HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 06 01 Other
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA 32708-2799
Telephone (407) 327-1800
Ronald W. McLemore
City Manager
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Commission
Ronald W. McLemore, City Manager y1--
FROM:
DATE:
June I, 2004
SUBJ:
Budget Issues Workshop
Please find attached budget issues for which the staff needs direction in order to complete
the FY 05 Preliminary Budget.
The budget at this point does not require any millage increases, or rate increases.
However, if the Commission decides to add back items cut from departmental requests a
millage increase will be required.
Issues to be Discussed:
I. Pension Plan Enhan~,ements
2. Salaries
3. Health Insurance,
4. Prepayment of Notes
5. Urban Beautification Program
6. ADA Transportation
7. Senior Bus Transportation
8. Joint City-School Recreational Facility
9. Phase II Town Center
10. 1 ~ Local Option Sales Tax
II. 1999 Construction Fund
12. Budget Cut Restorations
JP
Attachments
FY05
BUDGET ISSUES
"RETIREMENT PLAN ENHANCEMENTS"
ISSUE:
Does the Commission support enhancing the City Retirement Plan by increasing the
benefit for service prior to inception of the plan from 2% to 3%, and by reducing the
unfunded past service amortization schedule from 30 years to 15 years?
As you know, the City initiated the Defined Benefit Plan on October 1, 2000, providing
for a 3% annual benefit from the date of inception of the plan and a 2% annual benefit for
year of service accumulated prior to the inception date of the plan.
The 2% benefit has been an issue with employees with service prior to the inception of
the plan. Employees believe the plan discriminates against older employees who have
given honorable service to the City. For example, if an employee with lO-years service
prior to the inception of the defined benefit plan, and 10 years service after the inception
of the defined benefit plan retires after 20 years, the employees benefit will be:
10 years service at 2% =
10 years service at 3 % =
Total Benefit
20% benefit
30% benefit
50% benefit
However, an employee with 20 years service since the inception of the plan will receive a
60% benefit as follows:
20 years service at 3%
60% benefit
In order to rectify this problem we need to follow through on our pledge to implement
raising the benefit for service prior to inception of the plan from 2% to 3%.
Related to this strategy there are three issues to be considered.
1) What are the costs?
2) What is the impact on the overall health of the plan?
3) How best to implement.
Cost 1 % Retro-Active benefit:
The cost to implement the 3% benefit retro-actively is an additional 2% of payroll
contribution raising the total contribution to the plan from 11 % to 13% as follows:
Current Plan 11 %
Additional 1 % Past Service Benefit 2%
TOTAL 13%
Cost Reduction of 30- Year Amortization to 15- Year
The 2% increase in contribution will maintain the amortization of the unfunded past
service liability amortization schedule at 30 years. Although a 30-year amortization
schedule is considered normal for a defined benefit plan there is little cushion for highly
unusual events such as the down turn in the stock market three years ago. The fact that
we had a IS-year amortization schedule at that time allowed us to maintain contribution
rates at 11 %.
Therefore, we believe that it would be fiscally prudent to take steps to reduce the risk
factor by lowering the amortization schedule from 30 years back to 15 years.
This can be accomplished by adding an additional 2% contribution to the plan bringing
the overall contribution rate to 15% as follows:
Current Plan 11 %
Additional 1 % Past Service Benefit 2%
Reduction of Amortization Schedule 2%
TOTAL: 15%
IMPLEMENTATION:
The issue now is what is the most equitable and fiscally responsible way to implement
the additional 1 % retro-active benefit and decrease in the amortization schedule, and the
associated 4% increase in contribution. This involves the following question.
1) Who pays what portion?
2) What is the implementation schedule?
Who Pays What Portion - 2% Emplovee Benefit Cost:
The appropriate allocation of cost among employees raises an interesting question. What
is the fairest way to allocate the 2% cost for improved benefits to the employees since the
new cost benefits only employees that were employed prior to implementation of the
defined benefit plan?
Employees employed after the inception date of the plan might argue that they are
already paying for their 3% benefit and shouldn't have to pay for employees employed
prior to inception of the plan.
Employees employed prior to the inception of the plan would argue two points as
follows:
1. All of the contributions they paid into the old defined contribution plan
substantially off-set the cost of the 3% benefit employees started receiving after
the inception of the defined benefit plan. Therefore it is only reasonable and fair
that employees hired after the inception of defined benefit plan should have to
share in the cost of funding the extra I % benefit they feel is owed to them.
2. As stated before, they would also argue that the current situation is inherently
unfair and discriminates against employees who have honorably served the City
in the years preceding the implementation of the defined benefit plan.
The 2% cost could be distributed in two ways as follows:
1. Creating two classes of employees in the plan as follows:
a) Employees hired before inception ofthe defined benefit plan.
b) Employees hired after inception of the defined benefit plan.
In this case, the retro-active cost would be allocated to the class of employees that
was employed prior to the inception of the defined benefits plan. The second
class would continue paying the same contribution rate.
2. Maintaining the current one class plan and distribute the 2% extra cost across the
entire class.
We believe Option 2 is the most appropriate strategy for three reasons as follows.
I. The expense to the older employees would make it infeasible.
2. The normal method of funding benefit enhancements in defined benefit plans is
distributing it across the entire membership.
3. As stated before, the older employees believe they have made a disproportional
contribution to funding the retirement plan and that requiring them to pay even
more than the newer employees would strongly support that their past service to
the City means little to City officials.
2% Unfunded Past Service Liability Amortization Reduction Cost:
The 2% of payroll contributions that would be dedicated to improving the financial
soundness of the plan by restoring the 15 year amortization schedule is a cost that should
be shouldered by everyone.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
As stated the cost for the plan enhancements are as follows:
Additional 1 % Past Service Benefit
Reduction of Amortization Schedule from 30 years to 15 years
TOTAL COST
2% of payroll
2% of payroll
4% of payroll
The dollar cost to the General Fund and all other funds is as follows:
General Fund
Other Funds
TOTAL
$368,000
$ 80,000
$448,000
Although the other funds could easily absorb their share of the increased cost, the
General Fund cannot absorb the cost. An increase in General Fund millage equal to
0.2622 mills would be required to fund the General Fund portion of the 4% increase in
contributions.
However, the 4% increase could be absorbed by the General Fund without any millage
increases as follows:
a) Spreading the cost over two years; 2% each year.
b) Reducing the 4% merit system to 2% for the two year period, or
c) Maintaining the 4% merit system and deducting 2% from employee
salaries in the first year and an additional 2% the second year.
The fire union fully supports this plan. Most of the older employees support the plan. As
stated before, some of the younger employees may dislike this approach since they
already have the benefit. However, even at 2% the City will be offsetting most of the
cost of inflation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The following recommendations are made relative to the implementation of the retro-
active additional 1 % benefit, and reduction in the past service amortization schedule.
I) The current plan which provides for a 2% annual benefit for years prior to
inception of the defined benefit plan and a 3% annual benefit for years of service
after inception of the defined benefit plan is unfair for employees who have given
honorable service prior to inception of the defined benefit plan and should be
changed to provide for the extra 1% annual benefit retro-actively.
2) The 4% in contribution should be phased in over two years.
3) Employees would be eligible to receive the extra benefit in FY 06 in order to
allow the extra funds to accumulate in the plan for one year.
4) The merit plan would be restored to an average of 4% in future years as funds are
available if the merit plan is reduced to 2% for two years in the alternative of
maintaining the 4% merit plan and deducting the additional contribution from
salaries.
ATTACHMENTS:
Actuarial Cost Estimates
CHART
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS DEFINED BENEFIT PLAN
PRESENT AND PROPOSED COST ILLUSTRATIONS
AS OF OCTOBER 1, 2003
PRESENT PLAN
30 Year Fundina 20 Year Fundlna 10 Year Fundlna
Normal Cost $824,820 $824,820 $824,820
Past Service Cost 241 ,723 277,169 405 ,551
Total $1,066,543 $1,101,989 $1,230,371
Expected 2003/04
Covered Comp $9,820,177 $9,820,177 $9,820,177
Percent of Comp 10.9% 11.2% 12.5%
a) Present Value of Accrued Benefits: $7,924,486
b) Market Value of Assets: 7,039,995
c) Unfunded Present Value of Accrued Benefits: (a-b) $ 884,491
COST TO PROVIDE PROPOSED 3% FORMULA FOR All SERVICE
30 Year Fundina 20 Year Fundina 10 Year Fundina
Normal Cost $844,439 $844,439 $844,439
Past Service Cost 438.450 502,741 735.608
Total $1,282,889 $1,347,180 $1.580,047
Expected 2003/04
Covered Comp $9,820,177 $9,820,177 $9,820,177
Percent of Comp 13.1% 13.7% 16.1%
a) Present Value of Accrued Benefits: $9,986,911
b) Market Value of Assets: 7,039,995
c) Unfunded Present Value of Accrued Benefits: (a-b) $2,946,916
Retirement Plan Specialists, Inc.
