,000 0 ( 13200, 000 ) 100 .0% General Fund - ongoing PMP - Program Costs 660t285 655, 549 (4 ) 736) -0 . 7% Administration Support Service ( Engr. ) 915521 97, 594 67073 6 .6% Technology & Equipment ( Engr. ) 25, 369 26,406 17037 4 . 1 % Total Exp. By Funding Source 89207 , 398 91507 ,961 173007563 15 . 8% It106 PIVIP Shortfall 722 5.$6 0 (72Z585) v 11 100 0°Ia Desired Exp. By Funding Level 8, 929 , 984 9, 5071961 5777977 6 . 5% City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session , May 9, 2006 Page 3- 12 PARKS MAINTENANCE FEE • • Option 4: Community Park Maintenance Fee 1 Option 4 A Option 4B Applies to: All residential properties All residential properties Annual Yield to $2.6 Million Annually $4.3 Million Annually General Fund Tax/Fee Amount $4.04 per household per $6.47 per household month per month Approval City Council approval City Council approval required required Annual Cost to Average $48.48 /year $77.64/year Household Annual Cost to Average Not Applicable Not Applicable Business • The Parks Division has refined the Parks Maintenance Fee (PMF) proposal that was brought before City Council in February 2006. The initial proposal included an option to fund community park maintenance and the Forestry Division. Forestry has now been removed because Forestry services benefit residents and businesses equally, which would require the fee to be applied to businesses as well as residents. Instead, Option 4B creates a fee to fund maintenance of neighborhood parks as well as community parks. How does it Work? The City currently charges an impact fee on new residential dwelling units to fund construction of new parks. This means we have funding to build new parks but funding to maintain them comes out of the General Fund. This proposal would create a flat fee charged to all residential dwelling units for maintenance of City community parks (Option 4A) or for neighborhood and community parks (Option 413). The fee would provide a permanent funding source to pay for maintenance of the developed parks, as well as new parks scheduled to be built over the next 20 years (Attachment 4A). The fee would eliminate the current and (with appropriate fee increases) the future General Fund financial burden associated with maintenance of City parks. Who pays? The fee is calculated using the number of active residential electric accounts as of December 31, 2005 and estimated residential dwelling units within the City without • separate electric meters. Residential dwelling units are defined in the City Code (Sec.7.5-17). City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session, May 9,2006 Page 4- 1 • For the purpose of City Council consideration, the fee is calculated based on an average annual 2% growth rate and an annual 3% inflation rate. Actual growth rates and Denver —Boulder CPI inflation rates will be used to calculate the annual fee, if approved by City Council and implemented. An administrative fee has been included to cover the cost to the Utility Department for administration of the fee. This fee is an estimate by the Utility Department and may need to be adjusted in the future. The initial monthly fee per household for maintenance of community parks (Option 4A) would be $4.04 or $48.48 annually per dwelling unit, providing $2,731,890 in 2007. If a fee for all parks is considered (Option 413), the monthly fee would be $6.47 per month or $77.64 annually,per dwelling unit,providing$4,422,730 in 2007. Council may also wish to consider implementation of a rebate program for low income households, based on income levels already established by current sales tax rebate program. The General Fund would need to subsidize the rebate program and the amount of the rebate needs to be determined. The estimated cost of the rebate program (based on rebating 100% of the fee to approximately 1,200 dwelling units) is $58,000 for community parks and $93,000 for all parks. General Fund Revenue Projections 2007 Parks Maintenance Fee • Community Community and Revenue Park Fee Neighborhood Only Park Fee Maximum General Fund collections in 2007: Community Parks $2,731,890 $2,731,890 Neighborhood Parks $1,690,840 Total Fee Revenue $2,731,890 $4,422,730 Administrative Fee (1) <$ 69,000> <$ 69,000> Unrecoverable costs to General Fund in 2007: Rebate Program (1,200 refunds, <$58,000> <$93,000> assuming 100% fee rebate Savings to the General Fund in 2007 $2,604,890 $4,260,730 (I) Estimated cost from Utility Department to administer fee. History of Revenue Source in Fort Collins This fee has not previously been used in Fort Collins. • City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session, May 9, 2006 Page 4- 2 • Pros: Cons: • Provides a stable and predictable • May be perceived as a tax increase funding source for parks maintenance needs • Frees up funds to balance the 2007 • Increases utility bills General Fund • Doesn't require voter approval so could be implemented in timely manner for 2007 Budget year. • Relatively easy to implement via existing utility bills • Parks Maintenance costs would be allocated to residential properties only, not to businesses. Implementation Issues: If City Council directs staff to move forward with implementing the proposed Park Maintenance Fee (PMF) various issues will need to be resolved before implementation on January 1, 2007. 1. The utility billing system will need to be modified to add this fee to electric utility bills. • 2. For billing purposes, an analysis will need to be done to accurately capture dwelling units within the City's electric utility boundaries that do not currently have separate electric meters. 3. The type and amount of community outreach needs to be determined. Other Issues: Information was requested in regards to "green practices"used in the park system. (See Attachment 4C) • City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session, May 9, 2006 Page 4-3 Q c m E t c� Q nn c� a LP) N r N M O O O M M M LC) CD 0 _ La tt � � RI- � rNLOt� (DO � OO m m O 00 (n O r N 0 0 N O N M N L d' Lo Lo Lo Lo O CO CO CD r` r` r` O m y y co E4> 69696e6ScAU> 696H6sUi GgCA v O O N O CO O N N M O N CD M 0 M CD d a O L a r N N � r N � O r M = N v a 69 cA 64 69 69 64 ffl cf3 64 69 6H 65 6F3 69 = ,y = O O N 00 I� M O r (D N (D O M G7 0 N 0 N N ; O M r` M r CO M d' M I� O M Lo CD (0 00 00 ct M r O r N Lo O) T r O M qT O a (M CY) �.- 3 (0 N Lo 00 r qt P� r Lo (3 N Lo = 0) p) d m m G m CO tir� r` N CO N 0) 6) 6) O O r r 3 Co CD d G Lift69 69 Efl fA 69 6S 69 69 V) 64 r r r r +-�. LL Q 69 EF! EA fA Q Ham' � L •v-.. ,�„ O O r r r N N N M CO CM � qRT Lo O O O O _ Cc y r r r r r r r r r r r r r r m O) � Loz 3 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CDCC) 00 `- 4 611 Ui) 69 cf3 (f3 69 el). EA cfl ff3 ea 6H cfl ffl � r r C M a) � O Q O a O y Y Lft � d Q O O _ E N O CO CO r 0 C 0 I� 00 O N M y 3 y U O O r N CO O O r (o I� O O r •� d m GC'ct � � mt qc*- V Lo In Lo Lo Lo CO r = h M 69 EA Ufi 6R (fl (A 69 6s EF) 60 p L = C a m o s 3 = m ^ Lco o O C G O 3 0 � a c 6s m _ N II >: m �. C7 CD r� N CD CO M O Co � O Lo -KtM (O r N = Lo v ,� O w c (j M 43- CO r CO O N M O r� O O M M r O E Z - ,w `. M M N N r�- CD LC) N r N N N M cF •- p> '- C) r M N Lo Ni P� N O N � M M M Ni O y = NT p m _ M r M M I� O r NM O M CD O r� N C � p Q' E y O Lo CO I� 00 M Lo f , Co r v X N d R w E N N N N M M M M M " , F "Zt Lo Ef3 Efl (A 69 69 69 69 EH Efl 69 Ef3 EA (fi ER Ln 3 WLu LL 3W co Co O O CO O Lo O O Lo f� (0r M a O O .0Em W `° m r M 00 � (o co ti M O M CO O Lo O = O 0) m O V L 00 CO 0) LO r r� M Co N 00 Lo r N y N r�: Cd C6 C 66 r T N M Mqz Ln Lo N y r N v LLp ,o LC) Lo Lo Lo O O CD CO CO CD CD (o co CO m U) 0) O a) y O h Wayi a ayi p m CD E v r Q O m o o m M L I� 00 M O r N M V Lo Co r� N M O 3 '� p a y Q) Y m O 0 0 r r r r r r r r r r N LL 0 ) E H = 3 = _ � NOON0000000000 0 � � a c � U) WQO W ll 0 I— Q Itt m M m U) N co O O CA M V U) U7 CO r Ln (D m M M � ti qt � qCT O r k IN- ON U) M (O m (yi CDC fir U) O i f> W CA O 00 0) 0 0 r r N N V O a 69 69 69 fA fA (f3 Ef3 r r r r r r r 69 t3 69 Efl EA E9 (R w y % U) N r N O O m O M M M In O O cc p w V CY V' c} r N U) n (O O V m O 3 0 G CO m Clr N m Or N mr N cr) CO C = OO V' NT U7 LC) LP) U) (D (D (O (O rN. rN. N. 00 t C H 69 6R 69 w w 60 UE> vl7 69 w w (A 69 U!) Q U a lot W rM N m Lo mN N c In lot (O M 00 r V C)O N CO CO Lo r� r It (o L (D O O f` CA CO M O m m O Or a a (» (» (R (fl ( ) Go!