07-27-2007 - Budget Workshop
CITY COUNCIL OF EDGEWATER
WORK SESSION
JULY 27, 2007
9:00 A.M.
COMMUNITY CENTER
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Thomas called the Budget Workshop to order at 9:00
a.m. in the Community Center.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Michael Thomas
Councilwoman Debra Rogers
Councilman Dennis Vincenzi
Councilwoman Harriet Rhodes
Councilwoman Judith Lichter
City Manager Jon Williams
City Clerk Susan wadsworth
Deputy City Clerk Lisa Bloomer
City Attorney Carolyn Ansay
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Excused
Present
Excused
INVOCATION, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
There was a silent invocation and pledge of allegiance to
the Flag.
MEETING PURPOSE
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the preliminary
budget for fiscal year 2007/2008.
City Manager Williams welcomed the Mayor and Council to
their first budget workshop presenting the preliminary
budget for fiscal year beginning October 1, 2007 and ending
September 30, 2008. He then recognized the hard work of
the directors, supervisors, deputy directors and employees
in presenting a very good budget at this point in time
recognizing all the challenges they have faced over the
last year, specifically property tax reform. This budget
has incorporated everyone's goals and objectives as a
result of property tax reform and making sure the employees
they have working today remain with them. It also
1
Council Workshop
July 27, 2007
incorporated increases in annual wage adjustments and
absorption of benefits. It was consistent with some of the
Tier 2 objectives the Council identified in the Strategic
Planning Report. It was a very well prepared budget that
had received a lot of work on behalf of the departments.
City Manager Williams then went through the attached
Powerpoint by going over the Agenda, the Goal for Today,
Major Challenges, Computation of Millage Rate, Projection
Parameters, Council Consideration/Discussion with regard to
the General Employee Defined Benefit Plan and the options
of doing nothing at all or freezing the plan.
Mayor Thomas assumed they were going to attack this problem
first. City Manager Williams informed him they were.
Mayor Thomas asked him if he had been able to discuss
individually with each Councilmember. City Manager
Williams stated he had some discussion preliminarily with a
majority of the Council. This one item affects the entire
budget so he felt it was necessary to bring this to the
forefront so they could address it.
City Manager Williams continued his presentation by
commenting on terminating the plan and modifying the plan.
Mayor Thomas stated the problem was when people retire and
keep on working. At that point the employees are still
accruing benefits and a percentage. That is the problem.
City Manager Williams stated that is what he sees to be the
largest problem, the additional accrual of the benefit
above and beyond the normal retirement date.
Councilwoman Lichter stated in terms of moderation they
might be able to think of some perks to encourage earlier
retirement. When she retired early from teaching, she was
given $5,000 each year and was kept on the health program.
She thought maybe that might be one other way to handle a
modification. The point of working after you retire was
totally new to her except here. When you retire, you
retire and you find something else to do. She believed
that some perks to encourage early retirement could be
thought of also.
Mayor Thomas stated he is a firm believer of not changing
the rules in the middle of ballgame. He asked City Manager
Williams if he had compared this City to other City
2
Council Workshop
July 27, 2007
governments. He has never heard of being able to accrue
percentages on your retirement after you retire. That was
absurd to him. He was very familiar with the retirement
plan because he had the option to DROP (Deferred Retirement
Option Program) at 25 years. At that time he would have
retired at 75% of his salary. He did not DROP and he
worked 3 ~ more years so he retired at 83~% of his salary.
He feels it is ludicrous for employees to keep accruing
retirement benefits after they retire. He wasn't saying it
was wrong for them to get their salary. He doesn't think
that is right. City Manager Williams stated he has talked
to the actuary and she has advised that they have many
plans throughout the country that provide the provision for
the retired work option but not the provision for them to
continue to accrue the benefits. That was where the real
cost came in. Mayor Thomas stated that was where they were
losing the money. He doesn't want to terminate the plan.
He would like to modify the plan.
City Manager Williams stated the other quote they had that
was on the dais to review would be to the extent that the
participants would not be eligible before the age of 60 to
retire. He feels this would have a major impact to
employee morale. He then asked for Council questions?
Councilwoman Rogers stated exactly what Mayor Thomas said
is what she has said all along regarding this plan that
people retire and get to receive the benefit and a current
salary and accrue. As their salary increases that accrual
amount increases as well. This has been a problem since as
far back as she moved into the City. Every year it always
seemed to be one of the big reasons why the millage rate
was increased or adjusted. They went around with this last
year at this time. She had asked if they could do some
kind of calculations and accruals so they wouldn't have
this big shock and she didn't see that that was done and
here they are with a 100% increase. She asked if any
accrual entries were done so they could prevent this large
of a blow to their budget. City Manager Williams stated
what they had done was reached out to Principal and told
them they wanted estimates in writing so they have a better
way of projecting what the costs would be to that plan.
That was the information that they got directly from
Principal. That was based off of their 2006 numbers and
they had factored that in. From their perspective they
have addressed some of those concerns. Accrual entries
3
Council Workshop
July 27, 2007
they would not be able to do because it was the function of
an actuary and the assumptions they use. Councilwoman
Rogers felt way back when they could have estimated it in-
house and they could have done something. They apparently
did nothing and here they are. Property tax reform and all
the other issues they have and now this. It doesn't seem
to stop. It continues to grow and it is the only
government that she was aware of that has this problem
consistently.
City Manager Williams asked for direction regarding how the
Council wanted to proceed with modifying the plan.
Councilwoman Rogers asked City Manager Williams if he had
spoken to other governments to ask them what they do
because they don't have the same problem as frequently and
at this level that they do. City Manager Williams informed
her nobody around them has this specific provision. It is
rather unique in nature.
Councilman Vincenzi stated they have been discussing this
for a while and it has come up in public meetings. He is
all for letting employees continue to work after they
retire and for paying for increases in medical benefits and
life insurance and absorbing that cost but this retirement
benefit is ridiculous. He hasn't decided which option he
would like to pursue yet. They have to look at it and see
which one is going to be most suitable for the City in
terms of freeing up those tax dollars that are being paid
in an excessive manner and putting those tax dollars back
to work in the form of capital replacement, filling
positions that are vacant and things of that nature. He is
all for reasonable increases in pay and reasonable
increases in benefits. If they look at other government
agencies they do 10%. They don't do 23% and they certainly
don't do 44% or 45% retirement contributions. That is
ridiculous and out of control. He thought they needed to
discuss all of the options at further length. It looks to
him like the modification would be the most reasonable
because it had the least impact on the City and the least
impact on the employees. He felt a 23% retirement
contribution on the part of the City is still excessive.
He felt that option looked to be the most reasonable to
pursue at this time. It doesn't mean he wouldn't be
looking for modifications in the future if things changed
again. He thought modifying the plan with the option to
4
Council Workshop
July 27, 2007
keep those benefits under control at a reasonable rate
would be the thing to do.
City Manager Williams stated with the modification that he
feels was the most appropriate was scenario number one. He
thought they may see over time that 23% decrease to the
point that is maybe more appropriate with what is going on
in the federal government. Councilman Vincenzi felt they
also had to pursue other options. Money is tight. There
was not a lot of money to throw around on incentive
programs to retire. City Manager Williams stated on
October 1st 2006 the required annual contribution was a
little over $639,000. With the modification he was talking
about it drops it 3% so they may see a 3% decline over the
next several years which would bring back into line.
Councilman Vincenzi stated in overall city contributions
and asked why. City Manager Williams stated because they
are no longer continuing to accrue that benefit. That is
100% of the problem. Councilman Vincenzi felt the way to
do it was to get out of this gradually with the least
impact to everybody. They don't have $7 million to
terminate the plan. City Manager Williams informed Council
there were 57 employees in the plan, most of them being the
senior employees that have been with the City for a long
time. Councilwoman Lichter asked how many employees were
in the other plan. City Manager Williams hadn't broken
that down by each plan.
Councilwoman Rhodes thought the first thing to note was the
reason that was at 48% was not because of the pension plan.
It is because they changed the rules of the game. They had
their assumption and they asked them to change that
assumption. City Manager Williams stated to reflect what
was actually going on with the plan. Councilwoman Rhodes
stated they didn't come to them like Councilwoman Rogers
suggested. They came to them and told them they owed them
this money. They told them they didn't think their
assumption was correct. Based upon what they think the
assumption should be is why they have an increase of that
amount. When these employees began working for the City
this was their retirement plan. This is what they paid
into all these years. Ever since this plan was written in
the 1970's that clause has been in this plan; that they can
retire and work and continue to accrue. By the same token
she agreed with Councilwoman Rogers in the fact that she
thinks once you retire your money goes into a Defined
5
Council Workshop
July 27, 2007
Benefit Plan. She didn't think there was anything in the
pension plan as it is written now that says it can't be
that way and that they have to stay in that plan once they
retire and start to collect that benefit. City Manager
Williams stated there was no disincentive for them not to
want to stay in the plan. Councilwoman Rhodes stated there
was nothing in the plan that says they can't be moved to a
Defined Contribution Plan after that. City Manager
Williams stated there was nothing in there that says they
can either. He felt they needed to approach that from a
pure modification perspective. Councilwoman Rhodes stated
so what City Manager Williams wanted to do was modify the
plan by writing it into the plan that is now. City Manager
Williams stated write into the plan that says an employee
when they decide to exercise the option to retire work at
normal retirement date, they no longer continue to accrue a
benefit. At that point that puts options on the table. He
felt they had some flexibility at that point in time but
they have also provided a savings to all of the funds in
the amount of $644,000. They have taken a benefit off the
table in a sense it keeps everything intact. They change
the rules of the game a little bit but not totally. They
continue to accrue the benefits and go forth. He then
spoke of freezing the benefit and having people that may be
three years away from 25 years or age 55. If they freeze
that is the benefit they have. He thought from that
perspective those folks would like the opportunity to at
least accrue benefits until they reach normal retirement
date and then make some decisions at that point in time.
To chop them off three years before they got there he felt
would create some major morale issues. Councilwoman Rhodes
asked about the people that already collecting and are
still in the plan. City Manager Williams stated they would
stay but the modification would include them as well.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated they never had option when they
retired. They didn't know it was going to happen to them.
City Manager Williams agreed. Councilwoman Rhodes stated
they didn't have option when they retired to go into
another plan or decide to continue to work and not retire.
City Manager Williams stated some of folks he has had
conversations with recognize that would probably be in the
best interest of everybody rather than freeze it or
terminate it. They recognize that wasn't the provision but
they also recognize they were not going to pass up on the
opportunity. Councilwoman Rhodes asked why would they? It
was written into the plan and it's their right. City
6
Council Workshop
July 27, 2007
Manager Williams felt they had to look at what the overall
good of everybody was at this point in time and the
consensus he was getting it wasn't exactly what they wanted
but looking at what the options were it was the lesser of
all evils. Councilwoman Rhodes didn't feel that freezing
the plan or terminating the plan was an option. She agreed
with retirement packages. She felt they should come up
with incentives for people to retire. She knew they were
doing that in other cities. City Manager Williams stated
the problem they have is they don't have the cash to offer
for those incentives and that's a problem and that is one
of the considerations and discussion items they have to
identify. They could offer incentives such as paying their
medical insurance for five years but he didn't know how
many folks may take that. If they go through and offer
incentives to this table and 50% of this table takes it
they have accruals they need to pay for and they don't have
the cash to pay for that. That is the other problem they
have to deal with. Councilwoman Rhodes agreed the
modification was lesser of all evils when all things are
considered. She wanted everybody to understand this jump
isn't something Principal did to us. This is something
they did.
Councilwoman Lichter stated sometimes in life you don't get
at the end what you expected all along. Things change.
The Federal government, State and City changes things. She
taught for 28 years and gave 7~% of her salary towards her
pension thinking she would have her husband's social
security to add to that. One and a half years before she
finished teaching they changed the law federally and she
gets no social security at all where she could have picked
up another job and got some credits. The City takes social
security out of her $7,200. Sometimes you don't get at the
end what you expect. You have to make that adjustment.
She gets Part A from a dead husband, Part B of Medicare she
sends to the government. That wasn't what she expected in
life. Modification is going to have to be the answer to
this in some form. They have a very unique wonderful thing
that at the right time was right but now is not right
because they can't afford it any longer. Many companies
are wiping out what people were supposed to get. They are
trying to involve the employees that are in this plan with
the planning involved in it. Things are not always what
they plan and this is probably one of those things. When
they said yes to this type of plan, that they could work
7
Council Workshop
July 27, 2007
and retire, they meant it. Maybe the circumstances in this
City were such that it wasn't that attractive to have
people come here to work. They have some of the best
people there can be and she felt they could understand a
modification.
City Manager Williams thought he understood the consensus
was for modification.