4/1/2004
FY05
BUDGET ISSUE
"SALARIES"
ISSUE:
Does the Commission support the adoption of the recently completed Salary Survey completed
by Cody and Associates for FY OS?
DISCUSSION:
The Salary Survey just completed by Cody recommends only minor changes in the City Pay Plan
that represents insignificant increases in payroll cost.
Basically, the study concludes that starting salaries are consistent with the market place.
However, it does recommend raising the maximum in the ranges 5% due to the number of
employees that are topped out, and market conditions. Currently, 13 employees have topped out
on their range assignments. The cost of this recommendation is minimal. The survey does
recommend range changes for the positions listed below. However, these range changes in and
of themselves do not require increases in pay.
Current Range
Assignment
Proposed Range
Assignment
City Clerk
Information Services Director
Information Systems Administrator
Information Systems Software Support Specialist
Building Official
Crew Chief
Construction Inspector
32
32
27
27
33
18
23
33
37
28
28
34
20
24
FISCAL IMPACT:
Minimal
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Commission adopt the Cody Study Pay Plan recommendations for FY
05.
ATTACHMENT
Cody Study.
Employee Top Out List.
COMPENSATION STUDY UPDATE
City of Winter Springs
2004
~
Codlj & -..Addocialed, Ync.
MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS
305 Jack Drive; Cocoa Beach, Florida 32931
(321) 783-3720; FAX (321) 783-4353
E-mail: CodyAssociates@aol.com
~
Lod'1 & ...AjjQCiatej) J-nc.
MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS
305 Jack Drive, Cocoa Beach, Florida 32931
(321) 783-3720; FAX (321) 783-4353
E-mail: CodyAssociates@aol.com
May 6, 2004
Mr. Ronald Mclemore
City Manager
City afWinter Springs
1126 East State Road 434
Winter Springs, Florida 32708
Dear Mr. McLemore:
We have completed our assignment and are submitting the final report of our
Compensation Study for all positions in the service of the City.
This report has been prepared as an accounting of our assignment and to record our
approach. The recommendations and comments in the report reflect our objective
appraisal based on analysis and discussion to the extent possible within the scope of the
assignment.
Our objective was to develop a Classification and Pay Plan that is equitable to both the
employees and to the taxpayers of the City.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you and express our thanks for the
cooperation and courtesy which was extended to us by all of your employees during the
Study.
Respectfully Submitted,
'0/ f e'~lS'
N. E. Pellegrino
Principal Partner
...
,.
COMPENSATION STUDY
City of Winter Springs
Table of Contents
Section
Page
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
STUDY ASSIGNMENT AND OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . 2
II SALARY PHASE 4
A. SALARY SURVEY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . 4
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Selection of Survey Classes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Identification of Labor Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Management, Administrative, Professional Positions. . . . . . .
Secondary Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Survey Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
4
5
6
6
B. DEVELOPMENT OF THE SALARY SCHEDULES .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
C. GENERAL SALARY FINDINGS AND COMMENTS ............. 7
D. OTHER SALARY SURVEY CONSIDERATIONS ............... 8
E. RECOMMENDATIONS........................,.......... 8
III IMPLEMENTATION .....,.................................... 9
ENCLOSURE 1 - RECOMMENDED COMPENSATION PLAN (By Department)
ENCLOSURE 2 - RECOMMENDED COMPENSATION PLAN (Internal Relationship)
ENCLOSURE 3 - SALARY SCHEDULE
Co<4 & -A..ocials., .Jnc,
..
INTRODUCTION
This Report, on the Study of the Salaries for the City of Winter Springs, contains
details of all elements of the Study. In preparing this report, Cody & Associates, Inc.
has used its best efforts and has taken reasonable care. To an extent, the Report
relies on information and data received from third parties in which Cody &
Associates, Inc. has assumed the accuracy and completeness thereof.
Cody & Associates, Inc. cannot guarantee that any particular result will follow from
any action taken on the Basis of this Report. The information and opinions
expressed in this Report have significance only within the context of the entire
Report. No parts of this report should be used or relied upon outside of that context.
This Study is not an end in itself, but a vital element in a sound management
program for the City. A good overall management system requires continuous work
and polishing, once the plan is implemented.
Adjustments will continually have to be made to reflect changes in the labor market
place in order to maintain a current and equitable classification system and pay plan.
u.........._.__........................._......_..........................................................._.....................................................................................................
Co<4 &> A"ocia!"., .J~.
.1.
..
I
STUDY ASSIGNMENT AND OBJECTIVES
The City of Winter Springs, Florida, retained the services of Cody & Associates, Inc.
to conduct a Pay Study for all positions under their jurisdiction.
In our approach to updating the Pay Plan, we were concerned with the following
basic objectives:
A. Formulating a Pay Plan that will assist in reducing turnover costs and promote
careers with the City.
B. Designing a Pay Plan that will attract qualified personnel to render the
services that the City provides.
C. Establishing objective, standardized, methods establishing salary ranges, and
determining individual salary levels.
D. Establishing equitable relationships of one job to another within the work force
(equal pay for equal work).
E. To insure fair and equal compensation opportunities for equal contributions
to the effective operations of the City.
Cody &> .Auociat,u, Jru:,
.2.
-:-
F. Designing current Salary Ranges which are competitive with reasonably
similar positions in the labor market where the City recruits for employees and
which are consistent with the economic conditions in Seminole County and
surrounding counties.
G. Establishing or maintaining normal lines of promotion to and from the various
classes of positions in the Personnel System.
H. Assuring that department heads, supervisors and other employees have an
opportunity to participate in the Survey.
To achieve these objectives, we divided the assignment into two (2) major segments:
A. Wage Survey.
B. Report Preparation and Presentation.
..........H................._.......................................................................................H..............-.-..........-............................-....................--...........
Crx4 & .Adjociaf.ej, Jnc,
.3-
~
II
SALARY PHASE
The Salary Study included the following:
A. SALARY SURVEY
The objective of this survey was to determine what must be provided in terms
of salaries in order to obtain or retain personnel; in other words, to be
competitive with other employers recruiting from the same labor market. The
steps included:
1. SELECTION OF SURVEY CLASSES (Bench Marks)
We tried to utilized as many as possible of the present classes in the
salary survey in order to get the best possible data. These benchmark
jobs represented all of the occupations and levels in the City's organiza-
tion and those occupations which could be compared with other
employers.
2. IDENTIFICATION OF LABOR MARKET
The relevant labor markets to be surveyed were identified. One market
was the local operating area of Seminole and adjoining counties for the
.................................................................................................................................................................-_...............-..............................
~&A~~k 4
positions which are recruited from this geographical location.
We included both public and some private agencies in the survey from
the following areas: Seminole County; Seminole County Sheriff's
Department; City of Longwood; City of Maitland; City of Lake Mary; City
of Winter Park; City of Casselberry; City of Apopka; City of Altamonte
Springs; City of Sanford; City of Ocoee; City of Ovieda; Seminole
Community College; State of Florida (Local Offices); Survey of Area
(Seminole County) Businesses; Florida Labor Departments
Occupational Wage and Benefit Survey.
3. MANAGEMENT. ADMINISTRATIVE and PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS
For management, administrative, an some professional positions where
the City must remain competitive on a State-wide basis, our staff
studied salary data from other comparable governmental agencies in
the Region and State.
Another source used was the Florida League of Cities Cooperative
Salary Survey 2004. This information was used as guide, along with
local data in arriving at our recommendations to determine general pay
levels.
We realize that there are significant differences in Cost of Living in
other areas of the State in comparison to Seminole County, so, when
using data outside of Seminole County, we made appropriate
adjustments to this data to reflect the Cost of Living differences. The
formula used was: Cost of Living Index difference (between reporting
Co~ & ..A..ociaLJd, 3M_
.5.
cities and Winter Springs) X Reported Salary Range = Adjusted Salary
Range. The Cost of Living data source used was the most recent
"Florida Price Level Index 2002". These Cost of Living adjustments
afford greater validity to the survey data.