> W » W (» 6q s n A ' y O x LL y Qqzr G N CDm M N N M O N -:I- (D M (D O r N N M M m O r N CO m 0 r M G 2 C G �t v v v v Ln Ln W Ln c cD co � O O EA � EA 69 69 69 69 ff3 Efl 69 (A 69 69 U9 ci a m 0 M O M r� M r (O M V M r� O m U ) (D (D O MT- r L mvrOm �- vm 3 d O C L m N LC) CO r M W r M m N rN:CD r In y �L CLL WWW (' MMCAmmmOOrr i O Q ff3 EA EA ER E/3 69 69 Ef! W. EA r r r r 1D Efl E13 El> (f3 ImIII (0 O O r r r N N N M Co Co m h vy.. !� O O Cj 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O CD k 3 r G O y j w w (R Gr3 E03 U!) EA (A3 (A (R Ef). GO co L4 C O N Q rC 1 O a Ict co co (D V' O co O (D V IN- N co U) N N d E It U) CO CO O r N U7 (O r� CO O N M m 00 C N N N N M M M co M CM M It 4 V co M O O t 69u> 6ra � (flto ca ( Y60!L (flco (» (A m m = G C O Y C O •Q d O aZ IQ IZ to It N m CO (D r 0 0 0 r� CO O N m CD C) O co OO NO w C O O N+ m C) 0 r N CO m O r (D r� m CD 0) VImIIIco V d' qt qt V V U') U) LC) U) Lo (D f� co co h N N U') a (D ) 69 69 69 UO3 (A w N) H3 69 Gq C4 w Gq 69 i a co m N m m N E CD C O fN- co V' cM (� (DLL N r tF O Va CID yYN t�+•'C w M O U) N CO In r Co CD (O Lo r 0 COCA r d O. y CC ((j V' co M m co O V m co c0 (O co co U') M �' 3 O CO U) IF Nu') V N r N CO m N 0 0 O .y y •V c Is �' CD CO � r In r CO Ch Co U) (h O N N 0) m G yy O CV) i s mmvm O(DmU) M (D (D (M M O p>^ E (D r� CO 0 r N CO (D I-- CO m r (M � U7 C •O S` r r r N N N N N N N N M M M N N a) Q Y 6R (f3 6R3 Eta EA Efl E{3 EI) 6R 69 CosE!-T to!) ER co Id) ^ M 3 y �`o ^ Omm G m c o Z a oc N u L `7 N CDr� N CDM m 0 (O V CD U') qCT M r (D N (mp Q E Z o � N m CO r COO N N O I� m m N CA �— G 'p d �+ G +„ c0 M N N r� O �N U) N r N N N M O = �N.. E C G— cyi C6 L6 qti PN N O N V C'M (D MN O U) Gos N O QE d O O O C •� M r m CO r� O r N M O CM (D O h N a p) C C E C4 fN. 00 co m O U) (O IN. co M d' Lo I-- co r O x O N Q y L7r C N N N N M M M M (M rP � � NiLC) � (� co co O G Q E c 69 69 QS C0 (A (R W 69 69> to (A (f3 Ef3 69 U) a) y 'O W 3 lL V m o GGi %Z >o i s We a a) OLL cep E � M CO O O (D N Lo m m U) r� CD r M a 0 CD E V d W 10 r m M r� (D CD r� M O M (D O M O C O a) 0 p O V '.�`..Z CO M m U) r IN- co m CD N CO U) r CO � N CG ` � CO CO M 0 CD r r N M M d U0 U') i CU U) r a) G O .�. R G Q a G ,': Ln Ln m � (D (D (fl (D co (D (D (D (D co y Y co a) o a) mo a) Z y 0 L a LL o O W Z a y c mo a) o LL m o {� G m d d O > (o a L CDy mo CU f o r m O a e G c E o u > d c) c E m r� 00 m O r N co V U) (D I-- 00 m O > > L '� of +: p d Y O CO O O O r r r r r r r r r r N L.L E E L .� U y G 3 C9 m OOOOOOOOOOOOOO E .mE d co c W N N N N N N N N N N N N N N x O Q) 'O i L N Q O Q C 0 c0 U Z Q C O U) 0 m 'r T MEMORANDUM Attachment 4C City of Fort Collins DT: May 3, 2006 TO: Mayor and City Council FR: Bob Loeven, Manager of Parks and Cemeteries: TH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Marty Heffernan, Director of CLRS RE: Maintenance practices The Parks Division manages over 800 acres of developed park land. These green spaces are important for a healthy environment and a healthy community. We do our best to • incorporate park maintenance practices which not only are sensitive to the environment and sustainable but also help control costs. Specifically: Approximately 80% of the parks are irrigated with raw water rather than treated water. To manage both treated and raw water as effectively and efficiently as possible we have instituted the following practices: • Evapotranspiration and irrigation. Evapotranspiration is the amount of water that evaporates from vegetation and from the underlying soil. Staff accesses a "weather station" that records the amount of sun, cloud cover, wind, precipitation, etc. and uses this data to calculate how much water is needed to replenish the plant. (Our target is to replenish 80% of the plant's requirements). We then adjust the irrigation system run times to match the actual plant water need. •_ We upgraded to irrigation controllers that let us program irrigation systems in one- minute increments