Mayor Thomas stated they had 57 employees enrolled in this
plan. He asked how many people had retired and taken
advantage of the benefits at this time. Personnel Director
Donna Looney estimated 25 or 26. Mayor Thomas confirmed
that these employees that have retired, are still working
and still accruing benefits was the problem. He had
discussed this with some of the employees. They told him
they would be foolish if they didn't take advantage of it
and he didn't blame them. He thinks they know this is an
exorbitant benefit. When you retire, you retire and you
retire at that percent. If they are still putting a
percentage after they retire, he doesn't understand how
that went into effect. They are still giving them another
percent. The plan, the problem is the ones that have
retired and are getting it and the ones in the future.
They have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. They
changed the program several times in his 30-year plan.
They have to the good for the majority of the employees.
He was worried about the morale. He is an employee pro
person. He knows what they are going through. They don't
make a whole lot of money but they have job security and
good benefits. When it is costing the City and taxpayers
money he can't go with that.
City Manager Williams stated he had done some calculations
on absorbing this increase and in comparison benefit
package as a percentage of payroll and they're approaching
95% in some cases as a benefit package. He thought most of
the employees knew there was time for change. It's human
nature to take what is out there that is given to you.
From his understanding there was a consensus to move
forward with modifications. They had a very narrow window.
When they concluded the meeting he needed to pick up the
phone and reach out to the pension attorney and tell them
to initiate the process for modification so it could be
incorporated into the budget for next fiscal year. With
those modifications they are going to begin to address some
8
Council Workshop
July 27, 2007
of the items they have discussed in great length
previously, specifically the replacement of capital which
was one of the essential methods by which they deliver
services today. Councilwoman Rogers stated she was in
agreement with the modification but at the same time they
need to do something about these calculations. Even though
it is modified it wouldn't guarantee they won't be in the
same boat next year. City Manager Williams informed her
that was something they were going to have to continue to
work on. The emphasis from last year to this year was
getting the termination study and the freeze study and
really going through the discussions with bringing on the
Board Attorney and finding out what they can do. This is a
very sensitive subject and a very tough subject to approach
and talk about. To get to this point if everybody
recognizes a modification is essential to keep this plan in
place they have just climbed a very huge mountain. He
applauded the employees for addressing a very tough
decision objectively in trying to figure out what was best
for everybody involved. He would move forward with those
discussions and modifications.
City Manager Williams continued his Powerpoint presentation
by describing Council Consideration/Discussion regarding
Contract Negotiations.
Councilman Vincenzi commented on the medical insurance.
Right now they have some employees covered totally plus
dependents. City Manager Williams explained a lot of that
prior to October 1, 2004, if you were on board you could
get 100% paid for yourself and up to 50% paid for your
dependent. If you were hired after October 1, 2004, they
only pay 100% for the employee.
Councilman Vincenzi informed City Manager Williams that was
something he wanted him to look at. He didn't know if that
was monetarily feasible or not. That was something that
never sat well with him. He feels employers should
definitely cover employees but they should also offer an
option for dependent coverage too. He wanted him to run
some numbers and figure out what an additional cost might
be if they covered all employees and gave the option to
cover dependents at well. City Manager Williams informed
him that was not the norm they see in other cities.
Councilman Vincenzi stated that was the norm in any place
he has ever worked. City Manager Williams stated it is a
9
Council Workshop
July 27, 2007
changing norm. All the cities in Volusia County are not
covering dependent coverage because of the exorbitant cost.
Councilman Vincenzi stated the benefit of that is first of
all they offer a little more to the employee especially the
employees with families. The second benefit is that it
equalizes everybody and they have the same option for the
same coverage. Instead of half the workforce being totally
covered and the other half only the employees are covered.
They were talking about morale problems and dissention
among the ranks. That is a point of contention along with
differences in salary and retirement benefits among half of
the employees and the other employees don't get similar
benefits. They talk about morale problems that result from
actions they are going to take to cut back retirement
benefits. He feels those problems create more morale
problems than anything. He spoke of having two employees
getting different pay and different benefits that are doing
the same job. City Manager Williams agreed to come back
with some numbers.
Councilwoman Rogers stated they have been here before too.
The executive sessions they had they talked about the same
thing. She was hoping by this time they would have
something more than talking about it again. Talking about
it is doing nothing. They need some action. Since they
were already past the pension discussion and City Manager
Williams knew to talk about modifying the plan and what
they were trying to do was equalize and put everybody on a
level playing field. They need to do the same thing with
the dependent coverage. They had already talked about it
and nothing had been done. City Manager Williams stated
they did do exactly what came out of the executive session.
They made their proposal to one of the unions.
Councilwoman Rogers stated that was one union and not as a
whole. They want to make it more equivalent for everyone.
No one likes to feel they are working and the guy next to
them is getting more of a pension percentage or more of
something else and it does cause problems and therefore the
services provided are affected as well.
Mayor Thomas asked if they were still talking to Brown &
Brown on their insurance options. City Manager Williams
informed him they issued an RFP for an Insurance Agent of
Record. They set up interviews for Brown & Brown and
Ascherl & Gallagher.
10
Council Workshop
July 27, 2007
Mayor Thomas had a problem with the vacation/sick leave buy
back. He thought they were spending a lot of money on
that. He felt they needed to set up some type of sick
leave bank or sick leave pool. He could see where they
were losing a lot of money. He felt that was another
exorbitant benefit. People don't realize. They bank so
many hours and they think nothing is ever going to happen
to them and when it does happen and they have to use six
months of sick leave, then they need it. He thinks they
need to look at that and some options. He doesn't want to
take their benefits away from them and they should do it in
a different fashion. Let them bank it to a certain amount
of hours and pay them at the end of their career for a
percentage of those hours. He felt they needed to really
look at that.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated Mayor Thomas felt the vacation
buy back was exorbitant and what happens is when you take
that away you are paying people to be good employees. Now
they are telling them they don't want them to go to work.
She felt that was a very fine line they have to walk. She
doesn't think it should be one for one. She felt that
should be modified and it should be two for one or three
for one but she didn't think it should be taken away
completely. That is income. They are talking about
people's lives and that is income to them and they count on
it to keep their families going. She thinks they have to
modify it but not take it off the table completely. With
the insurance, she felt they should partially cover
families. She then commented on hurting the person that
makes the least amount of money. It is easy for the City
Manager to say $10 is not a big deal but when you are only
making $15,000 or $16,000 a year, $10 is a lot. That is
the person that gets hurt. If they want to hurt the people
in the City making the most money she didn't have a problem
but when the littlest guy feels it the most she had a
problem with it. She gets aggravated. She doesn't want to
have to pay $10 to someone she doesn't have to pay $10 to.
The same thing happened with her husband's health
insurance. They didn't have the $10 co-pay and now they
do. She can afford it but her husband worked a lot of
years so they didn't have to pay it. They don't get any
more money but they get to spend more. City Manager
Williams recognized what Councilwoman Rhodes was saying.
What had to be taken into consideration was the fact that
they are faced with an environment of declining revenues.
11
Council Workshop
July 27, 2007
The Council's goals are to make sure everybody stays
employed. He wasn't saying that one provision would force
them to start a reduction in forces but every dollar at
this point in time was going to allow them to stay at their
existing manning levels, continue to provide the services
they are offering, making sure when somebody picks up the
phone and dials 911 that they have emergency vehicles that
can get to them that aren't breaking down. Those are the
challenges they are faced with in this rapidly changing
environment. Councilwoman Rhodes suggested they do it
equally across the board. Don't make the person that makes
the least pay the most. Make it equal.
Councilwoman Lichter stated maybe every city in this State
pays their Council people but they don't pay their Planning
& Zoning people or their Economic Development people and
many of them put in a lot of hours too. She doesn't think
that to volunteer to serve her community that Council
people should get paid. She also doesn't feel they should
be given medical and the other benefits. She thinks it
should be a service to the community. She would like to
know how much they might save. When she found out the City
has a life insurance policy on her she almost died just
hearing it. She had no idea they had a life insurance
policy on the Council.
Councilwoman Lichter asked what they cost. City Manager
Williams informed her the total budget for the Council was
$57,068. Of that total pay was $39,288. The medical
insurance the City provides was $14,106 and the dental was
$800. Councilwoman Rhodes suggested having Council, if
they want those benefits, pay for them. City Manager
Williams informed her that was a policy decision the
Council would have to make. Councilwoman Rhodes informed
him that was her suggestion.
Councilman Vincenzi commented on the Council benefits. He
has been a proponent of that forever. He never takes
advantage of medical benefits. He didn't even know about
the life insurance but if he could do away with that he
would today. He thought Donna Looney said they were
considered employees of the City and the plan states that
all employees have to be included under life insurance
coverage. He suggested they be taken out of that category.
They were not employees of the City as far as he was
concerned. He felt they should get the straight $7,200 a
12
Council Workshop
July 27, 2007
year. He puts in more time than that is worth but he
suggested they give them the pay and do away with the
medical, dental and life insurance.
Councilman Vincenzi then commented on the annual leave/sick
leave buy back. Originally he took a hard line on all that
stuff until he saw the numbers in budget. He has revised
his thinking a little bit. What he feels is they shouldn't
be allowed to accrue unlimited annually, vacation pay.
There should be a certain amount per year and then if
employees want to cash in two weeks, three weeks at the
most, okay that was a cash expenditure that the City might
be putting out anyway because people take vacation. He
felt a limited use of annual leave buy back was okay. Sick
leave was a totally different category. That is for use
when you are sick. They should accrue sick leave and not
be able to sell any of that back.
Mayor Thomas felt there needed to be modification to the
annual and sick leave. He then commented on two people
doing the same job and getting different salaries. He
thought they needed to factor in that one guy may have 25
years in and a guy just starting out can't make the same
that guy is making. Councilman Vincenzi stated that was
understandable. He referred to the employees that were
hired after October 2004 not getting the same as the
employees that were hired before that. He felt that
created animosity. He felt being in a job longer entitled
them to more pay, seniority, things like that but not
totally different spectrums of benefits.
City Manager Williams commented on Councilman Vincenzi's
commented regarding having unlimited accruals. He spoke of
having a maximum amount of hours that an employee can bank.
The accrual rate is based off of the longevity that an
employee has been with the City. He agreed to go back and
look at everything Council had identified with regard to
the two for one or three for one. He was going to look at
if they continue to provide benefit they could only cash it
in at the hourly rate in which they accrued it.
Councilwoman Rhodes felt that was making it more
complicated than it had to be. It doesn't have to be that
complicated. She questioned how they were going to go back
and calculate it. City Manager Williams stated he wasn't
saying they were going to do it, he was saying they were
going to look at it. Councilwoman Rhodes felt it was a
13
Council Workshop
July 27, 2007
waste of time to do that. She suggested having a buy back
with a different ratio than one for one. City Manager
Williams informed her they have some of that right now.
Mayor Thomas called a ten-minute recess at this time. The
meeting recessed at 10:05 a.m. and reconvened at 10:15 a.m.
City Manager Williams reported to Council that they should
have carpet very soon. They received notification that
their insurance claim was going to be paid so they were
moving forward with getting quotes.
Mayor Thomas asked if anybody had noticed the new ceiling
fans. Councilwoman Rhodes asked how much that cost the
taxpayers. City Manager Williams informed her they cost
$2,900.
City Manager Williams continued his Powerpoint Presentation
by describing Council Consideration/Discussion regarding
Cash Reserves. Mayor Thomas asked City Manager Williams if
he wanted consensus. City Manager Williams informed him
sure and went on to explain the Charter specified 15% to
25%. They shall strive always to meet the minimum Charter
requirement. They should incorporate at least a target in
the operating budget to achieve every year. Councilwoman
Rhodes asked if the $268,000 was over and above the 15% to
25% or if that was the 15% to 25%. City Manager Williams
went by memory and estimated for FY 2006 they had $950,000
cash in the General Fund, which was below the Charter
requirement. The Charter specifies 15% to 25% fund
balance, which is not always made up of cash. They have to
be very careful when they look at that. By targeting this
as cash and striving to maintain a 15% to 25% General Fund
Reserve of cash was very good but other items they had to
consider into that was he would suggest setting up reserves
for capital replacement, road resurfacing, sidewalks, etc.
so that does not begin to draw on the cash reserves.
Councilwoman Rhodes was trying to separate it out. She
wanted that to be in one place and the capital fund to be
in another place. Mayor Thomas stated what they were doing
was having so many days of workable cash in case of a
catastrophic disaster. City Manager Williams stated they
pointed out to them as a City that they had about $1.15
million. Mayor Thomas asked how many days that was. City
Manager Williams thought it was 19 days. That was
certainly a concern. He informed Council they would have
14
Council Workshop
July 27, 2007
an item before them in the near future to allow them to
establish a line of credit to help buy insurance in the
event they receive a catastrophic event.