4. SECONDARY INFORMATION
Secondary salary data included regional surveys recently completed by
our company and information from our data base. This information was
used as a guide in developing the salary schedule recommendations.
5. SURVEY METHOD
In compiling this data, we not only obtained their minimum and
maximum salaries but the number of positions in each classification.
This separates the larger agencies from the smaller ones and equitably
indicates what the market is. (Example: City "A" might have seventy
(70) Police Officers in a range of $21,000 - $36,000; City "B" may have
only ten (10) Police Officers, with a range of $26,000 - $38,000. In
averaging these two agencies, we would use this formula: (70 x
21,000) + (10 x 26,000) + 80 = Average minimum salary of these two
agencies.
Another step we use in our calculations, in order to provide the most
accurate data possible, is to apply the standard deviation principle. The
standard deviation is the most commonly used indicator of variability of
a distribution of data. The usual and most accepted interpretation is in
terms of the percentage of cases included within one standard
Lo<4 & ..A"ocjate., .Jnc,
.6.
deviation below the mean to one standard deviation above the mean.
This range on the scale includes about two-thirds e/a) of the cases in
the distribution. Data was entered into our data base and then edited
to ensure that the data was reasonable and representative and had
been accurately reported and recorded. Responses were eliminated
when they appeared atypical or exhibited extreme values in wages.
B. DEVELOPMENT OF THE SALARY SCHEDULES
The objective of this aspect of the Study was to compile the results of the
salary survey and to design appropriate salary schedules and plans for all the
positions covered.
C. GENERAL SALARY FINDINGS AND COMMENTS
We found most of the minimum rates were comparable the results in the
survey findings. However, the maximum (retention) rates were slightly below
the survey results. Therefore, ranges were adjusted to reflect the survey
results. A complete list of the recommendations can be found in Enclosure
1 and 2.
c~ & ..A"ocia~j, .Jnc.
.].
D. OTHER SALARY SURVEY CONSIDERA TIONS
The salaries in Seminole County and the surrounding counties have had a
moderate increase over the pastfew years. Seminole County is ranked as the
fourteenth (14th out of 67 counties) cost of living area in the State, according'
to the recent Florida Price Level Index Study. This means that Seminole
County is 3.48% below to the State-wide average cost of living. This was
considered in the overall analysis of the State-wide salary data collected for
certain jobs and drawing appropriate comparisons.
The salary increase considerations for the next fiscal year throughout the
region and State of other governmental agencies range from approximately
three to five percent (3%-5%) on an average.
E. RECOMMENDA TIONS
1. Adopt the recommended salary ranges and schedules as submitted in
this report. when iUs economicalfy feasible to do so (Enclosures 1 and
2).
2. Cody & Associates, Inc. will assist the City further in the implementation
process, as requested.
C0c4 &> ..A44ocialeJ, Jnc,
.8.
III
IMPLEMENTATION
To implement the proposed Classification and Pay Plan, we recommend the
following:
1. Adopt the Class Titles, Class Descriptions, and Salary Schedule as
recommended in this report.
2. Adjust the salaries of employees who fall below the minimum recom-
mended to the minimum rate.
3. Any employee presently being paid above the maximum for their pay
range, should be "frozen" at their present pay rate.
Co<4 & .AddOCu.~, .Jnc.
.9.
RECOMMENDED
CLASSIFICATION AND PAY PLAN
(By Department)
ENCLOSURE 1
RECOMMENDED PAY PLAN
(By Department)
CLASSIFICATION PRESENT PROPOSED
PAY MINIMUM MAXIMUM PAY MINIMUM MAXIMUM
GRADE GRADE
CITY MANAGER
City Manager ungraded -------- -------- ungraded -------- -------
Secretary to the City Manager 23 27,026 39,188 23 27,026 41,147
Information Services/Systems Director 32 41,926 60,793 37 53,510 81,468
Systems Administrator 27 32,850 47,633 28 34,493 52,516
Projects & Applications Support 27 32,850 47,633 28 34,493 52,516
Network Technician 26 31,286 45,365 26 31,286 47,633
Computer/Laboratory Technician 25 29,796 43,204 25 29,796 45,365
Web Multi Media Technician 24 28,377 41,147 24 28,377 43,204
1
CLASSIFICATION PRESENT PROPOSED
PAY MINIMUM MAXIMUM PAY MINIMUM MAXIMUM
GRADE GRADE
CITY CLERK
City Clerk 32 41,926 60,793 33 44,022 67,025
Deputy City Clerk 24 28,377 41,147 24 28,377 43,204
Assistant to the City Clerk 21 24,513 35,544 21 24,513 37,322
FINANCE
Finance Director 39 58,995 85,543 39 58,995 89,8119
City Comptroller 31 39,930 57,899 31 39,930 60,793
Management & Budget Analyst 30 38,028 55,141 30 38,028 57,899
Utility Billing Service Manager 29 36,218 52,516 29 36,218 55,141
Revenue Officer 28 34,493 50,015 28 34,493 52,516
Accountant 26 31,286 45,365 26 31,286 47,633
Accounts Payable Supervisor 22 25,739 37,322 22 25,739 39,188
Service Technician 20 23,346 33,852 ' ' 20 23,346 35,544
,
Accounts Payable Clerk 19 22,234 32,239 19 22,234 33,852
Utility Billing Specialist 19 22,234 32,239 19 22,234 33,852
Customer Service Rep. 17 20,167 29,243 17 20,167 30,705
2
CLASSIFICATION PRESENT PROPOSED
PAY MINIMUM MAXIMUM PAY MINIMUM MAXIMUM
GRADE GRADE
GENERAL SERVICES
General Services Director 37 53,510 77,590 37 53,510 81,468
Human Resource Coordinator 29 36,218 52,516 29 36,218 55,141
Purchasing Coordinator 26 31,286 45,365 26 31,286 47,633
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Community Development Director 39 58,995 85,543 39 58,995 89,819
Senior Planner 33 44,042 63,832 33 44,022 67,025
Customer Service Center Manager 32 41,926 60,793 32 41,926 63,832
Planner 29 36,218 52,516 29 36,218 55,141
Arborist 26 31,286 45,365 26 31,286 47,633
Zoning & Permitting Application Coord. 22 25,739 37,322 22 25,739 39,188
Administrative Secretary 20 23,346 33,852 20 23,346 35,544
3
CLASSIFICATION PRESENT PROPOSED
PAY MINIMUM MAXIMUM PAY MINIMUM MAXIMUM
GRADE GRADE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (Building)
Building Official 33 44,022 63,832 34 46,224 70,376
Senior Building Inspector*** 29 36,218 52,516 29 36,218 55,141
Residential/Commercial Building 27 32,850 47,633 27 32,850 50,015
Residential Building Inspector*** 25 29,796 43,204 25 29,796 45,365
Permit Specialist 18 21,176 30,705 18 21,176 32,239
*** $1,500 Added to the base for additional licenses
PUBLIC WORKS
Public Works Superintendent 31 39,930 57,899 31 39,930 60,793
Fleet Services/Mechanic II 23 27,026 39,188 23 27,026 41,147
Team Leader 23 27,026 39,188 23 27,026 41,147
Facilities Maintenance Technician 22 25,739 37,322 22 25,739 39,188
Fleet Services/Mechanic I 21 24,513 35,544 21 24,513 37,322
Heavy Equipment Operator 20 23,346 33,852 20 23,346 35,544
Administrative Secretary 20 23,346 33,852 20 23,346 35,544