providing a greater degree of accuracy in applying water. • Rain sensors— a quarter inch rain event will shut down the irrigation controller. • Many of the ponds and lakes in the park system have solar powered aerators to assist with water quality. We want to promote a healthy turf without impacting other parts of the environment, particularly waterways. Our maintenance practices emphasize selecting the appropriate turfgrass, determining nutrient needs, using proper fertilizer application techniques, and managing grass clippings. • • Wherever possible, we are planting Tall Fescue grass. Tall Fescue uses less water and has drought and disease resistant qualities. Parks such as Cottonwood Glen, City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session, May 9, 2006 Page 4- 6 • Greenbriar Park, most of Fossil Creek Community Park and new City office building at 215 Mason Street are examples of these plantings. • We balance the nutrient program on the need of the plant and emphasize total plant health and vitality. We direct the nutrient applications primarily on the areas of heavy use such as playing fields. We aerate the soil to provide oxygen and space for roots, and apply nutrients to enhance root mass which correlates into nutrient uptake for the plant. • We have outfitted some parks with a system that combines both fertilization and irrigation. Fertigation, as it is called, injects small amounts of liquid fertilizer into the irrigation system and then disperses it during routine watering. Because fertilization occurs more often, staff can feed turf nutrients in a slower and more efficient manner. We do routine soil samples to adjust nutrient levels and compositions to meet changing soil requirements. • We mow the turf in the parks at 3 inches; the taller turf heights enhance root mass and correlates to less water need. This height also protects the crown of the plant and improves wear tolerance. • Our mowers have mulching decks that leave the clippings on the turf. These mowers shred grass and leaves into small pieces that quickly decompose and return nutrients to the soil. • To reduce mowing adjacent to the trail system, we plant new trail corridors with a native seed mix of low growing grasses. As budget allows, we re-plant existing trail areas with this same mix. • • For those parks with creeks flowing through we no longer mow down to the water's edge but have created a buffer zone that is less costly to maintain and assists with controlling runoff into the waterways. This requires some re-alignment of underground sprinkler systems as time and budget permit. Examples like Avery and Overland parks and the plantings on the east side of Lake Sheldon in City Park. • We use re-cycled organic material (bark mulch) to mulch around trees and shrubs. Mulch conserves moisture,reduces weeds and protects vegetation. • All organic material removed from the parks, i.e. leaves, etc., is composted for later use in amending soils. The Larimer County Weed District mandates noxious weed control. We have three qualified supervisors licensed by the Colorado Department of Agriculture. To maintain their licenses the supervisors are required to attend annual training. We use IPM (Integrated Pest Management) practices that target a specific weed and apply as little chemical as necessary to produce the desired control. This, coupled with an agronomic approach to out-compete the weeds for the nutrients, helps to reduce weed re- establishment. Even in instances of heavy noxious weed infestation we limit the application to the infested area only. All applications use the same chemicals as are commonly available to the general public. Mechanical control (mowing) is also an effective tool in our weed management depending on the growth state of the plant. • We are conscious of our overall energy consumption and have established targets in energy reduction. City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session, May 9,2006 Page 4-7 • • As we renovate existing park facilities we incorporate the latest energy technology. For example, we upgrade playing field and court