It was the consensus of Council to establish a minimum
amount of excess cash to be achieved in any given operating
period in the amount of $500,000 as was recommended by City
Manager Williams.
City Manager Williams continued his Powerpoint presentation
by going over Council Consideration/Discussion regarding
Emerging Capital.
Councilwoman Rhodes asked what the Mayor's park was. Jack
Corder informed her that was the site at the lake on Mango
Tree Drive. Councilman Vincenzi questioned if that was
what they would be naming it. Mayor Thomas informed him
they were going to name it Wadsworth Park after Susan &
Terry Wadsworth who combined had 60 years with City.
Councilwoman Lichter asked if that was the property the
school owned. City Manager Williams informed her that was
across the street. Mr. Corder explained the current site
was used for withdrawal for the reuse water.
City Manager Williams continued his presentation by going
over the capital items for the Fire Department, Police
Department, Development Services Department, and Streets.
The total proposed capital expenditures for the General
Fund would be $1.4 million and none of that was funded at
this point.
Mayor Thomas commented on trying to replace a certain
number of items each year. City Manager Williams informed
him that was what they were trying to do. Mayor Thomas
stated they were trying to spread the capital improvements
out and get what they do need. City Manager Williams
stated their needs at this point were a majority of their
rolling stock he knew in the Police Department needed to be
replaced. He thought they had three or four vehicles that
were under 100,000 miles. Last year they didn't do any so
they were starting to get into a little bit of a danger
zone. Mayor Thomas suggested they could use his park that
he wants so bad as a flex. City Manager Williams again
informed Council that none of these items were in the
budget. As it was proposed they had $268,000 with
modifications to the Defined Benefit Plan. Then they could
15
Council Workshop
July 27, 2007
start funding some of these items and try to address some
of their needs. He then commented on one of the practices
they wanted to incorporate into the budget process. They
wanted to start appropriating money to do replacements in
five years. Their goal is to amortize with an interest
factor and set up reserve accounts to be able to address
that. They could basically take issues like this
completely off table. In five years they have the funding
sitting there and they make minor appropriations each year
to get there. They were looking at and trying to factor
that philosophy into their existing budget. For those
cities that have replacement funds in place they are very
successful and don't become an issue at budget time.
Mayor Thomas asked how they were going to get the $1.5
million. City Manager Williams didn't think they were
going to get it. City Manager Williams informed him those
were things that were not in this budget. With the
modification to the Defined Benefit plan they would have
excess funds in the General Fund of approximately $500,000.
He suggested they take half of that money and start on this
list. As the environment changes for the way we operate
from this point forward they may be able to address some
capital needs this year but next year they may take all of
that money and address road resurfacing and every other
year they would be addressing capital. They would play it
by ear.
City Manager Williams then continued his Powerpoint
presentation by addressing Council Consideration/Discussion
regarding Frozen/Vacant Positions. These positions were
not funded in the budget as it was proposed. He spoke of
being thin in a lot of areas. They were doing the best
they could with the resources they had. Every department
is maxed and they are still continuing to provide those
services. City Manager Williams informed Council they
could by unanimous vote keep the millage rate at 5.7 which
would solve a lot of problems for them.
Mayor Thomas asked how they could do that with the State
mandate. City Manager Williams informed him they had the
ability to do it. Councilwoman Rhodes informed him it
would have to be unanimous vote.
Councilwoman Lichter asked if there were certain positions
where they could use people that are doing certain types of
16
Council Workshop
July 27, 2007
community service like at the shelter. City Manager
Williams stated he had been working with City Clerk
Wadsworth in developing a volunteer program to draw on some
of those resources that may exist in the community. They
have to be cautious of the positions they may put people
in. Administrative positions lend itself well to
volunteers but when they have volunteers operating
equipment they incur some additional liability.
Councilwoman Rhodes asked about the prisoners picking up
trash. Mr. Corder stated it had been a few years back but
he had looked into that. The City would have to pay a
minimum hourly rate for each prisoner plus they would have
to send one employee up for training to oversee the
prisoners. They would have to provide the vehicle to pick
them up as well as provide them lunch. They would also
have to responsibility and liability of overseeing them
while they were in our hands.
Councilwoman Rhodes commented on it not being cost
effective and asked why New Smyrna was doing it. Mr.
Corder believed that was the State or the County sending
them out.
Councilwoman Lichter stated she wasn't talking about
prisoners because they had experience with them putting up
the cages at the shelter. She was talking about community
service, someone that had a lesser type of crime and had to
work it off. They have some very good people at the
shelter that are doing that type of thing. She asked if
that was acceptable. Mayor Thomas stated she was talking
about judge ordered community service. Councilwoman Rhodes
asked if the Police Department still did that. Police
Chief Taves informed her they used to have people come in
and all they would really have them to do was wash police
cars. They had gotten into using them at the shelter and
they do a very good job. The problem was scheduling them.
He further commented on them having so many hours to work
off and it being difficult to run a business without being
able to schedule the help.
Finance Director Brett Tanner continued with the Powerpoint
Presentation by going over the General Fund Revenue
Comparison, the General Fund Revenue Detail with regard to
Taxes, Licenses and Permits, Intergovernmental Revenue,
Charges for Services, Fines and Forfeitures, Miscellaneous
17
Council Workshop
July 27, 2007
Revenue and Other Sources and the General Fund Expense
Comparison.
City Manager Williams continued with the Powerpoint
Presentation by describing the General Fund Summary.
Councilwoman Rogers had a question regarding the
Intergovernmental Revenue. The FY2008 proposed was 1.9,
and the 2007 budget was 2.2. Yesterday City Manager
Williams indicated something to the effect that he had
everyone go back more or less like a zero based. If they
were at 2007 budget of 2.28 how did they get to a 1.9.
They reduced and saved then when she looks at other sources
they had a $900,000 budget in 2007 and a $535,000 budget in
2008 but yet they have received nothing for the 2007
actuals. City Manager Williams informed her the other
sources was the transfer from the Water & Sewer Fund. The
reduction from $900,000 to $535,000 represented they had
reduced their dependency on the Water & Sewer Fund
transfer. Councilwoman Rogers questioned Other Sources
being only the Water & Sewer Fund. City Manager Williams
stated and Refuse and Stormwater. Councilwoman Rogers
stated for 2007 YTD Actuals they hadn't done any transfers
from the Water & Sewer Fund. City Manager Williams
informed her they do that at the end of the year. He
informed her those represented year to date figures. He
explained the difference between Intergovernmental Revenues
was economics. Councilwoman Rogers stated on the expense
side they had some line items for City Council and City
Manager. If this was to start at zero, on the General Fund
what was given to her yesterday at the very top there was a
figure of $17,773. There was nothing to the left to tell
her what that line item was and it was added to the bottom
figure and it wasn't what City Manager Williams had
presented to them. She asked what the $17,000 was for.
Finance Director Tanner commented on in previous years
having non-departmental and these things being put within a
department. Councilwoman Rogers pointed out on the report
there was nothing to the left to tell her what the item
was. Finance Director Tanner commented on going through an
accounting system change between those years and that was
still there. Councilwoman Rogers asked about the 2007 year
to date actual and it still being there. Finance Director
Tanner informed her it was a misposting and that it had
already been corrected. Even though it had been corrected
it would still be the same. He commented on Other
18
Council Workshop
July 27, 2007
Governmental Services increasing by $6,627. Councilwoman
Rogers was confused because of the numbers being the same.
City Manager Williams explained Finance Director Tanner did
a journal entry moving that expense from that specific line
item to the Other Governmental Services as a misposting so
the total would be the same. They did this last night and
he did the journal entry after the Council's reports were
ran so there was a slight difference. It was accounted for
under Other Governmental Services. Councilwoman Rhodes
also pointed out her numbers were the same. Finance
Director Tanner informed her it was a misposting and it
would be corrected. He again commented on the accounting
software change and the way they do their accounting has
changed from prior years. It has been a three or four year
process. City Manager Williams commented on it being a
work in process. The numbers have already changed and
would change until the last two public hearings in
September. Councilwoman Rogers stated in other words with
this software when they do a journal entry and it is out of
balance it still allows them to print the reports. Finance
Director Tanner informed her it was not out of balance.
Councilwoman Rhodes thought they were saying it was
balanced and was just moved from one line item to another.
She questioned how 2005 could be wrong. How could they
have a 2005 Actual that was not an actual? Finance
Director Tanner informed her that was a real number in
2005. Councilwoman Rogers stated but there was nothing
beside it. Finance Director Tanner stated that was what he
was trying to say. Now they do everything in the
departments. That was where the misposting came from. It
got done in a non-departmental line code where it shouldn't
have been done. City Manager Williams explained what was
on the screen was done in Excel. He assumed when Finance
Director Tanner pulled the information into Excel it
deleted the line code or it didn't pick it up. He spoke of
the system they have producing reports which were not real
fancy, which they have gotten criticism over in the past.
The staff spends a ton of resources in converting the
information into Excel. He spoke of merging documents
together to come up with a final product. Mistakes can be
made. Human error is going to happen. Giving the staffing
levels they have, if that was all they find wrong with this
budget, he thinks that was excellent. Councilwoman Lichter
was sure it would get corrected. Councilwoman Rhodes
stated what concerns her more than anything is not the
error. Everybody makes mistakes. She was concerned about
19
Council Workshop
July 27, 2007
errors that were not found. Finance Director Tanner stated
that concerns him and he tries to find everyone of them.
That is a major concern. Councilwoman Rhodes asked what
happens when they don't find it. She asked if the auditors
find it. Does somebody find it? City Manager Williams
asked if she had an error that she had found that she could
specifically identify. Councilwoman Rhodes stated that is
the whole point she was making. This is an error that was
identified. Finance Director Tanner stated in his opinion
it was not really an error. Councilwoman Rhodes wanted to
know their system of checks and balances. They have the
accounting program for the City. She asked if the reports
she had were the reports that the City's accounting program
prints out. Finance Director Tanner informed her yes. He
said this was a presentation error, not an accounting
error. They have double entry accounting and it is built
in to balance. It has to balance. Councilwoman Rhodes
wanted to know if there was any flaw in the accounting
error that was allowing a balance sheet to not really
balance. City Manager Williams double further commented on
it being double entry accounting. When they do their
journal entries and go to post them if they do not balance
in the accounting world it will not allow them to post the
journal entries and would spit out a report to let them
know there was an error. Councilwoman Rhodes wanted the
assurance that that was indeed occurring and what they are
getting is coming out of that. City Manager Williams
stated that doesn't say they won't have a misposting.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated she was trying to eliminate the
human error out of that part of it. City Manager Williams
stated there were many software programs out there that
would allow them to generate some of these budget books
without a lot of staff time but they don't have the budget
for it. Many of the other cities around Edgewater have
budget directors. One of the uniquenesses in the City is
they all wear multiple hats to help control costs. He
commented on the challenges they face internally with
operations. Councilwoman Rhodes suggested staff give
Council the budget reports and don't do the pretty stuff.
Councilwoman Rogers stated what they have now is the budget
reports and there was not pretty stuff and there was a
mistake. She then commented on accounting software
programs. She works with several programs. Some are very
weak and some are not. Ultimately where they are at is
staff has recognized there are problems with the accounting
software. They are using Excel to do what they want. She
20
Council Workshop
July 27, 2007
suggested they look at an accounting program that would
help the City and help staff so this doesn't happen again.
Put it on list of capital items so that was something they
could target and look at. That's a solution for the
future.
City Manager Williams suggested she come in and go through
their accounting software with them. He spoke of the
complexity of the program being unique. They have an
integrated system which integrates the functions of the
Building Department, Code Enforcement, billing for water,
sewer and refuse, as well as having a cash receipts module.
He commented on developing a rather large temporary holding
account when the system was converted. There was some
reliance on temporary accounts just as there is a cash over
and cash short account. He would love to look at the
Cadillacs of systems but their experience has shown them
that a system of this magnitude is every bit of a half a
million or more dollars. Councilwoman Rogers again
suggested they put it on the capital wish list. They are
trying to look at the numbers and they aren't up there
running tapes and verifying so they have to rely on what is
given to them and it was confusing.
Councilwoman Vincenzi didn't have anything specific. There
were some items he highlighted that he wanted to talk to
City Manager Williams about either after meeting or Monday.