Sign Maintenance Technician 18 21,176 30,705 18 21,176 32,239
PUBLIC WORKS (CONTINUED)
4
CLASSIFICATION PRESENT PROPOSED
PAY MINIMUM MAXIMUM PAY MINIMUM MAXIMUM
GRADE GRADE
Light Equipment Operator 17 20,167 29,243 17 20,167 30,705
Maintenance Worker 16 19,207 27,850 16 19,207 29,243
Maintenance Worker II 17 20,167 29,243 17 20,167 30,705
Maintenance Mechanic 20 23,346 33,852 20 23,346 35,544
Custodian 14 17,421 25,260 14 17,421 26,523
Engineering InspectorlTechnician 26 31,286 45,365 26 31,286 47,633
Fleet Services Supervisor 26 31,286 45,365 26 31,286 47,633
Capital Projects Coordinator 30 38,028 55,141 30 38,028 57,899
STORMWATERlENGINEERING
Engineer 31 39,930 57,899 31 39,930 60,793
Construction InspectorlTechnician 26 31,286 45,365 26 31,286 47,633
Construction Inspector 23 27,026 39,188 24 28,377 43,204
Team leader 23 27,026 39,188 23 27,026 41,147
Light Equipment Operator 17 20,167 29,243 17 20,167 30,705
Maintenance Worker 16 19,207 27,850 16 19,207 29,243
City EngineerlStormwater Utility 38 56,185 81,468 38 56,185 85,543
5
CLASSIFICATION PRESENT PROPOSED
PAY MINIMUM MAXIMUM PAY MINIMUM MAXIMUM
GRADE GRADE
PARKS and RECREATION
Director of Parks and Recreation 37 53,510 77,590 37 53,510 81 ,468
Senior Center Manager 25 29,796 43,204 25 29,796 45,365
Superintendent of Parks and Grounds 28 34,493 50,015 28 34,493 52,516
Recreation Supervisor 25 29,796 43,204 25 29,796 45,365
Recreation Activities Program 23 27,026 39,188 23 27,026 41,147
Mechanic I 21 24,513 35,544 21 24,513 37,322
Administrative Secretary 20 23,346 33,852 20 23,346 35,544
Crew Chief 18 21,176 30,705 20 23,346 35,544
Concession Manager 16 19,207 27,850 16 19,207 29,243
Lead Maintenance Worker 17 20,167 29,243 17 20,167 30,705
Maintenance Worker 16 19,207 27,850 16 19,207 29,243
Irrigation Technician 20 23,346 33,852 20 23,346 35,544
UTILITIES
Utility/Public Works Director 40 61,944 89,819 41 65,042 99,025
Utility Superintendent 31 39,930 57,899 31 39,930 60,793
Team Leader 23 27,026 39,188 23 27,026 41,147
6
CLASSIFICATION PRESENT PROPOSED
PAY MINIMUM MAXIMUM PAY MINIMUM MAXIMUM
GRADE GRADE
Inspector/Backflow Coordinator 23 27,026 39,188 23 27,026 41,147
Lead Wastewater Plant Operator 24 28,377 41,147 24 28,377 43,204
Lead Water Plant Operator 24 28,377 41,147 24 28,377 43,204
Wastewater Operator/Laboratory Coord. 24 28,377 41,147 24 28,377 43,204
Water Plant Operator** 20 23,346 33,852 20 23,346 35,544
Waste Water Plant Operator** 20 23,346 33,852 20 23,346 35,544
Maintenance Mechanic II 22 25,739 37,322 22 25,739 39,188
Maintenance Mechanic I 20 23,346 33,852 20 23,346 35,544
Reuse Technician/Maintenance 22 25,739 37,322 22 25,739 39,188
Office Supervisor 21 24,513 35,544 21 24,513 37,322
Administrative Secretary 20 23,346 33,852 20 23,346 35,544
Data Entry Clerk 15 18,292 26,523 16 18,292 27,850
Maintenance Worker 16 19,207 27,850 16 19,207 29,243
.. 5% increase for "S" and "A" Certifications
FIRE
Fire Chief 39 58,995 85,543 39 58,995 89,818
Deputy Fire Chief 35 48,535 70,376 35 48,535 73,894
Battalion Chief 32 41,926 60,793 32 41,926 63,832
7
CLASSIFICATION PRESENT PROPOSED
PAY MINIMUM MAXIMUM PAY MINIMUM MAXIlVlUM
GRADE GRADE
EMS Division Chief 32 41,926 60,793 32 41 ,926 63,832
Fire Marshal 32 41,926 60,793 32 41,926 63,832
Fire Training Division Chief 32 41,926 60,793 32 41,926 63,832
Fire Lieutenant* 29 36,218 52,516 29 36,218 55,141
Firefighter/Apparatus Operator* 26 31,286 45,365 26 31 ,286 47,633
Firefighter 25 29,796 43,204 25 29,796 45,365
Administrative Secretary 20 23,346 33,852 20 23,346 35,544
* $7,000 Added for Paramedic Certification
POLICE
Police Chief 40 61,944 89,819 40 61,944 94,310
Police Captain 36 50,961 73,894 36 50,961 77,590
Police Lieutenant 32 41,926 60,793 32 41,926 63,832
Police Detective 27 32,850 47,633 27 32,850 50,015
Internal Affairs Investigator 27 32,850 47,633 27 32,850 50,015
Special Investigations Detective 27 32,850 47,633 27 32,850 50,015
Technical Services Specialist 27 32,850 47,633 27 32,850 50,015
Community Relations Officer 27 32,850 47,633 27 32,850 50,015
8
CLASSIFICATION PRESENT PROPOSED
PAY MINIMUM MAXIMUM PAY MINIMUM MAXIMUM
GRADE GRADE
Property/Evidence Technician 27 32,850 47,633 27 32,850 50,015
Police Training Officer 27 32,850 47,633 27 32,850 50,015
School Resource Officer 27 32,850 47,633 27 32,850 50,0115
Administrative Secretary 20 23,346 33,852 20 23,346 35,544
Senior Records Clerk 20 23,346 33,852 20 23,346 35,544
Communications Operator II 21 24,513 35,544 21 24,513 37,322
Communications Operator I ' 20 23,346 33,852 20 23,346 35,544
Records Clerk 19 22,234 32,239 19 22,234 33,852
Receptionist 16 19,207 27,850 16 19,207 29,243
Senior Custodian 15 18,292 26,523 15 18,292 27,850
Data Entry Clerk 15 18,292 26,523 15 18,292 27,850
Police Officer III - Corporal 27 32,850 47,633 27 32,850 50,015
Police Officer II - Lance Corporal 26 31,286 45,365 26 31,286 47,633
Police Officer I - Private First Class 25 29,796 43,204 25 29,796 45,365
Code Enforcement Specialist (CE) 24 28,377 41,147 24 28,377 43,204
Administrative Secretary (CE) 20 23,346 33,852 20 23,346 35,544
9
RECOMMENDED
CLASSIFICATION AND PAY PLAN
(Internal Relationship)
ENCLOSURE 2
RECOMMENDED PAY PLAN
(Internal Relationship)
CLASSIFICATION PRESENT PROPOSED
PAY MINIMUM MAXIMUM PAY MINIMUM MAXIMUM
GRADE GRADE
Custodian 14 17,421 25,260 14 17,421 26,523
Data Entry Clerk 15 18,292 26,523 15 18,292 27,850
Senior Custodian 15 18,292 26,523 15 18,292 27,850
Maintenance Worker 16 19,207 27,850 16 19,207 29,243
Receptionist 16 19,207 27,850 16 19,207 29,243
Concession Manager 16 19,207 27,850 16 19,207 29,243
Maintenance Worker 16 19,207 27,850 16 19,207 29,243
Data Entry Clerk 15 18,292 26,523 16 18,292 27,850
Maintenance Worker 16 19,207 27,850 16 19,207 29,243
Light Equipment Operator 17 20,167 29,243 17 20,167 30,705
Customer Service Rep. 17 20,167 29,243 17 20,167 30,705
Lead Maintenance Worker 17 20,167 29,243 17 20,167 30,705
CLASSIFICATION PRESENT PROPOSED
PAY MINIMUM MAXIMUM PAY MINIMUM MAXIM UM
GRADE GRADE
Maintenance Worker II 17 20,167 29,243 17 20,167 30,705
Crew Chief 18 21,176 30,705 20 23,346 35,544
Permit Specialist 18 21,176 30,705 18 21,176 32,239
Sign Maintenance Technician 18 21,176 30,705 18 21,176 32,239
Records Clerk 19 22,234 32,239 19 22,234 33,852
Accounts Payable Clerk 19 22,234 32,239 19 22,234 33,852
Utility Billing Specialist 19 22,234 32,239 19 22,234 33,852
Waste Water Plant Operator** 20 23,346 33,852 20 23,346 35,544
Maintenance Mechanic I 20 23,346 33,852 20 23,346 35,544
Administrative Secretary 20 23,346 33,852 20 23,346 35,544
Administrative Secretary (CE) 20 23,346 33,852 20 23,346 35,544
Water Plant Operator** 20 23,346 33,852 20 23,346 35,544
Communications Operator I 20 23,346 33,852 20 23,346 35,544
Senior Records Clerk 20 23,346 33,852 20 23,346 35,544
Heavy Equipment Operator 20 23,;346 33,852 20 23,346 35,544
Irrigation Technician 20 23,346 33~852 20 23,346 35,544