lights to more energy efficient fixtures and place visors on selected lighting with directional aiming to be more night sky friendly. We have changed score boards at the ball fields to LED. • Energy Service engineers with the City Utility Department are working with us to identify areas in the park system where we can save energy. • During upgrades, we replace older hydraulic irrigation pumping stations with variable speed controls. This allows us to pump the specific amount of water needed as compared to older fixed speed control systems that ran the pump at full capacity. Besides saving energy, variable speed control system reduces stress on underground pipe. Our diesel vehicles now use bio-fuel. We are gradually replacing our utility vehicles with electric powered units. Maintenance crews are equipped with four-stroke small engine equipment as opposed to two-cycle. Four-stroke equipment offers reduced noise and lower exhaust emissions. Where possible, we have created and integrated "islands of habitat' within the park system. • Staff designed and created the "butterfly garden" at Library Park as a special habitat. The site includes all the main garden categories: annuals,perennials, shrubs and herbs to establish year-round interest. • • City Park and Grandview Cemetery are listed as part of the Audubon habitat program. • We work with Boy Scout groups building and placing bird boxes in various sites, and we have a number of bat boxes in City Park. The Parks Division provides the quality stewardship the Fort Collins community values. We are committed to maintenance that is environmentally responsible and sustainable and we believe our practices reflect this commitment. We will continue to investigate new and innovative methods to excel in that stewardship. • City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session,May 9,2006 Page 4-8 • Attachment 41) PARK CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE THRU 2022 Parks Classification Year 1 Acres Provincetown Park Neighborhood 2007 6.5 Spring Canyon Community Park Community 2008 88 Registry Ride Neighborhood 2009 5 Richards Lake Neighborhood 2010 6 Trailhead Neighborhood 2010 4 Staley Neighborhood 2011 10 Community-Southeast Community 2012 53.4 Maple Hill Neighborhood 2013 7 Fossil Lake Neighborhood 2014 7 Iron Horse Neighborhood 2014 6:5 Elm. School Neighborhood 2015 7 East Community Park Community 2016 50 Lind Neighborhood 2017 4 SideHill Neighborhood 2018 10 • Eastrid a Neighborhood 2019 7 Community-North Community 2020 98 Lake Canal Neighborhood 2022 7 (1) The construction schedule dates are subject to change based on collection of impact fees. • City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session, May 9,2006 Page 4-9 PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES (PILOTs) • Option 5: PILOTs (Payments in Lieu of Taxes) Applies to: All City Utility customers Annual Yield to General Fund $700,000 Tax/Fee Amount I% addition to Electric PILOT Approval Council Approval Required Annual Cost to Average $5.76 per Year Household Annual Cost to Average See Attachment 5A for examples of Business impact to various size customers How does it Work? PILOT stands for "Payment in Lieu of Taxes." The PILOT is paid to the City's General Fund in place of revenue the City would receive in property taxes, use taxes and • franchise fees if a privately owned utility provided these services in the City. These payments are part of the General Fund revenue that support general City services, including police, fire, library and parks. City Charter requires the payments of PILOTS and City Code establishes the current rate at 6% for electric, water, and wastewater. Staff has examined the City's existing PILOTS to compare the rates charged to other utilities in the area. While the 6% PILOT for the Water and Wastewater Utilities are comparable to others regionally, the Electric PILOT could be increased by 1%to a rate of 7% while remaining regionally comparable. A 1% increase in the Electric Utility PILOT would yield approximately $700,000 per year. These funds could be used to help support