Councilwoman Lichter commented on barely being able to read
it without a magnifying glass. As far as having one
mistake that was found, it's really not a mistake if it's
found and they understand it. She was sure there wasn't a
system in the world that was 1,000% accurate. She
complimented them on what they had done if there was
in all of this that is found and they know about it.
suggested when they print the budget that they print
two sides of the paper.
only
She
it on
Councilwoman Rhodes questioned who they do the transfer of
information into Excel for. City Manager Williams informed
her the citizens because as it was presented today it was
tough to understand. For the folks that aren't diving into
the numbers they try to make that much more user friendly
and it is still complicated at best.
21
Council Workshop
July 27, 2007
City Manager Williams stated they were going to go back to
the drawing board and continue to refine the numbers and
bring back a balanced budget with the direction they had
received for the General Fund and address some of the items
they had talked about.
Mayor Thomas called a ten-minute recess. The meeting
recessed at 11:00 a.m. and reconvened at 11:12 a.m.
Finance Director Tanner continued the Powerpoint
presentation by going over the Water & Sewer Fund Revenue
Comparison, the Water & Sewer Fund Expense Comparison.
City Manager Williams then commented on having a mixing of
accounting methods. When they get to the final budget
presentation, they will be adding line items for cash and
in the Water & Sewer Fund they would add a line item to
identify the cash they collect from the receivable known as
the wastewater assessment that would be billed on the
property tax bill. He spoke of trying to incorporate two
accounting concepts into one document.
Councilwoman Lichter asked if the personnel figure would
change if they incorporated some of the things they talked
about in the beginning. She then asked about the new
meters that were put in. They were supposed to pay for
themselves. She asked for a summary of what was going on
with those meters. City Manager Williams commented on it
being a performance based contract and how they got into
that. Councilwoman Lichter asked if they were paying for
themselves. City Manager Williams informed her at this
time they were. He knew they were going through a sample
right now and they were waiting on the final report. They
had some issues to work out with Johnson Controls. They
have identified some potential problems that they totally
disagree with. Councilwoman Lichter stated so it was not a
failure at this point like some people said. City Manager
Williams informed her he would tell her it was a success.
It was a large investment. They had unaccounted for
reclaimed water. The meters are being read with more
precision and accuracy. He commented on when they used to
hand read the meters and the amount of rereads being
phenomenal. They are now reading them with much more
accuracy and they can identify misreads prior to the bill
going out. He spoke of this being a proactive approach to
the billing that they were doing. Deputy Director of
Environmental Services Brenda DeWees stated they were in
22
Council Workshop
July 27, 2007
the process of evaluating those meters right now. They
have pulled a sample to determine whether or not they were
functioning as projected. By next month they will evaluate
that further. If they aren't doing as Johnson Controls
said they would do they have to reimburse the City. City
Manager Williams stated they were at a point from an
operational perspective of having to add several more
people to deal with the meters they were reading, which he
felt was an indication of the investment they had made and
the technology to help control their personnel costs. As
the overhead goes up for technology, they do see a
reduction in personnel costs because they can typically do
more with less or maintain status quo.
Finance Director Tanner continued the presentation by going
over the Refuse Fund Revenue Comparison and the Refuse Fund
Expense Comparison.
Finance Director Tanner asked Ms. DeWees if she knew why
operating costs were coming down every year. Ms. Dewees
explained last year they projected additional expenses
related to additional growth and with that not happening
the cost for disposal of debris and that type thing has not
been realized this year.
Councilman Vincenzi asked if refuse included trash,
landscaping debris, anything out by the street that needed
to be taken away such as large appliances. A while ago
they talked about some type of fee for excessive amounts.
Mayor Thomas thought it was already incorporated. Mayor
Thomas thought it was if it was bigger than 4 X 4 X 4. Ms.
DeWees stated it was still in the ordinance that they have
the ability to charge that in the event they have a major
amount of debris. They have done that. They found that
for people who once in a while have a larger pile that it
was not cost effective.
Mayor Thomas commented on Environmental Services being
proactive with regard to tree trimmers coming in and they
don't haul their debris and the owner has to drag it to the
road. They have been proactive in going against that. Ms.
DeWees stated all of their employees know that the licensed
tree trimmers have to dispose of the debris on their own
and the residents are pretty quick to call in.
23
Council Workshop
July 27, 2007
Councilwoman Lichter stated there was a time in the last
ten years when they looked at washing machines, dryers,
stoves. It was decided they would dump them someplace else
and it would be a worse mess when they found them so they
just pick up them up when they are put out. Ms. DeWees
stated they use to charge for that and things ended up in
the canals and on vacant lots which became more of a
problem. She believed a few years ago when it was looked
at to charge for all of this, the direction she got from
Council was people replace their refrigerator every twelve
to fifteen years and that should be included in their
normal refuse pickup charge.
Mayor Thomas asked if the Capital Outlay was for the
purchase of new equipment. Ms. Dewees explained that
represented one trash truck which was a 1997 Ford trash
truck with 121,000 miles. City Manager Williams explained
it represented 2% of the total budget. Mayor Thomas asked
if they were doing enough. City Manager Williams informed
him right now fund was out of balance. Some of
modifications they had talked about would go a long way to
helping that. The Fund has done fairly well over the last
few years. He thought it was one of the only Enterprise
Funds that had made some money. One of the things they
wanted to do with the excess in that fund was to set up an
equipment reserve fund and be able to fund that from a
long-term perspective.
Mayor Thomas asked about debt service. City Manager
Williams informed him that was amortizing capital that they
purchased via debt. Last year they began talking about
trying to reduce the fixed costs they have across the board
in the City that they couldn't continue to purchase trucks
and that kind of stuff via debt. They wanted to get into a
situation where they were saving that money and then
purchasing it when it was time to replace it.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated a lot of her neighbors will
place leaves and branches at the end of one of the
retention ponds. She asked if it was preferable for them
to do that so there was one pick up place or if they should
keep it in front of their yards. Ms. DeWees stated it
would seem more preferable to have one place to stop but it
wasn't because they don't know who put it there or where it
came from. They prefer they put it in front of the house
because then they know it came from that yard.
24
Council Workshop
July 27, 2007
Councilwoman Rogers asked what date the year to date
actuals went through. City Manager Williams informed her
July 24th. Councilwoman Rogers was looking at the 2007
budget, 2008 proposed. The year to date actual was low
compared to the 2008 and yet they are posted through July
24th. The fact that they were saying zero based, the 2008
proposed was similar to the 2007 budget and the 2007 year
to date was low. If they were zero based and the 2007 year
to date was through July 24th, it just didn't pan out. City
Manager Williams commented on there being some major
differences. The challenges that this fund faces
drastically is the turnover. He commented on how many
folks they have gone through this year in that fund due to
it not being a desirable job. Councilwoman Rogers informed
him it was not just this fund. He initially said in the
Water & Sewer Fund that the transfer doesn't happen until
the end. Using that same theory it appears they use that
theory for everything else as well because a lot of the
postings aren't happening until the very end. She felt it
should be current because they were doing most of the
accounting on an accrual basis even though they have the
cash and accrual and she understood that with the Refuse
Fund. Finance Director Tanner commented on the transfers
at the end of year and what could happen and what has
happened. They may not have the cash to transfer.
Councilwoman Rogers felt they were too close to the end to
not have a year to date be more close to the 2007 budget
and it looks like the 2008 proposed is a mirror of 2007.
They said they did zero based and she was confused because
that didn't make sense to her. City Manager Williams
referred to the large difference in operating.
Councilwoman Rogers stated she was saying overall
everything was using the same methodology. City Manager
Williams explained it to Councilwoman Rogers by doing what
he considered to be simple math. There may be some area to
work with this but he identified that the Enterprise Funds
needed additional time to review. They have more work to
do. There were quotes that come in daily. These were
original projections. Councilwoman Rogers asked if he was
referring to quotes for FY2008. She commented on the
difference between the 2007 budget and 2007 year to date.
They were still way off with the difference being $700,000.
City Manager Williams informed her roughly $300,000 of that
was personnel due to tremendous turnover. They were
assuming in 2007 budget and 2008 budget they would be at
25
Council Workshop
July 27, 2007
full crews throughout the year. He commented on the delay
bringing new people on board. Up until recently they have
been forced to operate with reduced crews. There are a lot
of variances. Councilwoman Rogers felt there was too much
on the table and they were almost at the end. Why aren't
the year to dates closer to the 2007 budget because the
2007 budget was used to create the 2008 that's why. Ms.
DeWees commented on it being the operating costs. A
majority of the operating costs were disposal, landfill &
trash disposal. They normally wait until May and June to
have trash disposal done. That was not reflected in the
year to date amount because they have not billed them yet.
That was approximately $170,000 there. That amount did not
include July's landfill disposal costs. The landfill costs
are a majority of their operating costs. Mayor Thomas
asked if they were adding a catastrophic event. He spoke
of that taking a lot of money for the picking up of the
yard debris. He asked if that was included in their
projections. Councilwoman Rogers stated that would have
been in 2004. Mayor Thomas stated August 15th was the peak
of hurricane season. Ms. DeWees informed him typically
they don't budget for an event. She spoke of the cost in
2004 being $3 million. She commented on having to raise
the rates. They make sure the City's yard is cleaned out
before a potential storm event. Mayor Thomas commented on
most of yard debris being gone from Public Works. Ms.
Dewees informed him they had not received the billing for
that yet. City Manager Williams commented on there being
100 different methodologies for budgeting. He then
commented on there being a flaw in this approach. They can
go in and take year to date actuals and make assumptions
for where they believe they are going to be at the end of
the year. They could arbitrarily inflate that number and
get it to there to justify the increase in FY2008
expenditures. A few years ago they took a different
approach to budgeting to present let's go ahead with what
they have recorded in the system and use that as a
reference point and try to extrapolate out those numbers in
case they get into a situation and go forward. This was a
planning document. They were sitting here today making
assumptions for fourteen months from now. That is
extremely difficult to do. This is what they think will
happen. There are so many variables out there they
couldn't even begin to anticipate everything. He then
commented on the fuel prices. They are constantly looking
at evaluating different methodologies to come forward with
26
Council Workshop
July 27, 2007
in preparing the budgets. He then commented on zero based
budgeting and trying to be conservative. Every year as
part of the audit they go back and compare budget to
actuals and they make modifications for next year's budget
and try to accurately present what was going to take place.
Mayor Thomas commented on having a near miss catastrophic
event. He spoke of getting reimbursements from FEMA from
the 2004 hurricanes. If they get a near miss they are
going to have to pick up the full blunt of that. City
Manager Williams informed him that was why they were going
to be seeing a request to approve a line of credit for $1.5
million coming before them. They won't draw on it but it
would be there as an insurance policy to go forward. He
spoke of personnel being the number one problem in this
department. He spoke of identifying incentives to make a
less desirable job more desirable. He spoke of
implementing the task system last year which was
controversial but it was an incentive that says if they get
done with their route at 12:00 p.m. then they go home and
get paid for 8 hours. He spoke of the gentleman on the
back of the garbage truck making $8.30 an hour. Since he
was hired after 2004 he had to carry 100% of the dependent
costs. That is something that really hasn't cost the City
any money because they have asked them to go out and make
sacrifices. They are continuing to try and identify areas.
Mayor Thomas asked how that was working. Ms. DeWees
informed him on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday there really
wasn't any benefit. She spoke of it being a benefit to
them in the heat of the summer. Thursday & Friday was when
they get the greatest benefit. It allows them to go out
and get another part time job to supplement their income.
Mayor Thomas stated they are trying to do everything they
can to give them incentives. He realized it was hard to
get those employees. City Manager Williams commented on
all the cities looking at wage classification comparisons.
They are participating with cities to come up with a
system. At some point they may have to invest money to
have a wage classification study done in the future.
Finance Director Tanner continued the Powerpoint
presentation by commenting on the Stormwater Revenue
Comparison and the Stormwater Expense Comparison.
Councilwoman Lichter asked if the cleaning and maintenance
of the canals were in this category. Ms. DeWees informed
her they were. Councilwoman Lichter asked if they were
27
Council Workshop
July 27, 2007
still having problems with people throwing things in the
canals, if they had a fine system set up and if they could
catch any of what was going on. Ms. DeWees commented on it
being difficult. Unless the Police Department actually
sees them doing that they can't do anything about it. They
end up having to maintain them. She spoke of the biggest
challenge being children. They are very proactive in
making bridges. Councilwoman Lichter felt an article which
they haven't put in one of their communications with the
public might make that known. She felt that was something
they probably hadn't gotten across.
Mayor Thomas asked what the Capital Outlay was for. Ms.
DeWees commented on the items that were included under
Capital Outlay. Mayor Thomas asked about the menzis. He
understood those were very expensive. We have two. He
asked how those were doing. Ms. DeWees stated one was only
a couple of years old and was doing well. They have a life
span of about five years and the other one was about ten
years old. They have been fortunate with the operators
they have had on it and the maintenance issues to keep it
running. The cost of those are very expensive. She
believed they allocated to replace that machine and were
looking to replace it in 2010. Mayor Thomas asked Ms.