Service Technician 20 23,346 33,852 20 23,346 35,544
2
CLASSIFICATION PRESENT PROPOSED
PAY MINIMUM MAXIMUM PAY MINIMUM MAXIMUM
GRADE GRADE
Communications Operator II 21 24,513 35,544 21 24,513 37,322
Assistant to the City Clerk 21 24,513 35,544 21 24,513 37,322
Mechanic I 21 24,513 35,544 21 24,513 37,322
Fleet Services/Mechanic I 21 24,513 35,544 21 24,513 37,322
Office Supervisor 21 24,513 35,544 21 24,513 37,322
Zoning & Permitting Application Coord. 22 25,739 37,322 22 25,739 39,188
Accounts Payable Supervisor 22 25,739 37,322 22 25,739 39,188
Facilities Maintenance Technician 22 25,739 37,322 22 25,739 39,188
Reuse Technician/Maintenance 22 25,739 37,322 22 25,739 39,188
Maintenance Mechanic II 22 25,739 37,322 22 25,739 39,188
Construction Inspector 23 27,026 39,188 24 28,377 43,204
Recreation Activities Program 23 27,026 39,188 23 27,026 41,147
Team leader 23 27,026 39,188 23 27,026 41,147
Inspector/Backflow Coordinator 23 27,026 39,188 23 27,026 41,147
Secretary to the City Manager 23 27,026 39,188 23 27,026 41,147
Fleet Services/Mechanic II 23 27,026 39,188 23 27,026 41,147
Web Multi Media Technician 24 28,377 41,147 24 28,377 43,204
Wastewater Operator/laboratory 24 28,377 41,147 24 28,377 43,204
3
CLASSIFICATION PRESENT PROPOSED
PAY MINIMUM MAXIMUM PAY MINIMUM MAXIMUM
GRADE GRADE
Lead Water Plant Operator 24 28,377 41,147 24 28,377 43,204
Code Enforcement Specialist 24 28,377 41,147 24 28,377 43,204
Lead Wastewater Plant Operator 24 28,377 41,147 24 28,377 43,204
Code Enforcement Specialist (CE) 24 28,377 41,147 24 28,377 43,204
Deputy City Clerk 24 28,377 41,147 24 28,377 43,204
Recreation Supervisor 25 29,796 43,204 25 29,796 45,365
Police Officer I - Private First Class 25 29,796 43,204 25 29,796 45,365
Senior Center Manager 25 29,796 43,204 25 29,796 45,365
Computer/Laboratory Technician 25 29,796 43,204 25 29,796 45,365
Firefighter 25 29,796 43,204 25 29,796 45,365
Residential Building Inspector*** 25 29,796 43,204 25 29,796 45,365
Accountant 26 31,286 45,365 26 31,286 47,633
Construction InspectorlTechnician 26 31,286 45,365 26 31,286 47,633
Firefighterl Apparatus Operator* 26 31 ,286 45,365 26 31,286 47,633
Network Technician 26 31,286 45,365 26 31 ,286 47,633
Fleet Services Supervisor 26 31,286 45,365 26 31,286 47,633
Engineering InspectorlTechnician 26 31,286 45,365 26 31,286 47,633
4
CLASSIFICATION PRESENT PROPOSED
PAY MINIMUM MAXIMUM PAY MINIMUM MAXIMUM
GRADE GRADE
Arborist 26 31,286 45,365 26 31 ,286 47,633
Police Officer II - Lance Corporal 26 31,286 45,365 26 31 ;286 47,633
Purchasing Coordinator 26 31,286 45,365 26 31,286 47,633
Residential/Commercial Building 27 32,850 47,633 27 32,850 50,015
Internal Affairs Investigator 27 32,850 47,633 27 32,850 50,015
Special Investigations Detective 27 32,850 47,633 27 32,850 50,015
Technical Services Specialist 27 32,850 47,633 27 32,850 50,015
Community Relations Officer 27 32,850 47,633 27 32,850 50,015
Police Officer III - Corporal 27 32,850 47,633 27 32,850 50,015
Property/Evidence Technician 27 32,850 47,633 27 32,850 50,015
Police Training Officer 27 32,850 47,633 27 32,850 50,015
School Resource Officer 27 32,850 47,633 27 32,850 50,015
Police Detective 27 32,850 47,633 27 32,850 50,015
Superintendent of Parks and Grounds 28 34,493 50,015 28 34,493 52,516
Revenue Officer 28 34,493 50,015 28 34,493 52,516
Projects & Applications Support 27 32,850 47,633 28 34,493 52,516
Systems Administrator 27 32,850 47,633 28 34,493 52,516
5
CLASSIFICATION PRESENT PROPOSED
PAY MINIMUM MAXIMUM PAY MINIMUM MAXIMUM
GRADE GRADE
Utility Billing Service Manager 29 36,218 52,516 29 36,218 55,141
Planner 29 36,218 52,516 29 36,218 55,141
Human Resource Coordinator 29 36,218 52,516 29 36,218 55,141
Fire Lieutenant* 29 36,218 52,516 29 36,218 55,141
Senior Building Inspector*** 29 36,218 52,516 29 36,218 55,141
Capital Projects Coordinator 30 38,028 55,141 30 38,028 57,899
Management & Budget Analyst 30 38,028 ' 55,141 30 38,028 57,899
Engineer 31 39,930 57,899 31 39,930 60,793
Public Works Superintendent 31 39,930 57,899 31 39,930 60,793
City Comptroller 31 39,930 57,899 31 39,930 60,793
Utility Superintendent 31 39,930 57,899 31 39,930 60,793
Police Lieutenant 32 41,926 60,793 32 41,926 63,832
Customer Service Center Manager 32 41,926 60,793 32 41,926 63,832
Battalion Chief 32 41,926 60,793 32 41,926 63,832
EMS Division Chief 32 41 ,926 60,793 32 41,926 63,832
Fire Training Division Chief 32 41,926 60,793 32 41,926 63,832
Fire Marshal 32 41,926 60,793 32 41,926 63,832
6
CLASSIFICATION PRESENT PROPOSED
PAY MINIMUM MAXIMUM PAY MINIMUM MAXIMUM
GRADE GRADE
City Clerk 32 41 ,926 60,793 33 44,022 67,025
Senior Planner 33 44,042 63,832 33 44,022 67,025
Building Official 33 44,022 63,832 34 46,224 70,316
Deputy Fire Chief 35 48,535 70,376 35 48,535 73,894
Police Captain 36 50,961 73,894 36 50,961 77,590
Director of Parks and Recreation 37 53,510 77,590 37 53,510 81,468
General Services Director 37 53,510 77,590 37 53,510 81,468
Information Services/Systems Director 32 41,926 60,793 37 53,510 81,468
City Engineer/Stormwater Utility 38 56,185 81,468 38 56,185 85,543
Finance Director 39 58,995 85,543 39 58,995 89,819
Fire Chief 39 58,995 85,543 39 58,995 89,818
Community Development Director 39 58,995 85,543 39 58,995 89,819
Police Chief 40 61,944 89,819 40 61,944 94,310
Utility/Public Works Director 40 61,944 89,819 41 65,042 99,025
City Manager ungraded ------- -------- ungraded ----- -------
7
SALARY SCHEDULE
ENCLOSURE 3
RECOMMENDED SALARY SCHEDULE
PAY GRADE MINIMUM MID-POINT MAXIMUM
11 15,049 18,981 22,913
12 15,802 19,930 24,058
13 16,592 20,926 25,260
14 17,421 21,972 26,523
15 18,292 23,071 27,850
16 19,207 24,225 29,243
17 20,167 25,436 30,705
18 21,176 26,708 32,239
19 22,234 28,043 33,852
20 23,346 29,445 35,544
21 24,513 30,918 37,322
22 25,739 32,464 39,188
23 27,026 34,087 41,147
24 28,377 35,791 43,204
25 29,796 37,581 45,365
/
PAY GRADE MINIMUM MID-POINT MAXIMUM
26 31,286 39,460 47,633
27 32,850 41,433 50,015
28 34,493 43,505 52,516
29 36,218 45,680 55,141
30 38,028 47,964 57,899
31 ' 39,930 50,362 60,793
32 41,926 52,879 63,832
33 44,022 55,524 67,025
34 46,224 58,300 70,376
35 48,535 61,215 73,894
36 50,961 64,276 77,590
37 53,510 67,489 81,468
38 56,185 70,864 85,543
39 . 58,995 74,407 89,819
-
40 61 ,944 78,127 94,310
41 65,042 82,034 99,025
42 68,293 83,659 103,976
Page I of 1
Jan Palladino
From: Mary Wilson
Sent: Thursday, May 27,200411 :08 AM
To: Ron McLemore
Subject: Salary Ranges
May 27,2004
Employees at Max of pay range
Fire =
Police =
Finance =
UT/PW =
Parks & Rec =
Comm. Dev. =
Gen. Service =
o
2
o
10
o
o
1
Information Services = 0
13
~ 'i(J~
Human Resources Coordinator
City of Winter Springs
1128 East State Road 434
Winter Springs. Fl 327U8
407-327-5982
407-327-1800 X 238
mwil sonlIDwi nterspringsfl.org
5/27/2004
FY05
BUDGET ISSUES
"HEALTH INSURANCE"
ISSUE:
Which of the two proposed health care plans does the Commission desire to choose?