General Fund services as defined by City Council. Who pays? All city utility rate payers would be assessed the additional PILOT. An additional 1% would be added to the PILOT for Electric utility customers. All or a portion of the rate increase may be absorbed under current Electric utility rates for 2007, though the electric rates would likely increase in 2008 to cover the additional PILOT amount. History of Revenue Source in Fort Collins • City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session,May 9, 2006 Page 5- 1 • PILOTS have been charged to City utility customers since at least the 1954 Charter was approved. Since 1988, the amount of the PILOTS has been set by ordinance, with a rate of 5% from 1989-1997, increasing to 6% from 1997 to the present. Currently, the City's charter provides that: "if the utility is subject to a payment to the general fund in lieu of taxes and franchise fees, an estimate shall be made of the amount of taxes and franchise fees that would be chargeable against such utility if privately owned, and the amount of such payment, as determined by the Council under Article XII, Section 6 of this Charter, shall be charged against the utility fund." (Charter Article V, Section 23) In 2006, the existing PILOTS are estimated to generate about $6,527,683 for the General Fund, with $4.46 million of this amount from the Light and Power Fund. Pros: Cons: • Provides a stable and predictable additional • All utility customers would be affected,thus revenue source for General Fund needs the PILOT may be regressive • Is competitive with other Electric rates in • May be perceived as a tax increase the private and public sector • All or a portion of the PILOT may be able to be absorbed in current utility rates in 2007. • • Pays for the City services used by the utilities just as paid by other businesses or enterprises: Police,street maintenance, planning etc. • City of Fort Collins—Financial Stability Work Session,May 9,2006 Page 5-2 mmm � ppcnTm � ; mp � � = � (nxg (n 03 5 Cr cn Ky C/) 0 xDr- tn ° m y ° m m Q �D (D o v J - (1 o w pCD :3 _ CD o CD 3 3 C (8 < o ill ¢> CD Cn T (D N p �- n ,y. _O-„' fU -�, C m vpi C Q C N C N C cN n o O X N J O - N O N =� n n n �_ O m o a ° (� to 3 3 ° d ° C v Cn ° o o CD CD ° m N N N O n 0 � � = O ,O+ O C7 O O. � fU ° C � (7 �, � N N 3 � (n W X 0 0 0 3 CD CD O N O Cn 7 C M CD CQ 3 n ' CD O m 000 ° (D m Cnm (e o — C 3 y % CD a ° sv o 3 V V No m o n c° 3 v o ° n < 2. H o <�< W ni O C CD CD O O ° O ID G CD O ° (D enn CD 3 d o P7 J to �- 7J O to ? CD- (n 3 CD c J C p CD M CD CD cc J p CD Q (n "O < (D . 7 c < A CDO. o (D m o CCD J Q — m (n o a CD > > v AND (o ( CD CD o CO 0 y O ° � C CD -0 =r 7 W CD m v °° 3 ° d c X C� CD �- CD a v � m CD o CD x (n ° m 3, a o a� Q m CDCD v M (n n O o N o 3 v O a e 0 T C m O V) 4u) to to to Efl to 4G9 to 69 69 to Efl Efl Efl to N to to Eo to N tfd tf3 EA N ° O O y O o N W W O o cn CD 0 (n A (n A K CDD y N CD W A U O CD CD w o� is a N cn o oD io m < O < O V V V O -� W -+ W A N O CD co O (O m CD D w (n N C<D D M V N V O CD O -� A Ui V A O co V O (A V 0) C (O Cn A C y (n N A M y y W co W A c cn O W W V N -+ A (n V W N C (T c A Cp O W V W M Cn CD , -� V co 0) CO CT CD cn -� Ul C) N N (D (O N A (O CD y N N N CD y O Cn A (n (D (n oo A m (n co W O W W (n Cr N A CO Cn O CD) m o N to to 69 to to to to to to to to to 69 to to to to N to to ffo to N CD o to to to N CD CD 0 o O y (n N N Cn A (n N co CO (n Cn e W o CD V N N Cn O y -' W N N (D W o o O W V N A N o W Cb V N O T. A � A (31 0) N V (O O O M N QD N (n O CO O W W A co O CD � NCrI -� O A N 0 (o A (n (n ()t O M A W N W V (n Ui co (fl V (n „�„ � A (fl 0) N � W O O] -. A W N V Ul V (O (P CD N (O W N W (D Cn O C� Cn O N O CD CD CD 2) cnto to 69 69 69 69 rn Wd to to to to to EA to to 69 3 to to to 7 O_ (D q /1 0 /� 7� /� 0 -N CD CD CL l I (D IY V V Cn W N J W C J� (� J a1 J 0) 0 0 0 0 M N Cn N m (O co W fll m y 5 m y O -� -� -. W A Cn N N A W C° (D O O O CD O C L (° (D N SU s A N Cn Cb o) Cn CA (A V -� QD V N CD O O W A CD p -h O (D Co V CD n �. O O W Cn OD co W V A N (b N W '� U1 co ? = O y ' ' (n = O O -� (O � Cn � � A Cn co N CD) o ('i A -� A V C) i+ V -� CO n Q' N CD) A OD W - (n N Cn (D W N V V A W Cn 0 ? N 0) CO C � to to tf� to cn CD O CO (O co n (Oj`�j C C O O O aD -co -co -co v 0 3 y cr 3 (n(n to Co V m C co co (D cn CD CD O CD W � Co (ooN ° A V V (o p�j A W N O y y CA coCD Cr Cn V 3' V V CD y 3 to to to to to to 69 69 69 In to ffl to fA <n fo to 469 �p _ .