Dewees to explain to Council that with the way our
subdivisions are made that is the only thing that can go
down and clean those canals out. Ms. DeWees explained it
was because of the backyard easements and people putting up
sheds and fences. They have an easement through there but
they don't have any access. Councilwoman Rhodes stated
that goes against Code. They have to leave the easement.
Mayor Thomas commented on the City being very lenient on
that. Ms. DeWees stated the magnitude of what was existing
out there right now was phenomenal. Even if they were to
make them move it outside of the easement, the canal may be
in the middle of the easement. Mayor Thomas felt those
employees needed to be applauded. He saw them working on
the canals and he felt they do a phenomenal job. He wanted
Ms. Dewees to tell them he has noticed that.
Mayor Thomas asked about the debt service. City Manager
Williams explained that was on the books because of
previously purchased equipment as well as debt related to
the road improvement project in Florida Shores. Mayor
Thomas asked year to date how much stormwater had gone into
the Indian River Lagoon. Ms. Dewees informed her they had
28
Council Workshop
July 27, 2007
no control measures for that. Mayor asked how many gallons
they were allowed to dump into the Indian River Lagoon.
Ms. DeWees informed him there was no limit on that. She
thought he was talking about the discharge from the
Wastewater Plant. Mayor Thomas asked if they were
complying with State regulations where the stormwater goes
through a percolation or cleansing before it hits the
river. In order to have an estuary they have to have salt
water & and a certain amount of fresh water. What scares
him was the stormwater that goes off the road and carries
the gas and oil into Indian River estuary. He asked if
they were complying with state regulations and percolation
of the stormwater. Ms. DeWees explained they have a very
extensive permitting process through the State. She then
commented on federal and EPA mandates with regard to the
Clean Water Act. They have a five year permit and were in
their fourth year. Every year they add additional
compliance measures. Through the LDC they are ensuring
these developers are putting ponds in place to address
that.
Councilwoman Lichter commented on some of the conservation
meetings she has attended in terms of water. She felt a
city needed a lot of money to follow through with
stormwater being used for conservation purposes. Ms.
DeWees commented on Cocoa Beach Village having a large
parking area that went into the Indian River Lagoon and
they turned it into a park. Under the park the stormwater
is collected and transported to a Wastewater Plant and used
for reuse water. It's a very expensive process.
City Manager Williams then commented on challenges. They
have been gigged every year in the annual audit that this
fund was having declining net assets. He needed from
Council their feelings towards a rate increase. Right now
they charge $6 per month for a single family residential
unit and for the commercial units there is a break. He
spoke of the ordinance being written many years ago when
most commercial units required onsite compensating storage.
He believed it was also brought forward as an economic
development incentive. The philosophies have changed over
time. Most folks charge a flat rate for an equivalent
unit. He again mentioned having to address an increase in
rates. Mayor Thomas asked how much. City Manager Williams
commented on there being several different methodologies,
one being making everybody pay the same for an equivalent
29
Council Workshop
July 27, 2007
drainage unit which would place a pretty large burden on
the commercial residents. In order to continue to address
the issues they have with the Stormwater Master Plan, they
were going to have to consider that. He commented on the
results of the Stormwater Master Plan coming down the pike
and there being some proposed capital expenditures for
improvements to that system as well as some other
expenditures that Council was going to have to entertain as
to whether or not the City was going to take a proactive
approach to addressing the results of that plan. Mayor
Thomas asked if they had a choice. City Manager Williams
didn't think they did unless they were going to consider
trying to fund this out of the General Fund. He spoke of
the stormwater system requiring some pretty heavy
maintenance and some pretty specific equipment and they
needed to fund it correct. Mayor Thomas wanted figures.
City Manager Williams informed him one of the easiest
things would be to take the discount they provide to the
commercial folks and charge them $6 per equivalent drainage
unit. He suggested they put everyone on a level playing
field and then charge per equivalent drainage unit.
Councilwoman Rogers felt to increase the rate they needed
to look at this more.
Councilman Vincenzi stated he would be happy to entertain
the notion but he needed more information such as figures
and how many commercial entities would be affected and how
they feel about it. If they need a rate increase obviously
they would put it forth whether the Council says yes or no
anyway for them to discuss it in public. City Manager
Williams felt it boiled down to recognizing the need of the
system. They aren't funding it now so it was falling on
the backs of the other funds. City Manager Williams
explained Enterprise Funds are businesses. The cost of
doing business is recaptured through user fees. The Fund
has not kept pace with inflation. He spoke of an increase
being highly controversial. In a traditional business
environment they are going to raise their rates unless they
were going to charge taxes in the General Fund to fund it
back over to the Stormwater Fund.
Councilwoman Lichter stated under this department there are
many aspects. One aspect makes money. Perhaps what makes
money should be what pays for the stormwater. She wanted
to know what City Manager Williams meant in terms of where
30
Council Workshop
July 27, 2007
he lives and where she lives where they have paid for that
infrastructure and are still paying stormwater. She asked
if he was talking about the public and houses or just
business. Business is having a tough time as it is making
ends meet at the moment. City Manager Williams commented
on Environmental Services being an umbrella and under it
are business units. This is a separate business.
Councilwoman Lichter felt they would need facts, figures
and talking. She came to the meeting not quite with that
type of thing in mind. She knew when City Manager Williams
didn't think Animal Services was going to take care of and
balance itself which it was almost doing at this moment, he
upped the price of a kitty cat or puppy dog. She imagined
if they were going in the hole with something he might do
that kind of thing in terms of business. City Manager
Williams stated with the animal shelter they had no
resolution formally adopting those rates but they were
going to have to adopt those rates. Councilwoman Lichter
stated they were trying to make it an Enterprise Fund which
couldn't happen overnight but they were working at it.
City Manager Williams wasn't asking them to vote on this
now. He had to bring these items back to Council because
for the last four years there had been a comment in the
CAFR. At some point if they don't address the issue the
issue is going to address it for them.
Councilwoman Lichter asked if they got a big grant to do
something for the stormwater. Ms. DeWees referred to the
Miscellaneous Revenue and that being the grant money coming
in for Eastern Shores. She mentioned this being a matching
grant as most grants are. Councilwoman Lichter asked if
they had the money for the match. Ms. DeWees informed her
they did this year.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated City Manager Williams quoted a
figure of $300,000 or $400,000 additional revenue for
increasing the stormwater for commercial. City Manager
Williams believed it was about that. Councilwoman Rhodes
asked what an equivalent drainage unit was. City Manager
Williams explained they take the impervious surfaces and
divide it. Ms. Dewees stated 2,027 square feet equaled one
drainage unit. Currently there are businesses that have
their own retention ponds that were getting a discount.
Councilwoman Rhodes felt it shouldn't just be commercial.
It all should be equal. She also agreed they needed more
information. She wanted to see what the hit was going to
31
Council Workshop
July 27, 2007
be to the businesses. They are trying to encourage
economic development, not discourage it. If it is too huge
maybe they could come up with another option. She agreed
that something needed to be done. This Fund needed to be
funded. Whatever they have to do they are going to have to
do.
Mayor Thomas explained where the stormwater runoff goes.
He felt they needed to address this because a major portion
goes to the Indian River Lagoon which is their future and
the ecosystem which he felt was going to be the future of
this City. He then commented on eventually running out of
water. He felt it needed to be addressed but that they
needed more information.
City Manager Williams commented on the results of
Stormwater Master Plan having some pretty major
implications throughout the City.
Finance Director Tanner continued the Powerpoint
presentation by going over the Animal Services Fund. He
described this as a new Enterprise Fund. This was the
first year so there were no revenue or expense comparisons.
He then described the 2008 Proposed Revenue.
Councilman Vincenzi stated this year after the Animal
Shelter was built that the Other Sources would go way down.
Finance Director Tanner informed him that was a one-time
transfer. Councilwoman Lichter commented on having animal
control people for all these years and they didn't go under
this category. They are Police officers in a sense. They
are doing what is required by State Statutes. Whether they
have a Shelter or not they need animal control people.
City Manager Williams explained when they presented this to
Council under the Enterprise Fund they clearly told them
they would be transferring the money from the General Fund.
They were funding it out of the General Fund but they were
controlling all of the expenses in the Animal Services
Fund.
Finance Director Tanner then went over the FY 2008 Proposed
with regard to the Animal Services Expense Comparison.
Councilwoman Lichter referred to the Capital Outlay for the
animal shelter itself and asked if they took off the
interest made on the $500,000 over the last three years.
32
Council Workshop
July 27, 2007
She asked where the interest was. Finance Director Tanner
informed her right now they had $530,000 to build it with.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated they had 2006 actuals and asked
how come they didn't have 2007 year to date. Why was the
money spent in 2006? City Manager Williams explained she
was looking at the miscellaneous data. Councilwoman Rhodes
asked what kind of memory card costs $371 for a camera.
City Manager Williams informed her it could be a type-o.
All the departments had access and did their own entries.
They would go back and research that. Councilwoman Rhodes
told him to research all the rest of them too. City
Manager Williams commented on this department originally
being budgeted in the General Fund and was moved into a
separate fund in order to do a better job of tracking and
projecting the proposed expenditures. He was pleased they
were only $11,000 away in this Fund. He knew they had more
work to do on the Enterprise Funds. They planned on
devoting that interest from this point forward.
Councilwoman Rogers commented on the interest and asked
about the design fees they had already expended that were
directly attributed to this. She asked if it was because
it was in a different fiscal year. City Manager Williams
informed her yes. Councilwoman Rogers asked if it was the
same thing with the interest revenue. City Manager
Williams thought the important thing was they all know at
this point the challenges they are faced with. He spoke of
needing every dollar to build this facility. There have
been a lot of comments made about whether or not they were
going to move forward. They understand it has been a long
time coming. He knew the residents were impatient. They
have certain procedures and protocol they have to follow to
build this facility. It will happen. Every time it seems
like they get moving down a path, somebody comes along and
says they have people willing to make donations and it
slows the process down. They are listening to these folks
and taking them seriously when they come forward and they
are evaluating all aspects of this project to get the
biggest building they can for their buck. They have to
draft an RFP with the emphasis that it would be a design
build facility. They have to create an avenue within the
RFP that would allow contractors to come forward and offer
up those donations. He spoke of having no way to bind the
people who were making the donations. He suggested they
make provisions for that donation.
33
Council Workshop
July 27, 2007
Councilman Vincenzi stated he has gotten a bad rap over the
years about being against this. He isn't against the
animal shelter. He was against the way it was presented.
All he ever wanted was accountability. Now it looks like
they are getting accountability and he was all for it. The
sooner they could move ahead with it the better. City
Manager Williams informed him they were their doing best.
Mayor Thomas asked what happened to Ms. Saunders. City
Manager Williams stated he didn't know. She quit and was
no longer with the City. Mayor Thomas felt that was too
bad. Mayor Thomas asked who was running the shelter now.
City Manager Williams stated they had an Animal Control
Officer by the name of Johnnie Dail who was overseeing the
operations and doing a wonderful job. One of his favorite
qualities was that he was a retired member of the armed
services. He can deal with personalities very well that
they encounter on a daily basis. They were making some
changes to the current facility. Councilwoman Lichter
stated it looked much better and that the animals were very
content. One of their problems was they get people that
walk in from Edgewater County and want to bring animals.
Volunteers don't understand this is an Edgewater City
Facility and they don't have a map to know which was County
and which was Edgewater. They have to look at their
drivers' license or voter registration because they can't
take in animals other than Edgewater animals. They have
New Smyrna people coming to them due to them being in a
sense low kill. They are turning people away that aren't
Edgewater people. They have to.
City Manager Williams stated he was going to go back and
start the modifications to the Defined Benefit Plan. They
would probably be calling an emergency meeting of the
General Employees Pension Board. From there they would be
calling for an overall meeting of the members of the
Defined Benefit Plan. He felt Council would probably be
getting some phone calls. It was highly controversial at
best but necessary. They would continue to refine the
numbers. He then questioned how many more situations they
wanted to have before the final two budget hearings. If he
had his preferences he would like to meet a couple of days
before the final budget hearings to do a final
presentation.
34
Council Workshop
July 27, 2007
City Manager Williams informed Council starting next
Thursday he was going to be out of town on vacation.
Mayor Thomas asked what the millage goal was that they were
shooting for. City Manager Williams informed him 4.89.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting
adjourned at 12:27 p.m.
Minutes submitted by:
Lisa Bloomer
35
Council Workshop
July 27, 2007
\,
1J
"'
City of Edgewater
FY 2007-2008
BUDGET WORKSHOP
r'
L--
Agenda
· Goal
· Major Challenges
· Computation of Millage
· Projection Parameters
J
· Council ConsiderationlDiscussion
I
· General Fund
, ' .