DISCUSSION:
Twelve health insurance companies were invited to bid on the City's health insurance for
FY 05.
Four companies responded.
Two plans bid by the City's current provider were the lowest and best plans bid.
Negotiations with United Health Care have further reduced their bids. The current plan
has been discontinued. The two plans bid includes one with slightly better benefits, and
one with some increase in co-pays, and some reduction in co-pays or overall about the
same benefits.
FISCAL IMPACT:
A. Overall Same Benefits HMO (44C) +6.1 %
Overall Same Benefits POS (44C) +7,5%
B. Slightly Better Benefits HMO (32C) +7.8%
Slightly Better Benefits POS (32C) +9.7%
Selection of Alternative B Plan 32C would cost $13,400 and require a 0.0095 millage
mcrease.
The average cost increases this year is 12-15%. Inclusion of the Opt-Out Provision in
this years plan resulted in an approximate net savings of $50,000.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Commission approve United Health Car's Plan 44C for FY
05.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. United Recommended Plan Alternative
2. All Bids Plan Comparison
City of Winter Springs 2004 Renewal
I .t"
In-Network Benefit 399T 32C 44C
~;.{ CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED ,
Out of Pocket $1,500 Individual $1,500/$3,000 $1,000/$2,000
Maximum $3,000 Family (all copays do not (all copays do not apply
IndividuaI/Family apply to OOP Max) to OOP Max)
Preventive Care $10 $10 $20
" ' ,
-.;"1
Physician Offit'e Visit $10 ',:;; $10 $20
1~
(
Specialist Office Visit $10 $10 $20
Vision Care $10 $10 $20
"
..,
Emergency Room $100 $75 $100
Urgent Care $35 $35 $50
Outpatient Surgery $50 No Charge No charge
Outpatient X-Ray & $50 No ,Charge No Charge ,
-
Diagnostic
Inpatient Hospital $400 per admission $250 per admission $250 per admission
.'
Prescription 10/30/50
$10/30/50 $10/30/50
Surgery in Doctor's $10 $10 $20 ,
Office
Durable Medical $100 per item No Charge No Charge
Equipment
Home Health Care $10 No Charge No Charge
Prior Notification Required
Mental $250 per admission $250 per admission $250
Health/Substance (30 day max) (30 day tllax) (30 day max)
Abuse
Inpatient $10 Group $5 Group $15 Group
$20 Individual $10 Individual $20 Individual ,
Outpatient (30 day max) (30 day max) (30 day max)
Short Term Rehab $10 per visit $10 per visit $20 per visit
Skilled Nursing No Charge No Charge No Charge
Prior Notification Required
Approx. Rate Increase 7.8% 6.1%
Approx. Rate -increase 9.7% 7.5%
for POS option
City of Winter Springs
Medical Plan Comparison
LIfetIme OtIlce V1sIt Prascrlptlon Out-of-Pocket Hospltal Emergency Emp+ Emp+
Deductible Maximum Colnsurance COOay Copav Urnlt Admlsslon Conay CoDay Slnala SoouSe Children FamilY
CUrrent Rates
United Health Care 399T NA NA NA $10 $10/$301$50 $1500 / $3000 $400,00 $100 $283,00 m7ll,37 $676.37 I $738,83
'HMO per admIsslon
Current Rates
United Health Care 4991 NA-tn NA-In NA-In $10-ln $10/ $30) SSG-In $1500 / $3000-ln $400 . In $100 $295,12 $705,35 $705.35 I $770,27
POS $500 / $1000-0ul $2,OOO,OO~ 70 / 30-0ut Oed + 30%-Out Oed. 3O%-Out $3000 / $6000-0ut per admission
Oed + 30%-0ut
United Health Care 32 NA' Unlimited NA $10 $10 / $301$50 $1500 / $3000 5250,00 575 $305,00 $728,94 5n8.94 $796,04
: , , per ad!itlsalon
, "
United Health Care 32C NA-In UnDmlled4n NA-In '51~ '$101 $301$5O-in 51500 / $3000.ln , '$2~n $75 $323,85 $774,01 $774.Q1 $845.26
"$500 / $1000-0ut' , $1;OOO,OOo-out" 8O/:zo.out ' 08d. 20%-0Ut ' Oed'.2O%.out " $2500 t$5OOO-Oul per Iidrit!s~lon
, .' Oed . 20%oOul
;
United Health Caie 44 NA Unllrilllacl NA $20, $10 / $301$50 $1000 /.$2000 ' $250.00 $100 $300,23 . $717.56 $717.56 $783,61
per admission
United Health Care 44C NA-In' , Unllrnilad'ln ~n " $2().ln ' $10/~ln $1000 / $2000 $250,00 $100 $317,40 $756;59 $756,59 $828.41
, . $1000 / $2000 $1,ooo,OQO.Out 8Oi200ut Oed . 20%'Out Oed. 20%-0Ut $5000/ $10,ooo:Out , per edmlsslon
Oed . 20%-Ouf
Unlllli! Health ,Care 33 NA ' UnlImIted NA $10 $10/$301$50 $1500 / $3000 10% 5100 $296,56 $708.84 $708,84 $774,09
per admission
Unlllld Health Care 33C NA-In Unllmlllid-In NA-In, '510'In $10 / $3OI$5O-1n $1500 / $3OOO'ln 10%-ln $100 $313.38 $748,99 $748,99 $817,93
$1000 / $2000'0ul ,$1,ooo,ooo-out ' 70/ 3O-Out Oed . 3O%-Out Oed . 3O%-Out $3000 iseooo:.o..n per ~dmlsalon'
, Oed., 3O%oOul
Aetna HMO NA Unlimited NA $10/$20 510/ $30 / $50 $1500 / $3000 $350,00 $100 $314.91 $700.34 $589,34 $919,84
per edmlsalon
Aetna ChDlce NA-In Unllmted-In NA-In $10/ $2().ln $10/ $30/ $5O-ln $1500 / $3000'1n $350-ln $100'1n $343,26 $763.07 $642,11 $1,002,40
$500 / $1000-0ut $1,OOO,OOO-Out 70 / 30 .out Oed . 3O%-Out NA.out $3000 / $6OOO-Oul per admission Oed . 3O%-Out
Oed . 3O%-Out
Clgna HMO Open Access NA Unllmllacl NA $10 $10/ $30 / $50 $1500 / $3000 $400 $100 $349.41 $835,09 $835,09 $911,96
per admission
Clgna POS Open Access NA Unlimited-In NA-In $1()'ln $15/ $30 / $5O-ln . $1500/ $3000-ln' $4OO-ln $100-ln $429,69 $1,026,96 $1,026,96 $1,121,49
$2,Ooo,OOO-Out 70 / 3O-Out Oed . 3O%-Out NAoOul $3000 / $8OOO-Out per admission Oed . 30%-Out
Oed . 30%-Out
Clgna Health Care Network NA Unlimited NA $10 $15/ $30 / $50 $1500 / $3000 $400 $100 $349.41 $835.09 $835,09 $911,96
Open Access par admission
Huaman 75/002 NA Unlimited NA $151$25 $10/ $25 / $50 / $100 $1500/$3000 $250 a day / max 3 days $75,00 $360,66 $885,62 $865.62 $944,98
per admlsslon
Huaman 018/016 $500 / $1,500 $5,000,000 8O/20'1n $20 / $3().1n . $10/ $25 / $50 /25% $2000 / $4000.ln $250 a day / max :3 days $1oo.20%-ln $482,50 $1,156,01 $1,158,01 $1,264,17
80 / 4O-Out Oed . 3O%-Out up lo $2500 max $4000 / $8000-0ut per admission Oed. 4O%-Out
NA.out, ' Oed . 300/0-0ut
Huaman 0801001 $250/ $750 $2,000,000 NA $20 / $30 $10/ $25/ $50 /25% $2000 / $6000-ln $250 a day / max 3 days $100,00 $382.85 $918.82 $918.82 $1,003,06
up lo $2500 max per admlsalon
Huaman 093/011 $500 / $1500 $5,OOOOOO-ln 80 /10-1n $20 / $30 $10/ $25/ $50 / 25% $2000 / $8000'ln Oed . 10%-ln $15O.10%-ln $392,26 $941,40 $941,40 $1,027,70
$1,OOO,OOO-OUt 70/30-0ut uplo $2500 max $4000 / $12,OO~ Oed . 3O%-out Oed . 3O%-Oul
'1S1lI_ __ S200 mAl_
FY05
BUDGET ISSUES
"PREPAYMENT OF NOTES"
ISSUE:
Does the Commission support payment of the 2002 Information System note and Fire Truck note
to fund the FY 05 Budget in conformance with established budget policies?