-. 69 6n to 07 ^ O 0 � � A rn � o D Wo V CD � � D � m � � D 7 N CD -� N O V W w ° O < V W N ° CD O < 0 CD p <CD N (D W A CO Cn N O W �_ O_ CD S_ CD A O co CD O_ CDCD O O y CP Cfl O " Co NJ A (n N Co A O W CO N O A m S (O a' W (P s J co cn O O N O (0 m V V N L" V N W O W CD CO V co O O W •< CD O ()1 (S7 (S7 O W_ �G O v V (D (O V N O N CT OD OD (n in — V W co O Cl) O CO COO U) ts3 to to t» to t» tra to to to to to to D tsa ts3 Asn to D C) (s9 to to D Gs W CCDD W (<D CDC W CDD r.. Cn = N A V j (O N V 3 (O w (O N W O co Cn OD-0 A ( C7 V N o A CT o C O CD CD Ul V W O CD N CD CD W P o (b A _0C '. C W (n A O V N N O N (n W (D (O (n C )- p V Cn Cn cn CD_ p fl1 (o A N (n fl_ p W (O CO (n Cn W -• V (n m (O p (b A Ui A 3' O ... (O OD N p' p A Cn A W CD N A W A N OD V (D S CO (fl (n V (O W A CO CQ S V W (O O O O A (O W CO V W 69 69 bn 69 to to to to to <!D 69 to fo to to _ to to Efl to _ to to 69 D V D C C) o O o 3 7 3 CD o -0 -� A W ° O -0 O V O (7 0 "O O (D o "O n W ° q 0 --� N (fl N O V W co C O O V W N O CD -0 0 O O 7 O 3 V LU 3 CD (n --� w (O W A W -� Cn N O W O J y N A O co J y y O O O ? N N V CD p_ N W Qo N N Cn V OD Cn (O -� -� CD p_ W V A A CD Q CD A N ._. (D p_ W N 00 W CD O N N (n m W A A N O (0 W Cn m A C31 N CD 3 69 to o fo 69 to fA EA Eo Efl b9 69 69 69 69 b9 69 fo ff t tf 69 C6 l 0 0 -0O_ 7 ° -0 ° -0 coW N ° ° D V — O ' ' -' -' N Ui O 7 O Cn W 70 O O Cn O D CD O (n -� -� -� W W A N O -� 7 D (n (b V co O O (n 7 0 (D W A O CD CD U( V A O W V O co V W C n CD CD o) 1i C n (D C n (D V A 7 CD C1 Ul O W (b V N A 0) V W N CD CD n co V N CD CD. 3 U1 N N CD C2 V 07 `'' (n ' (O A A (n M - N Ul W ... N ' w N CD 0 A m Ul m W C) W W (D c 0) (0 0 N CD o N N A CD o a� 0) L � � 3 Q _0C) ° Q) Q) Vic = z . m e m m m m O � 'O U U U U O o m < -0 n n a o Q a) y . L C m Q Q Q C CQ6 CL m m m Q .C� LR U Z (D Q m Z z z Z m U z CC a+ Q .C: c0 N (D a) m O (L6 E vi E m �, a) a) 2 LL U OQ � L � .� N a u 0 G1 0 o C: CCU CCU o m o � `La Qo o E c c -o !E U o a) a. 3 G1 oQ E E ° m c Ca�) o a) O a > , m o Q o c � L > 0 : L •. m a) O ° Ln " Z LL m E `° E - z -o o CD (T co � -o a a n -0 3 ° ccaor\iCD o m o tGo 0Q Q o Q U) a) -o m V � o .L Qco .�Q Qa ) c mQ O o U ZLL m Z ZLL m _0 m U) < m N o VL w O Z � co mFza) oow a) Co (6 a m cO vi N Q cn LL LL •'= ° U a) o `� Q a) a) C 'C U m ° 3 mo a) a) c c aci � oU a � o A L a) O L C L _ ."°- C -p E u0i U M O Q O GC N ++ (0 m »- c > ° -0 Q m E m ° o � o a) U) a) o U 0w ° ma) com � Q -0 QQ � cNCDQ) X m a) 17 o L .O C vi Q7 ^ > O N C Lo1\-) _ w C .O a) C L c O _o 'L. QE m `� LL En U) N rp U °) O V1 �- V m E EZ 'O o0 fyL6Z Vi cn t C � Q o ° �' oQ - Q ° co o cn o a> O m M N y— Q (n c .� — a) rn c u) c c ° — Q a Q 'c Q V] 0 0 o E ° > c o o c o cn o o o c o c o o E .x W > 'O O E a) > �.- C- C > o a) 0 0 o O E a) o -0 N L a) Q Z QC� 0O � � Q ZLL m MlL m V) NQ m O .� Q 3 -t ' U) ° .0 � C a) UD a) to O ^' _ m a) -C: -- m to CD O E U a) a) CDw E L a) N H m m Q C 3 Z N O O L 'N Q) ++ c 30 � cr cc o C/1 '� L c o U) o L c � c 'o (L° - c o � QE, c oa 000c ,<ga� ° oE a) c� a) � -o QM DO C� m UU cv m 0 c 'cv �► aa) LO � co E Q > Q � Q ces Rf L CO o — O > U) _ Q o a) a) a) (n U_ a) , , L LL c > C: L) - o cn w e m m o U) 0 m L O CO m ° > -O v- a) N a) o) O N a) m 0 N V > m 0 0 LL O L LL C .L C U- W O C V1 � ,C C '� E w Q1 a0 a) m O' to O O ° O ° C m o ° O Co�O 3 u O 'O 'OQ � Ca) fnc NO° a) (O0 o m o (n co L O >a) U cn O 0- C c m o) N O — m '-' m 0 "_' 7 m " Ln m m m m C M N � to a) o m Q � a) Ocn CD w 4. N f� m m M O O m .� N N .(n O E a�j .� 4) n (0 C +u. .0 .m- .0 U .N- O .0 U cn C U o oo > o o � o Z o f oLo mo E � � o QE .. d v> > .