· vi ater and Sewer Fund
· Refuse Fund
,
· Stonnwater Fund
,
· Animal Services Fund
,
,
I
\,
,
f
~
Goal for Today:
Council consensus authorizing staff to advertise tentative
millage ~ate'for the Fiscal Year beginning October i, 2007
and end~l!g jSeptember 30, 2008 which is pursuant t~ Truth
in Millage 0fRIM) compliance as set forth by Florida State
Statute
Major Challenges
· Property Tax Reform*
· Declining State Revenue
· Sluggish Economy
. I
· COlltract Negotiations
· Cash Reserves
,
· Capital Replacement*
· Maintain Current Level of Services*
, \
*Represents Priority Objectives outlined in the Strategic Planning Report
2
,
I
"
ComplltatiQn of Millage Rate
· Majority vote allows millage of 4.89 = $5,563,624.
r .
FY2007 mIllage of 5.70 = $5,953,676.
· Two-thirds vote allows millage of 5.37 = $5,807,90l.
· Unanimous vote allows millage of5.70 = $6,160,189.
. l
Proj ecti GnP arameters
· Annual Wage Adjustment ?%.
· Health Insurance increase 14%.
.
· Fir~fighters Pension Employer conVibution
16.8%.
· Pollce Officers Pension EmpJoyer
contribution 26.7%.
· General Employees Pension Emplgyet:
contribution 48.is%.
3
..
Council Consideration/Discussion
· General Employee Defined Benefit Plan.
· Contract Negotiations.
· Cash Reserve.
· Emerging Capital.
· FrozenN acant Positions.
Council ConsiderationlDiscussion
General J;mployee flef1J1ed Benefit Plan
· FY 2008 Annual Required Contribution
$1,222#,000 or.
· ASIa percentage of payroll 48.25%.
· 91 % increase over FY2007.
. , '
4
"\
Council ConsiderationIDiscussion Cont.
General Employee Defined Benefit Plan
ARC
$1,400,000 --""""'~- __. -"-,..---
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000
$-
Annual Required Contribution
Council ConsiderationIDiscussion Cont.
I
General Employee Defined Benefit Plan
· Why the increase?
· Assllmption projections have not accurately
reflected the actual experience of the plan.
\
'-
5
"
Council ConsiderationIDiscussion Cont.
General Employee Defmed Benefit Plan
· For example, in FY 2006 the ARC
decreased from FY 2005 as a result of the
following changes in assumptions:
A.~RunlJltion Changes
\Vhilt' (:omplt-tang thix vahlaliull~ Wl': Icvicw{.J !llt -actuari~1 a:iS~DlptJOns. 'nuS. report mclude... tilt: fnllouing
:J.ssu:npl;on dlanges:
}> FThe mOTI:dit)' t9hlc hllS bf.PfI llpd:uetl1o (he RP 20(t\) Combihl'd Mor~hlY Tahlt:' projocled to 1.005.
~ \~.'c adiuskd the ~ilhdrllw~1 aS$umpuon {O reflect p:tst expcflOlH and the expected tUt1l0V('r for furun~
y('ar~.
~ 'W'e ha\'c lIs$lJrned a tClircr1lf..1U It:!:c IJlhcr than YVUJ plau':!j norm,,1 n.'lin.'1J1c:l( a~~c. 111is aSl;umptio;1
rx-Ut'f frf](,C'"If nm MllK'3tions ror future rcrircmenl agc$.
Council ConsiderationIDiscussion Cont.
General Employee Defmed Benefit Plan
· Specifically,
Retirement ^/.:c
AfUVC~: Ill% ~r age SS
51f% 31 age 60
7W. M age (.1
HiO% b;; 21\C 6'1
N"tln~l rttittm(~! m>e as defined ill
. ",1
Summary Ilf Plan PlOvj~iot1~
Jrla(:livl~: NnrlllalrCliItllJtll12r.e
6
..
Council COQsideration/Discussion Cont.
Genera! Employee Defmed Benefit Plan
· Exp~rieJ1ce has shown that in fact 100% of
the eli~ible participants retire at "Normal
Retirement Date," and continue to work as
well as accrue a benefit, which is why we
seeithb drastic increase in ARC.
.
Council ConsiderationlDiscussion Cont.
I! . ' ~..
General Employee Defined Benefit Plan
· Another contributing factor to cost, is the
pIal} provision which allows the recipient to
coritiriue to accrue a benefit. For eJ5.ample,
'Annual salary -1-' ; $
Years oi Serlice
Mu~iplier .... '
Annual Benefit ' $
,- --'--' . ,-
Perce~t In~~e Ann~!1y ,
SQ,OOO -' !
25
2%
25,000 $
T
5I,~~_$
26,
2% .
27,300 $
9.2'0%
55,1251$ -
2ft
-.....
~ 2%
:.t. ~
29,768 $
'9.04%"
0' /t-_o"::' ~ _. 'A
57,~1. $ ~,7~5. $ 63~~~.
28. 29 30
20,(," 2% .- 2%
..... ._i....____ ......
32,414 $ 35,250 $ 38,288
'''8:89% 8.75%' 8.62%
-1 .
7
,
Council ConsiderationIDiscussion Cont.
General Employee Defined Benefit Plan
· Options:
1. Do nothing at all.
2. Freeze the Plan.
3. Terminate the Plan.
4. Modify the Plan.
Council ConsiderationIDiscussion Cont.
O',:: t
General Employee Defined Benefit Plan
· Do not~ing
· Costs continue to increase.
· Thr~atens the City's ability to continu~ to
prdvide the current level of services.
8
Council ConsiderationlDiscussion Cont.
u
General Employee Define9 Benefit Plan
· Freeze the plan
· Emplqyee receives accrued benefit up to the
point of freeze and is moved over to the
,
defin~d contribution plan.
· Major impact to employ~~~ mgral.
· Estimated cost over a 5 yr period $1.5
million.
Council ConsiderationlDiscussion Cont.
General Employee Defined Benefit Plan
· Terminate the plan
· Employee receives accrued benefit up to the
pOV1t of plan termination and is moyeo over
to fIfe,defined contribution plan.
· Major impact to employe.~ mpral.
· Estimated cost to terminate $7.2 million.
\
9
Council ConsiderationlDiscussion Cont.
General Employee Defined Benefit Plan
· Modify the~plan to allow particip(}.nts to continue
to work/retire, but not accrue additional benefits.
Once the employee decides to retire, they would
tran~iti0n to the defined contribution plan.
· Moderate impact to employee moral.
· Estiiiuited Savings of $644,000.
Annual'Saiary
Years otSeNce
- --~--_.'-'-'--
~~Iti~ier
Annual Benefit
--_.~-
Percent Increase Annually
· ~ 5O&OO~ $ 52,500 $
25 26
2% 2%
$ '" 25.000 $ 27,300 $
...:.:., ~'"l1lllit~~0ll ....
, J.2~~1
55,125T$
n~
2%
29,768'T f
~~%i .
57,881$ 60,775 $ 63,814
.. ---.-2~ '. -29 30
2%' 2% 2%
- 32;41:1 $ 35,250~ $ 38,288
,"', .- --..+." .- - ..
8.89% 8.75% 8.62%
Council ConsiderationlDiscussion Cont.
General Erpployee Defin~d Benefit Plan
· Modify the plan to the extent that
participants are not eligible to retire before
reaching age 60.
I
.
· MajOr impact to employee moral.
I
· Estimated Savings of$579,OQO.
\.
10
Council ConsiderationIDiscussion Cont.
General Employee Defined Benefit Plan
Questions?
Council ConsiderationIDiscussion Cont.
.
'1
COl1traet Negotiations
· Bargaining units have been notified to
initjate negotiations.
· All contracts shall be for 1 year.
,
· Major considerations:
Anbu~l~ wage adjustment
Annual buy back of accf4als
Medical Insurance
11
Council ConsiderationIDiscussion Cont.
Cash Reserve
"j! c,
· General Fund Budget as proposed provides for excess
revenues over expenditures by $268,092. Enterprise Funds
need additional time to review.
· Contract Negotiations and Modifications to the General
Em~loy~e Defined Benefit Plan may increase qr decrease
excess cash.
. "
· Suggest Council consider establishing a minimum amount
of excess cash to achieve in any given operating period.
Manager rec'omm,ends $500,000.
Council Con~id~rationIDiscussion Cont.
Emerging Capitql
· Current General Fund Budget does not appropriate funds
for capital replacement.
· Modifi~ations to the General Employee Defined Benefit
Plan may potentially be the source of necessary funding.
\
· For example, if Council modified"the plan as
recominended, $222,264 would be available to the General
Fund fo; capital related expenditu~es. " "
.. .\
12
Council ConsiderationIDiscussion Cont.
Emerging Capital
~eiera' Fu~~ -c.~pltal lt8m~
I Leisure Services
John Deere" 997 Com. z- Trak Diesel '12: Mower
Sh-Ufneb08rd- Clubhouse .
ShtfriebCtrti--COUrts'-W/LiQhts
~~~.9~~-~.~~~_ -.
Engineering Fees
JRO!a..yP"~P'''rking ~oi
M.ayrs Park
..Iii ..... _. _ _ . '
f~FE"1A rl3~~~ ~..t'~~a.~ fa_~H_ity _ _I
Net LeisUre ~ervlces Capital expense.'
'- - -- ~ ~ .. 0'0 ... ."- _ I
Fire oGpaitment
tMonfto/ Upgf.idil~ior ETCbv12 Lead
UHFNHF Radio for S55
'.~inina Manikin
:800 Mhz Base Station for Admin
I - 't .. ~
Sets Fire Tum Out Gear
Ambuiancs"Stretcher
:R~pl~?e~~ 'E~S..Suction Units
. ReplacemantTransport/Fire Capable Rescue Truck
; D-~5 ~~~I~i~:: _ i!..- ~~ ""'
Community Sene. Truck
uiility" "rn.ick (F-35~,'- 4~4BR). I _ . ~ _
!,I!:e ~J>artm..!.!ll.-CaJ~I~1 !'xpense'
12,487 i
120,OqO"
217,606 i
.. 96,006
24:ll991
50,000
50,000
569.487 1
(243.6/5)1
325,8121
...
$17.000 1
~ :$3.000
~$3.oo0
;.' $1.5QO i
\ $5.600
$4,100
~$3,000.
$2PO:000'
$40,006 .
-$24,000
$32,000 .
333,200
.j,
Council ConsiderationIDiscussion Cont.
EmefgiJ;1g Gapital
pon~ ~p.rtin.n_t
r"-p.itiolvet,icIH (impalas)
UghtS .
Cage'
Window e.,..
S.~pino'~.l~ _
~st"I!~.E."oni~
'~"1. ~. ~e~~~I.t!' _(~~~~)_
16856
3000
126
410 "
350
600
1 ~ Vehicle * 21 ,9~~ i
3 . Patrol VehicktS' 65,828 ~
1~,~
,
2 - C. I. 0 Vehicles: 27,972 '.
;5. Portable Radios (53,500.00leact'l)
17,500
PoliO. !1-pa,."ent capltale~pe.n_~
. .
c..ptUl for O..eloprlMllt SelVa.
Truck fOr inSpector
:: ~
8n.1s o.p.rtrMnt
..Road lIte--Surfl,eing
i Si.dewalk Repair
-i-Dump Truck \
Tf.~C~ M~ (~)
R~o...~~~c.e_'7'!nt
. Th!lmC!..e~~c 1n5~~er
~
To.~.1 G~ne"'l rund ~pl~lltam.
5500.000 00
-550,000.00
$60,000.00
,. ~1'(S:~'
]5,060
.-....~
Shets ---!!!:!!!..
. 1,414,310
13
Council ConsiderationlDiscussion Cont.
Frozenr{r acant Positions
The following positions. by department. are authorized in the 2007 budget but currently have been frozen or eliminated.
City Manager
Finance
Police
Fire
Assistant City Manager
Accounting Technician
Finance Clerk I
Administrath'e Assistant
.