DISCUSSION:
Numerous laws policies and practices guide the financial management of City funds, two of the
most important are the Current Position Policy and the Fund Balance Policy.
Fund Balance Policy:
The Fund Balance Policy provides that the General Fund must not maintain less than a three-
month operating reserve unless there is a declared emergency.
The City is currently in compliance with this policy.
Current Position Policy:
After several years of planning the City has worked itself into' conformity with a Current Position
Policy which provides that recurring expenses, (personnel, operating, and debit payments) may
not be funded from non-recurring revenue sources (fund balances, and reserves and revenues
dedicated to non-recurring expenses such as grants). This is an extremely important financial
discipline which if violated will most certainly led to financial problems.
The City is currently in compliance with this policy.
FY 05:
In order to fund new operating costs like those listed below without a tax increase, and to be in
compliance with the above budget policies, we need to prepay the remaining $87,000 of the FY
2000 Information System note and pay cash for the $302,000 Fire Truck, removing
approximately $137,000 in recurring note payments from the General Fund.
Expanded Roadway Landscape Maintenance
Senior Bus Service Increases
New Town Center Street Lighting
New Town Center Maintenance
New Parker property Park Maintenance
TOTAL
$47,000
$13,000
$45,000
$40,000
$60.000
$205,000
FISCAL IMPACT:
If these recurring note payments are left in the FY 05 budget, a millage increase of 0.1003 mills
would be necessary to maintain the current position policy which discourages the use of non-
recurring revenues to pay for recurring cost.
Payment of these notes will reduce the projected FY 04 ending fund balance to approximately
$4.6 million, some $600,000 above our minimum fund balance policy requirement.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Commission approve the prepayment of the FY 2000 Information
System note and $302,000 Fire Truck note from General Fund Reserves.
FY05
BUDGET ISSUES
"URBAN BEAUTIFICATION"
ISSUE:
Does the Commission support increased funding for maintenance of urban beautification?
DISCUSSION:
In the past three years the City has made a huge investment in landscape improvements in
the City in the following areas:
);> Tuscawilla Lighting and Beautification District.
);> Oak Forest Lighting and Beautification District.
);> Tuskawilla road Median and Sidescapes.
);> S.R. 434 Median and Sidescapes.
);> Town Center Parks and Streetscapes.
In addition the City has aggressively encouraged the planting of new trees and
replacement of diseased and dead trees on road right-of-ways.
The scope of work involved in overseeing contractors, working with residents, and
maintenance of trees and plant materials has grown beyond our ability to handle without
additional resources.
In order to keep up we need to add one additional landscape maintenance person to our
Urban Beautification Program.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The cost of this additional staff person and support tools and materials is estimated to be
$45,000.
This additional program effort would not be possible within our current millage and
would require 0.0321 millage increase.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Commission consider an additional 0.0321 millage increase to
enhance our Urban Beautification Program.
FY05
BUDGET ISSUES
"ADA TRANSPORATION"
ISSUE:
Does the City Desire to appropriate funds to fund the cost of ADA Transportation in FY
04 and FY OS?
DISCUSSION:
The City paid $38,037 in FY 03 to help support ADA Transportation upon the
representation of the County that the County would raise gas taxes in FY 04 to fully fund
ADA Transportation.
The County is continuing to request participation in funding the cost of ADA
Transportation for FY 04 and FY 05 which to date, the City has chosen to reject.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The County has requested the following payments:
FY03
$38,037
FY04
$45,196
FY05
$81,728
The $81,728 request for FY 05 would necessitate a .0582 millage increase.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Commission consider continuing to reject the County's
request for funding until such time that the County Commission can determine a final
solution to the plan that is more acceptable to the Commission.
ATTACHMENTS:
March 13,2004 Mayor/Manager Meeting discussion paper.
I "-
Mayors a'nd Managers Meeting
March 13,2004 - 7:30 A.M.
Casselberry City Hall
Funding Discussion
1) Current sources of payment for transit operating expenses. '
a) Fixed routes - paid for in part by 9th cent gas revenue. The Cities of Sanford,
Altamonte Springs and Oviedo have historically assisted in paying for fixed route
costs. County makes up the shortfall.
b) Regional Transportation Agency membership - paid by the County
c) ADA Paratransit - Cost shared by jurisdictions according to resident use.
L:\pl\projects\lynx\M & M Mtgs\m&m051304options.doc5/11/2004 12:04 PM
, ':'.
Mayors' and Managers Meeting
March 13, 2004
ADA Service Costs'for FY 2002/03 and 2003/04
, Juri,sdictions FY 2002/03 FY 2003/04 2003/04 Payment History as of April 27, 2004
Altamonte Sprinqs $113,415 $127,531 Direct payment to LYNX
Casselberry $41 ,188 $102,100 Has paid 3/4,
Lake Mary $9,801 $15,838 Has paid in full
Longwood $33,615 $59,208 Has paid 1/2.
Oviedo * $20,420 $14,799 Has paid 1/2.
Sanford $70,033 $70,728 Direct payment to LYNX
Seminole Unincorp $351,421 $257,980 Direct payment to LYNX
Winter Sprinqs $38.037 $45,196 Billed. No payment to date.
Totals $677,930 $693,380
* The full cost for ADA and transit (Route 47) services to the City of Oviedo for FY 2003/04 is
$80,549. The City budgeted $42,723. It is the intent of the County to consider the City's ADA cost
of $14,799 as fully funded with the remainder of the budgeted amount being applied to the
$65,750 requested for Rt 47 service.
L:\pl\projects\lynx\FY 2003_04\semco lynx fy03_04 cost est 2,xls
m&m051304c 5/10/2004
~.
. ~
LYNX FY 04 Budget
Local Funding & Preventive Maintenance - Updated -10-27-03
Municipality Breakdown Fixed-Route Operating ADA Medicaid Healthcare RTA $2 Capital CAD-AVL L YMMO Volusia Total Request
Orange County 17,421,067 3,329,490 888,480 308,079 448,172 - - - ... 22,395,288
Osceola County 2,828,945 306,336 126,480 43,261 86,24.7 186,731 100,000 - - 3,,978,000
Seminole County 1,936,234 495,121 ' 185,040 30,564 182,~~~_,_" "J~~&~,~--1Q2,9.90 - - 3,06"1,'41 ~
City of Orlando 3,862,500 - - - - - - 1,280,616 ... 5,143,116
City of Kissimmee 280,982 139,018 - - ... - - - - 420,000
City of St Cloud 91,383 28,617 - - - - - - - 120,000
City of Altamonte Springs 130,000 127,531 - - - - - - - 257,531
City of Sanford 100,000 ' 70,728 - - ... - ' - - - 170,728
Vol usia County - ... - - - - - - 143,300 143,300
Workforce Central Florfda 155,730 - - - ... - - ... ... 155,730
Total Expected 26,806,841 4,496,841 1,200,000 . 381,904 717,017 318,586 200,000 1,280,616 143,300 35,545,105
County-Wide Breakdown Fixed.Route Operating ADA ' Medicaid Healthcare RTA Capital CAD~AVL L YMMO Volusia Total Request
Orange 21,283,567 3.329,490 888,480 308,079 448,172 - - 1,280,616 ... 27,538,404
Osceola 3,201,310 473,971 126,480 ' 43,261 ' 86,247 186,731 100,000 - - 4,218,000
Seminole 2,166,234 693,380 185,040 30,564 182,598 131,855 100,000 ... - 3,489,671
Volusia - - - ... - - - - 143,300 143,300
Workforce Central Florida 155,730 - - - - - - ... - 155,730
Total Expected 26,806,841 4,496,841 1,200,000 381,904 717,017 318,586 200,000 1,280,616 143,300 35,545,105
Total Expected. Operating 26,806,841 4,496,841 1,200,000 381,904 717,017 . . 1,280,616 143,300 35,026,519
Please note that the City of Oviedo pays Seminole County in lieu of LYNX.