� m con 0 Q c 69 Q c co � Q c V U) 0) tJ 0) rz c 'L -c Q Q c � (n Y m 0 - O (L9 2 C O o a o o U (n ° (D 7 a) 0 LL () llm..l Li LL C7 U) a) a) a) a) 2 2) > ma) a ca °� B ca a) -o _0 p c m -0 p co a U O a) LL n U -0 o_ U a) U E c- o a) a) L ° oo' cac0 O` w a ao > Z UE Cp E C0 E ` U. LL0 En u M L L f°0. C (6 (7 c p) O C (6 U _0_ @ C_ (6 U O L 'N C Cl O t/3 aC o oa`) Em aCE cp- cEoC)r p- oc � (DEo O N -O Q 7 -O L O a) -a a) a) O a) 0 O O O 6 Q 'O V) Z (D c,3 a. o0. QU z0 < ocn (Dz (D < mCLL0 a � ( ) OQco � U) _0 n aC: o C ( ) cn a) a) p C CD 21 a) C a) a� p cn co = LL En cc>s0 CM `o a) a`) a) L 41L (L6 O OL � LL a) L O N C_ � d (D U m 0) U U a) — C7 U C -0 s p ca (nm > Ca) � L o 0 Cr -o C a) a) -o @ p .� p C OU E » a) E a) c E i LL as o 0 ,0 0 CD U a •0 0 a '0 a) c a O o E o c M U) c CO c a) 0 Q) C a) a) i a) 0 0 to O N "O N -p -O to -0 C6 N @ n5 'O oQ o < . a) oQ a) 3 0 � � � m Q -oa U) C '_ - -oOL Q -0a � Q Ya) Co c p o E c > C Ip to p Q) O p 0 > -0 p C 0 p C N L p to Z LL m 0- i Q Z LL O a Z LL m U Z d co i (0 ui a) _ a) Q1 U 0 N @ 0 n m a) o m 'O U) (D 0) N i U) N -0 i L cn i c � `� " _ U N c ca � C o U `m N 3 c to (�4 tj Q) -C LL O L C (n C_ i . p p a) c U a) U U p c6 s o @LL 2) Qm - X E cn c�a ca 0 � L CL a) o c E -o - m a) a • 3 _0 c o U �' @Emc moc 0 -0 m U o C� Q Q '0 � ( ) Q -0 a) o C_ o o � .C_ o co - O C O 0 C 0 'a N _0 co E v vuo) U E C° a � G? `m "Ez c'a 'EC� c`o � Q (D a) � Q a) LL n -0 -0 � -0 -0 LL En C6 L Vi c 7 - O Q @ -Oa c U O V 6 d O O ( @ O > Q 0 . p 0 O p p ° a) > con d 0) .E Q C_ 0 LL Q. Z LL a) Q. Z LL m cn z c,> Lm Y a) N .w C L a) o o C 7 C c (O I I O) a) O a) C C O Y LL w0 (n 0) a) m , -00 � C: O 11 L c`6 C E 0 � _ O (6 00 3a > o > .� o N cooUEoXp i Q `�— U L C' a) X C C U d � o � 0 3 C: ao) V o Cc � C) E co i (6 ., LL N V) N C. co to -p O .U) U) .L--� a) a) C N C) (fl 0) a) O O a) C N a) E X L V _ co CU amp) = w _ , E m } v En p i O C C v O W :.. a a) "7 a) o L O E a) Q) � C O 0 ~ a) m N a) a) c C U L U U a) a) N O U a to L O L U w a) X X 3 N 7 w 0 ,5 O X co to � O () C_ C S i c N U cn 69 C ma) 0C " oc0a`ni > a) a` )) oco0a) » Xo � ai 0" 2) 0 LL N c N Q •(') U 4) C C N 0 O j 0 M > 2 7 U (�6 p 0) -o N i C c - ` c +� as a) m o U ch 4= a) U) o C a) oL cn m E c ca c a) C > > � - � � o 0 3 � :- > C Il) N •.. C N C a--. a) "> X +L-. a) _c C) @ — _ _ (O 'E C W .0 @ Q P. U (D (n ccn .c U .. t7 m .a-+ c0 N fN N -p Q) O _ a) -- � L a 0 O U a) L � � C �- O O M n3Qm � � � a) � c '�) � Y °) no 0) _ _ L > . E • U .o � � (D o o � c .oa) > a) oo 0 o no f � .. o m aci c—" a) a) � U p E a) Ycs7 -0 a� o o L o o dQ n C UC7 rn E o co co F- (n � cn 3N M 0 c O O E m m a) a) 3 m N > a) f6 O a) c Q m 0 W cn U ai > E m 3 0 Cr :3 CID CID E voi E v r p V U O C a) O O m ` ` m (h w 00 a) O M fp 0 C E n o E E o 0) vi U L C C O) O C U) C 0 J C O m E (n cn a) a) �O �a o E O cu,:� �,�• oar p 41 C) C !� 3 - E o a) a) ' ZMU @ 0 ` O a) 0Z � j a) cooE ' a C p- 1 c a m a) L N a) L C p O O 1 c6 — � cn C) d @ (D C%i 7 C0) y a < < r min E o o c a) �p 0 CID ti o E» E LL C y O o " f° c n m uS to W O N ] L — cC fII N o pow"k m m Q LL .p j `�° E 3 C ._ w 2 3 x n `° po a> t0 C� d '7 LL O E a) O (� _ � C s o e E m — a) vi m U o 0 0 x v a) -, aa)) ILD rn N f7 x t0 LL F N C C L Q 1 0 E > N 0) ECID O Q Yc fn CD L 7LL o CDO p_ C) Loa E N E LL m Sr jR z Lr✓v'y �a ,;, is1.' ..r. z Zli�"-? i**�� ' �ai te, �c, - O Da VVt` O -C n N x �kv 41 E c No O 1/ ', u m N O O T "'' m 2 c o m 5 'p O N E a d V � Oq C _U U O N EW O O �'"'� 3 LL a F O p -0 m 7 uj .r J 0 c u c6 co � vi U O LL CD O O m Y E _0 C yN.. O Fs r 10 O U C 3 m � m C � 7 MIDo �' u 2 0 @ V U >' C O L LL m , 0 O CC C C 1� rF 'z ' : y mN m 70 m T 7 O a) N •U I6 V � m � ? H m (c) L) m CC d o m o W c m -_! E O a) m O N 2 toti LL O N c 19 v d N -0 N C a 3 p O Y lit, m 131313 a o N U a) :° (D vi a) a) J 0) C O O p N a) U c m cn E Z Z ^r t> L m c c) ai CD a) E CD m CID 0 rO� T E 7 O) U 7 d E o C O W .,z c U m O (h r T N O a) m li o O ~ N C) O -Op al O > . O N C '� N tq +Ls-' O `O a w w N O 0 T .s U d " = 3 - o m mr 0 V U d N zo c) m a cn � LL p 0 0 0 0 o o o L T c cn co > U O N t0 V O N CD V N O 7 O CID O O N '� CI) '> 0 0 anuanaa 6ui)ejadp ;o luaaJad c E y "N U E CL E m a) p CI p O L C a3 C) C cu E a) X c _0 0.O a N C O Q C fy6 w m ,� -c O > 0 7 -0E < CIDN N in d � E CID � 5 > cci O Q L x x J a >p J ~ Z N cM V d LO J p