Plans Permit Clerk
Police Ollicer (3)
\ Firefighter (3)
Reserve Firefighter
Equipment Operator
Maintenance Worker
Grants Administrator I Must"Um Curator
Maintenance Worka
Service W orkO"
Sclvice Worker
Main~ance WaTka
Anim;t Savices Administrator
Building
Street
Leisure Services "-
Field Operations
Refuse
Stormwater
Animal Services
General Fund
II
\
\
14
General Fund Revenue Comparison
2005 Actual .2000 ACiual 12007 Budget !200fVID 12008 Proposect
T~es } -7~~~76~.f 8~?~:~~?n.9j~,806 T$ 8~~~J$ 8!~~:'~~9
Licenses and Permits . $ 592,707 $ 417,158' $ 558,129 i $ 200,358 i $ 222,000 '
'Inie-rgo..emrmlntal Re..enUe J'$ 2,300,389-$ '2,197;785 I $ 2,282:634:$ 1,487,052 $ 1,946;213'
I - .._-._- ------.-. ............. '" .._-.- ~- _.." - ----...--.,- -.........-
i Charges for SeNce : $ 366,825 ; $ 630,449 $ 512,906 $ 384,800 $ 449,889 :
- .--.----.-.,' _. _.- l' -". '-'--'---'.'--4--' ----..-- - ---..---- ,.-.- .' -- .-_.-
'Y~~~_~~i~~~~~~s ~.~ 1.0~,~?l'.f'.t .132!~~f~ 22~~O? ~!.~~~~~~ _..!~,1?~_;
.Misc re..enue ; $ 418,922. $ 1,484,111 $ 247,800: $ 80,926: $ 100,276:
..___...._.. .. ...._ __._....J_._ _._____. "'___'-' .. --.. ..
; Other Sources $ 1,420,500 I $ 663,991 $ 900,000, $ .. ! $ 535,928
; Tota I i $ 12,494,776 $14,110,994! $14,107,3821 $ 10,454,4181 $ 12,065,175
Comparison Cont.
-Total Proposed Revenue for FY 2008
-$12,065,175
$10,000,000
$9,000,000
$8,000,000
$7,000,000
16,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,OOO~eoo
~
. 2005 Actual
o 2006 Actual
. 2007 Budget
El 2007 YTD
111 2008 Proposed
"il
0'" ',,>-'" 1>",0 .~0 ~0'"
..'lit' ~ ",,"" .--li -,,---oS
-, q0 ~0 <;:,0- ~r
{;:-o ~ ....0... <<0
'lJ e<::' r/? 0
~",0'" t$'~ ~CS \ ~ ~
,cJ' 0",,0 c.; <(~0
v ...0~
,<::'
,:;,0 cJ''''
""rS' ~
(,...0 /",0
~.. . &,0
15
Comparison Cont.
General Fund Revenue Detail
-Broad Revenue Category "TAXES"
-Total $8,740,699
TAX REVENUE
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
~:~~~:~~~ ~ ~~c _ . ~ (ii, ';a1I,ItJ.,..~
o~~ o<fi'~ {i7~~ t-.p~ <i'<P If-'cr c:~~'" <tfP'" ~~~ ,c!-"i; ~"i; ~"i;
..,~ ..,i" 4' _~o n~.;;yO \",;' rI' vo~ A>a ~ ~"
9' 5>' 1/-" v .". U ...1' ~ -c (J" ~ r.o;:,
A",'t' ,$-,'t' ~~ ",SJ dY' ",,,0 6" &~ -*"!7 ",-S' #J
~<$" ,#'<; ~,'t' ~-1P ~.$q ~-1P &~ n'i" ~~"
0; -# ~~ $'~ ",-S' *'~.
..,0 ~#
. 2005 ActUBIs
. 2(K)6 Actuals
02007 Budget
02007 Y-T-Q
.2008 Proposed
16
&
Revenue Detail Cont.
-Broad Revenue Category "LICENSES AND PERMITS"
-Total $ 222,000
LICENSES AND PERMITS
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
o !---l~-.a,-' . _......-":t.
~"'4:- ,yt<' ~l(y ~l (;-~ ,/' (;-~v ~-!' ~ ,I'~ &~c} &~.,,,,
".s' ~.p..::: ...~ ~~ ",oSv "'v~ ~.:/ ".I' p~ .....v AV
Q~ ~v ~., ~ ~~ ,.~ q"/ qv
{l ~<i! ~4Y .s-'
#' ".y
v..,<i!
~
.2005 Actual.
.2006 Actual.
02007 Budget
o2007Y-T-O
.2008 Proposed
Revenue Detail Cont.
-Broad Revenue Category "INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE"
-Total $1,946,213
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE
1,200,000
1 ,000,000
600,000
ill
II 2CXl5 Actuals
.2006 Actuals
o 2001 Budget
[J 2007 Y-T-D
. 2006 Proposed
600,000
400,000
200,000
....~
o
f<<4> ,q;-</j <t>#' 4<'" {yf ...iT ~Q ....;,~ /' ~",,,,,,, ...c-
,;,~4<~ #<1' f<<"'~ "v<# <:>"'V ;".-S-'" iT# cfirl"'" &*" v{f ~#
<{Y~q; N~4" ~",-i<-~ ",-1"-<>'" ",q}"'~ "'...#' <,v"'''''' ...~ #"'Vr.#~<yv#
,$" ..".- ~ -9>"" V f<<~ .... *"' 'C'
<,'<> ",'" ...... ~o- dJ "'~ cP'" ,:s ,s:.~
'" ",eJ'F 0 cP.,g
...
17
Revenue Detail Cont.
-Broad Revenue Category "CHARGES FOR SERVICES"
-Total $1,946,213
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
400000
350000
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
o
lI~',
. 2005 Actuels
.2006 Actuels
02007 Budget
o2oo7Y-T-O
.2008 Proposed
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ & ~ ff ~
..., <<<() _" ~u ~<< !<-~- '(- .i<-~ , ~
~q,v ~'" ((}:fP .,<8' f<>c.::5 ",<0 ~v"- 4? f A.:~
.. 1,& ~ <I:' ,>V"- ~q; ..<<f' ",<8' !f--<?'" f.'''''' ~v<tP
~.f" ~<() <P <<~ <;:-'l:-"- ,s-4> .pO gY"~ ..<I:'
0<< ~O f,p-u oG Q:-4P
~",,- 0<<7 vO u <fF Q'"
Revenue Detail Cont.
-Broad Revenue Category "FINES AND FORFIETURES"
-Total $ 70,170
FINES
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
o tli._ ~- J1l
~ ~ # ~ ~ ~ # # ~ # ~
&~ ,{:-' &'" ",'Y"" <tI" \"...,,:r "",~ -,#" _"",~ ".:t?' .s-d'
...". 6' w .... '" ",<<> d" dY ~~ ,"" '"
.,' 0 <p p"" ,;,& ~'" ,If. ",'l> #' {<,."'" ,c'J"
~<tf' ~",,<<- <3-- <p 4"" 6-<<> -"*'~ "'~ c:r
,,'" 0 ",-'" #4' ,,0 ~ "",ss
cP.s- <p"'o ",,, ,,0.... #'~ >5'""""
<p
~.
,I
.2005 Actuels
.2006 Actusls
D 2007 Budget
D 2007 Y-T-D
.2008 Proposed
18
Revenue Detail Cont.
- Broad Revenue Category "MISC. REVENUE"
-Total $ 100,276
Misc. Revenue
i:mr!(~z~.~_,~~,~Jt~~]
~0'O ~~~ " "", v'O ~v~ ~v~
~~ v<# ~~' ~,?-v v~v s\""' s"" ~~ ~~
4-~ ~~ _<<-~ +-~ 'O,'i:j v-<::-o~ ~o~ v~<<; 0~
,Q-<<J ~.;s 4'",. ~~~ _,,<<J ~<Q ~~v .$:-'i:j .$:-'i:j
~'<? o~ _c.,<<J ~ 'Or~' ~' ~~ ~~
~ v ~ ~ & & ~ ~
Revenue Detail Cont.
-Broad Revenue Category "OTHER SOURCES"
-Total $ 535,928
Other Sources
~i~ f1-~F~ -.::,
, ~ # ~,~,
_6 . '":1,., ~\S _\'?- V ~\S ~~. ~\S 0-<'"
~,;>-"" 'It !G.. .~' ~ "'~ ". ",Xt ~~
-<.."<"' "I~ .;::,Cj /'is'' /'"LO ~v ...V -- ~v ~
^ ~v "x oy " " ~'" :-:
,~v _\'?- <<-v '":1.(( fv<<- .Qv ~ .Qv (yv
f<'V .~"" 4- ~yo 0~ ~yo ~
~~~ 0"" ~~ (v~ OV fv~ o~
~ ~~ -<.."<"' ~~ <? ~~ ~~
11 2005 Actuals
. 2006 Actuals
o 2007 Budget
02007 Y-T-D
.2008 Proposed
-.- "1
. =. . 2005 Actuals
, . . 2006 Actuals
, 0 2007 Budget
. 02007 Y-T-D
~ . 2008 Proposed
r"~1
19
GENERAL FUND EXPENSE
COMP ARISON
. . - -..
ACCOUNT DESCRIPllON
~ r_ '" .. _......... _
Personnel Sel\ices
.; .~, '-,_. - ._.-
Operat~ng _
~pit~1 ?~I~y
Debt Sel\ice
.......... - _.~
Transfers
.... ,..-......- ........-..
.. GENERAL FUND
r~~I-~t~~ ~, ~~~i.j6i~3L 2OO;'~~~i;;i _2~~~~~~~1. 2008 ::~~
. _.~,!93,0,!~ _2,280,~?2 2,642,860; ~,70~,3~: i,311,7~
, 783,599 1,300,261 {3o.fB48: 488,816i 522,208
952,110: -'-1,004:007 1,300;5001 454:16.~ .'. _~~~~.~
-31,017:- - -737,8011 453.4291 6,6271 409,698
11,400,873; 13,025,973: 14,107,882 9,082,409: 11,837,680
COMPARISON CONT.
9,000,000
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000 ,
1,000,000 .
,
o '
ser/l~
l'elSOl\l\eI
l
. 2OO51>ctuals
. 2006l>ctuals
o 2007 Budget
02007 Y-T-D
. 2008 Proposed
o~(3\il\9
.~ ()Il\l3'i
call' .
oeb\ serl~
\lal\slelS
20
COMPARISON CONT.
Operating
20%
Debt Ser.ice Transfers
4% 3%
Personnel Ser.ices
69%
COMPARISON CONT.
ACCOUNT DESCRIPllON
CITY COUNciC
ciTY MANAGER
ciTY CLERK.
FINANCE'
PlANNING
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT t
Bun:.biNG .......... . ...-!
PERSONNEL 1
otHER GOV. SERVICES
PdLICE-ADMIN
POLICE OPERAllONS
FIRE ADMiN
FiRE OPERAi16Ns
COMMUNiTY'SERVlcES
COMMUNrTY SERvicES
STREETS DEPARTMENT
lS ADMIN
LS dP-ERA llONS
GENERACFUND
-j
2005 Actuals .2006 Actuals
- -58.20g.....
372;412
21>9;587.
69o;56il'
253.294:
'12.416'
314.698;
227.948 T
1.468.442:
. 335;084
2.5189.446:
3"~8~~_
1,978.685'
233:896
-0.-
450.736~
540,0001
",' ~q.f
909.5071
11.400.873 :
2007 Budge 2007 V-T-O '2008 Proposed
54.448"'62.885 43.167 "65."1'78
~~.~.~~1 -!.5!:J.7,27: 521.~0~ 429,895
27~,~.38: 30\~5~j _18~~~~. 3.?~..E'~3
?~~~.~, ~7.~261 ~5f.~7, ~7.358
284,331, 358.462; 268.683 373.296
-f{49S" -1s.30et '14,727' 12,386
304.514 ~ 338:483! -227,491] 31'8;998
229.741 214.446~ 135:539 265.040
- . -- ~.- . -. I .-- ,... - .' .,. -.,...
2.273.625 2.210,635 939,320: 1.379.472
462.220, 5'00)38 393.130:561,792
2.996~38"5; 3.17\940 2.368.259 2,i172,084
341.2331 ~~~~?1f 368.]~~ _~2~~~~
2,~~.9.3.38i 2.~56.107, 1,7~7,378 2.~, ~~,6
21,6,457, 204.630 142,111 217.872
198,70S1 261-:-33st 179.691 "0
546,556' 657.7641 175:121- 326,596
592:465~ 593.319\ 434.469 462,700
.......- _.. ,.... ..f - -- ,. ,-- ...
868.285. 1.475,921i 624,011 876,262
13,025,973: 14,107,882; 9,082,409 11,837.680
21
COMPARISON CONT.
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
o
.2005 Actuals
.2006 Actuals
02007 Budget
o2oo7Y-T-D
.2008 Proposed
if & ~ ~ 0 ~ S N ~ ~ ~ ~ b b b A ~ b
~ OV "'~ ~cr ~~ "Y <'I-~- ~'<J ~f() -~ 0' I {J~- (;v (;v It ,f 0'C
OV # (;V # ~ R~~Vrl# f'-"""",,, ~-S' ~.p...,
~ (j ~" $' ~, q-J' rvSJ ~ ,0' o,lt; {-'" .if ~'" rvtt o,lt; t!f (l v., .if
(} ~ (j {if qVl ,I' flV o~- ~ oq ,<!. ,<!. ~ o~'
(} ~Q ~ ,& #,,~,,~ A" ~
~*~ oV ~,/,I rv"'-
O~o o~' q (;0 (;0 o,~
",0
COMPARISON CONT.
ctf.M.NTY SER./K:fS
1.84%
S1llfETS OO'ARThfNT
2.76'l 1
\
\
"
art 00l.N:l
0.55%
CITY ",,"'GER CITY Q.fJlK
3.63'> 2.61%
FlllSOtoNI.
2.2.%
OllfR 0001. SffiVW
11.65%
PCU::E 0Im\ 'OONS
2..26'l
22
Gen~ral Fund Summary
· Total Revenue $12,065,175
· Tot~l Expenditures $11,797,083
· Total Increase Fund Balance .:-fCash"
$268,092
General Fund Summary Cont.
· Total Proposed Expenditures have been reduced
from FY 2007 Budget by 16.38%.
. Personnel Sen.;ces
. Operating
. Capital Outlay
. Debt Sen.;ce
. Transfers
23
.
Questions?
::.
Water and Sewer
24
WATER & SEWER FUND REVENUE
COMPARISON
._~.-_... -..n__...... ,~._ -12005 Actuais~ - -2000 Actuals 2007 Budget ;2067V:;=-0 ;2008 Proposed
ACCOUNT DESCRIPllON
CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1 ~,337,_O~---, 6,774,576 7,436,0881 5,122,962 7,015,060
~.... .... ~ .'.- .., -~ --- .r ---4-54:11-6' ---'---1
MISC. REVENUE 426,669 401,290 64,000, 1,299,579
_n _... . .._ ~._._ -- -i _... -. .. --\. 2,oi2;9641 _ ___.__J -~..~
OlliER SOURCES 898,817: 1,068,295 01 1,519,000
___ ._. _,_____ _ h .- 9,301,6561 5,186,962 9,833,639
WAlER & SEWER FUND 7,662,582; 8,905,673
.- -
COMPARISON CONT.
· Total proposed revenue FY2008
· $9,833,639
8,000,000
3,000,000
'.-,
7,000,000
6,000,000
t
\..'\1 ~,
,-, .J
. 2005 Actuals
: . 2006 Actuals
: 0 2007 Budget
02007 Y-T-D
o 2008 Proposed
I
. '_'1
tl
5,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
i
1,000,000 \.
1liI" "
\
\
o
0i6.RGE5 R:R SERVCES
MSC. REVEN..E
011-fR SCll.R:S
25
.
COMPARISON CONT.
OTI-ER SOLRCES
15%
MISC. REVEN..E
13%
WATER & SEWER FUND EXPENSE
COMPARISON
ACCOUNT DESCRiPTiON ,i005 Actuals ,2006Actualsi200i Budget 1007 Y-T-D 12008 Proposed'
......._. ...___.. __ _.~. _.___....~ __.. ......_._, _'__.._n.__" ..._... +. .__..____
Personnel SeNces 2,480,440, 2,541,145, 2,734,663: 2,080,161' 3,151,797
---.... - '---"f'" ..-.------., . '-" -t -.._~ ... -_... ,..
Operating 3,305,744, 3,913,658 2,238,504' 1,507,187 2,225,148
--, '. ',. --, -~. --..--- ' ->-~ .... '~:i ----~--...
Capital Outlay 1,426' 28,698 279,700 3,995 139,618
.____.. .' .... _ _ ....__ . ...., _ ___ __J .. __. ....
'Debt SeNc.e 1,439,142 1,431,874 2,292,806 2,667,341 4,127,028
.. ____.__ ___..._. ....... _..-- "- n.' c1 -,
Trans~rs_ ___... _ 1,064,725, 1,024,802 1,360,000 24,5161 712,195,
WATER & SEWER FUND 8,291,477, 8,940,177: 8,905,673 6,283,200 10,355,786'
26
~
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
o
COMPARISON CaNT.
11
Personnel
Services
Capttal. Outlay Debt Service
Transfers
Operating
COMPARISON CaNT.
Transfers
7%
Personnel Ser.ices
30%
Debt Ser.ice
41%
\
Capital Outlay
1%
Operating
21%
.il
~
. 2005 Actuals
. 2006 Actuals
o 2007 Budget
02007 V.T.D
. 2008 Proposed
27
,
Questions?
Refuse
'" 11III".' w _
\.
28
REFUSE FUND REVENUE
COMP ARISON
ACCOUNT-DEsCRIP~6N or-ioos-Actuals
- . -----" .-...--.... ------
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE 1,224,518.
~HAR~~- ~qR S~R~I~ES - -- f,072~~21. _
i -.:1
MISC. REVENUE i 13,438;
REFUSE"lillUlY FUND- 3,310,738!
2006Ac!ua~_.._:2607- Bu~~~f~oofY-i-D I
114,010 0; 0
--- -"--'- _...-~ -.-....;
2,240,262, 2,397,000 1,776,434
_d__:;r ___ _, ......._..4. ._. ._-
3,707, 2,000 517
2,357,979! 2,399,000: 1,776,951'
2008 P reposed
o
2.480,000
1,000
2,481,000
COMPARISON CONT.
tmroOVERlf>9ITAL
REV~UE
0%
MISC. REVENUE
0%
\ CHARGES FOR
SERVICES
100%
29
~
REFUSE FUND EXPENSE
COMP ARISON
ACCOUNT DESCRIPllON :2005 Actuals '2006 Actuels '2007 Budget '2007 Y-T-D '2008 Proposed:
:PersonneISei\1ces - -. 96~!i50T---964.424'- ----iJi7;059;---790,931; 1,158,532;
:9ie~ting_ 1.956,92~ 1,68~!660;- 1,1~3:-3~if -790.39~i 1:0_~1;~~~
\~~J>.i~al.outlay _ _ QJ 0: 6,000 0 43,000
,Debt Sel\1ce 10,1651 21}i4! 101.5751 89,5155' 159,670,
~TransreiS -294,0150: - -0; - i,(foO;- O~ 213,773
REFUSE Dfii.llY FUND 3,245,044 2,067,328 2,399,000; 1,670,826: 2,596,340:
COMPARISON CONT.
2,500,000
2,000,000
'i a
500,000
~
..
.2005 Actuals
.2006 Actuals
o 2007 Budget
02007 Y -T-D
. 2008 Proposed
1,500,000
1,000,000
o
~-,.
~.~_~.J
,
Personnel
SeNces
Operating
Cap~al Outlay Debt Ser.1ce
Transfers
30
COMPARISON CONT.
Debt SenAce
6%
Transfers
8%
Cap~al Outlay
2%
Personnel SenAces
45%
Operating
39%
Questions?
\
\
31
Stormwater
STORMW A TER REVENUE
COMP ARISON
ACCOUNT DESCRlPTlON
. ..- ....-------_.------
LICENSES AND PERMITS
. _..._._.~~_w__.___
t CHARGES FOR SERVICES
~. MISC.-REVENUE - -
--..- --~'--'--."
t OlHER SOURCES
- ___0__._-0.-. _. ... _ _._...____
tt STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
2005 Actuals
o
862,727
~..._.... -
91,908
-. 0
954,635'
2006 Actuals '2007 Budget 2007 Y - T-D ' 2008 Proposed
24,1981 30,000 15,050] 20,000;
~~fn- -@~~~ -.. ~.~I?! ~o'@J
12,757 75,000 106,244: 230,250:
.. _.~ ." ----1 _........~ .. -~-
1,270,469, 508,403' 130,825 0
2,199,841 1,513,403 934,9361 1,170,250
32
COMPARISON CONT.
1400000
1200000
100000o
800000
~-
"f.
11'1
c'l
II 2005 Actuals
. II 2006 Actuals
o 2007 Budget
D2007Y-T-D
o 2008 Proposed
i
600000
400000
200000
o
ER\;I\1S 'JIceS E.'J€.~l.le
~seS ,..~o I' GE.S rO\l. S~ . \;IISC. ?:
\..\c€ . 0"Ip.?: .
II
~A
l1li
\l. sOI.l\l.CeS
01\,\e
COMPARISON CONT.
MISC.
REVENUE
20%
SOURCES
0%
LICENSES
AND PERMITS
2%
CHARGES
FOR SERVICES
78%
33
.
-
STORMW A TER EXPENSE
COMP ARISON
ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION
--- - - .~- '."
· Personnel SeNces
~. - .-- -- ......--
· ~e:~~t_
· Capital Outlay
~.~ .--._----
· Debt Ser\1ce
· TransferS
.. St6RMWA1ERMA~GEMENT:
: 2005 Actuals , 2006 Actuals 2007 Budget 200fv -T~D 2008 Propose<f
.. ____.,_.~._.._~'- __..___4. ~"___.._" '._4. ,__._~. ..u____,
'433,553 393,217; 453,312- 303,086 461,297,
.., .~.--1' ______.J. ____.. ...." --.--_.- -'____1
396,~3,_ 536,81~j 322,647" ~74,ll:i~ 254,~
0: 0, 341,47f 161,184' 139,000
.~_-"'''l --.- .......,....____.. ".~--.:,... ~-._,._- ~,-...,.......
101,785' 87,085 395,973 212,183 408,531
11'2,952, --.0' --""0; -- '0: o.
1.045,273' 1,017,117 1,513,403: 851,296 1,262,829
COMPARISON CONT.
600,000
300,000
'~~:r-w-
500,000
o
. 2005 Actuals
~' r..' .2003Actuals
. 0,' . 0 2007 Budget
, o2007Y-T-O
~ .2008 Proposed
400,000
a
~
r~"";
200,000
100,000
. Personnel . Operating . \ Capital . Debt Ser.ice . Transfers ".
Senices Outlay
34
.
.'
COMPARISON CONT.
. Debt SeNce
32%
Transfers
0%
Personnel SeNces
37%
. Operating
20%
Questions?
35
.
~
t
\
, .
.
ANIMAL SERVICES FUND
ANIMAL SERVICES FUND
REVENUE COMPARISON
-ACCOlTNf DESCRiPllON 12005ACtuals r-2006 Aclliiiis -"I 2007 Budget f200iv-r-D I . 2008 ProPOSed-'
~:;~CES .l_______~I--.---.~ .____..!!' ---.-l---.~
LICENSES AND PERMITS i 0 0 0 0: 5,691
~I~~G:~;~F~~RVICE~___~ -...---.--- ~~-'''-'~I ~t=-------~
MISC. REVENUE ~ol____1-~_~__~~_. 1,732
OTHER SOURCES I 0, 01 01 01 591,090
ANIMAL SERVICES. 01 01 0 01 711,120
36
.
, .
~
"
CaMP ARISON CaNT.
700000 ~~~~j~~l
600000 "".', 11
500000 , " . 2005 Actuals
r . 2006 Actuals
400000
o 2007 Budget
300000 , ~, 02007 Y-T-D
200000 ", . 2008 Proposed
100000 ..
,,"... ., i - '." --
0 - H .-,
,
S~R"\C~S NO \,~RtJ.\,~e &. fORf~\i'S R So\JRC~S
~NS~S '" f\N~S Oi'\1€:
\.\
COMPARISON CaNT.
TAXES
5%~
LICENSES AND
PERMITS
1%
CHARGES FOR
SERVICES
7%
FINES &
FORFEITS
5%
, ~ MISC, REVENUE
.~ 0%
37
.
,~
.
ANIMAL SERVICES
EXPENSE COMPARISON
!\~CO~~ DES"cFifp"t[off. Actuals
[SERVICES
:Pe;SoririeTse~ces 0
iOperatiiig if
:Gilpriili 5Uifay '.0'
ii:lebt ser\ice - 0
Transfers 0
ANIMAL SERVICES 0
,2006 Actuals
i(xrTsuOOET :2007 Y-T-D
00
o 0
ii- --' -6-
0: 6'
o 0
o 0
i20llBPropoSed :
,
0, 114,901
"l
0: _~9,!!.l!~:
~ 505,350
'6: 32,495!
-I
0: 0:
01 722,311 i
COMPARISON CONT.
600000
500000 ~ (J~ '- ,-
A'll"
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
Personnel
Ser.ices
~
ill
.~ ,'..
. Aduals
.
o 2006 Aduals
02007 BUDGET
.2007 y,T-D
1il200a Proposed
"
i3
:.,i:
Operating
Capital Ou~ay Debt Ser.ice
Transfers
38
.
'"
..
'"
COMPARISON CaNT.
Capital Outlay
70%
Persomel
Services
16%
Debt Service
4%
Operating
10%
Questions?
39