ADA LYNX Customer Home Locations in Seminole County
Customer List between April 1 ,2003 and February 29,2004
.
N
A
o
2
6Miles
@LYNX Created by LYNX GIS 05/1212004
,':l
.,
;',1
. ADA Customer Home Location :,:1
01
m LYNX Service Area 'a
- Major Roads !~3
U~:~:.:.:::3. ':':...,~L~ ':.:~,;::~,~; ; ~;...;~;;;:s.' ;';:: ,,/."~
Legend
.
Mayors and Managers Meeting
March 13, 2004
Jurisdictions FY 2002103
Altamonte Springs $113,415'
Casselberry $41 ,188
Lake Mary $9,801
Longwood $33,615
Oviedo $20,420
Sanford $70,033
Seminole Unincorp $351,421
Winter Springs $38,037
Totals $677,930
Estimated
ADA Service Costs
FY 2004/05
FY 2003/04 f:.;;:Y;~~:oW~/a~
"'~: ;>~f,'! n~fi, :C~<,::~:1~;;~~~"
$127,531 ,::t~;~<<
$102,100 '::'.;~~R,ibJ~6
. 'o'.;;:t:-~';?i -ri ';'
$15,838 ';>$3"898
'; 'l,/t,:<:, i'I'
$59,208::,~,~'9:8~:~:
$14,799 ;; /i~~1~4"9;~\t
,. ,_.,'''',''':;.,:/::r'
$70728. ,i::: '$8~,t31t,2
I ':.:, :,,'.!i;:;:fl.,.JC:._~~C:;,
$257, 980 i:q;~':$.3'94,;4$4
~:. ;;,~'. :;.i.,'J:: ;':',,' ';;',"
$45 , 196:t~ ';:;;:'~ iT~'8:1:,:t~2:8:
;':,;: ;:;?".::r::
$693,380'~ ::'..,$17.9.~4!~,9,
L:\pl\projects\lynx\FY 2003_04\semco lynx fy03_04 cost est 2,xls
% Change by Jur % of Total for
'03/04 - 04/05 FY 04105
-37% 10%
-35% 8%
-75% 1%
-4% 7%
-5% 2%
16% 11%
53% 51%
81% 10%
NA 100%
m&m051304b 5/10/2004
FY05
BUDGET ISSUES
"SENIOR BUS TRANSPORT A TION"
ISSUE:
In the face of soaring cost increases does the Commission desire to continue this program
in the present format, an alternative format, or terminate the program?
DISCUSSION:
The senior bus program has been a huge success with the seniors. It operates smoothly
with virtually no complaints.
However, the cost of the program is soaring due to rapidly increasing cost for contract
services and increasing rider ship.
In the second six months of the program the contract price increased 74.4% from $43.24
per hour of operations to $75.41.
In the second six month period the cost per person per trip increased 209.3% from $3.44
price per trip to $10.64 per person per trip.
As a result of these cost increases the budget for FY 04 has been revised upward from
$20,000 to $32,500.
Based upon another cost increase expected to be in the neighborhood of 15% to FY 05
budget has been raised to $35,000. This estimate assumes that increase in rider ship has
leveled off and will remain steady.
In review of this program we must ask two very fundamental questions.
1. "Is City government filling a need that cannot be provided by seniors or other existing
programs", or are we creating a demand that would otherwise be fulfilled if the City
wasn't providing the program?
Asked another way:
"Are we providing transportation to seniors who have lost their drivers licenses or
can't drive due to their physical condition, or providing transportation to seniors who
would rather use the bus due to the cost of gasoline or just the inconvenience of
having to drive to the center and look for parking?
We need to determine what, if any, additional measures need to be undertaken to make
sure that we are filling a vital need rather than using taxpayers dollars to run a popular
social program that is not truly needed.
Based upon staffs review it appears that the senior bus system is serving a population
group that but for the bus, would not be able to attend the senior center.
2. "Since we are captive to a sole provider would it be more cost effective to run the bus
ourselves rather than contracting out?"
FISCAL IMPAACT:
The cost for FY 05 is $35,000 unless measures are taken to decrease cost or eliminate the
program.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Commission take the following action.
1. Fund the program at $35,000 for FY05.
2. Direct staff to convene a study committee to re-evaluate the target populations the
program is to serve to further define where the real need is.
3. Direct staff to evaluate the cost of the city buying and operating the bus.
4. Direct staff to go out for bids and to attempt to identify other bidders.
5. Implement any cost saving measures as rapidly as possible.
FY05
BUDGET ISSUES
"JOINT CITY - SCHOOL RECREATIONAL FACILITY"
ISSUE:
Does the Commission desire to fund the construction of a joint City-High School
Recreational facility?
DISCUSSION:
The Commission has authorized the City Manager to proceed with a preliminary study to
determine the issues and cost involved in the construction of a joint City-High School
Recreational Facility that would include the City Recreation Department Administration
Offices, Community Meeting Facilities, Aquatic Facilities, Weight Training and a
Physical Fitness Multi-purpose Indoor Athletics room for wrestling, boxing, and other
related indoor City and High School sports programs.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The building could be built in three phases, Community and Athletic phase,
Administrative Office phase, and the Aquatic phase. The preliminary study indicates an
estimated cost of $8.5 million for all phases. This would necessitate a referendum in
order to preserve the City's 10 mill tax limit.
The champions for this project are members of the High School Booster Club, and of
course the City Recreation Department. On May 18, 2004 the City, School, and Booster
Club representatives met to discuss preliminary concepts and project issues. The Booster
Club representative agreed to meet with members of the Club to determine if they wanted
to move forward this year or delay to a future date.
No new funds are required for this study.
RECOMMENDATION:
If the Booster Club chooses to move ahead this year it is recommended that the
Commission pass a resolution creating a citizen advisory committee to determine the
feasibility and desirability of going forward with the project.
ATTACHMENTS:
Discussion points outline used for the May 18, 2004 meeting between the City, High
School and Booster Club Representatives, and notes of the meeting.
City of Winter Springs -Winter Springs High School
Joint Use Athletic Facility
Discussion Points
Planning Meeting
A. MEETING PURPOSE
To become more intelligent about the framework in which this project will need
to be undertaken in order to be successful.
B. DISCUSSION POINTS
1. Conventional Wisdom Trap
2. Cheap Trap
Value Added Design
Invest vs Expand
3. Leadership
Champions
Upside
Downside
4. Environmental Scan
War
Economy
National elections
Constitutional Amendment
Competing Projects
Town Center - $6 - 9 million
Library
Cost - $4 million
Referendum
Contentious Project history
Contentious Past Relations
New School Superintendent
Public Predisposition
Page I of3
5. Proiect Components
Pool
Exercise
Gym
Kitchen
Community / Meetings
Recreation Offices
Other
Capital Cost
Amount
Financing Alternatives
Cash
Non Voted Revenue Source
Voted Revenue Source
Cost Sharing
Donations
Operatine: Cost
Amount
Cost Sharing
Fees/Membership
V oted Revenue Source
Non Voted Revenue Source
Donations
Page 2 of3
6. Manae:ement
Ownership
City
Schools
Authority
Private Sector
Site Location
City Property
School Property
Other
Use Allocation
City
Schools
Other
Operations
City
Schools
Contract
Other
7. Policv Plannine: Structure
City Model
School
Citizens
8. Schedule - City Policv Plan nine: Model
Preliminary Feasibility Report
Public opinion Survey
Commission Decision Point
Commission Project Resolution
Appointments of Study Group Members
Appointment of Project Consultants
Deliberation of Issues
Publication
Commission Decision
Referendum
Design
Construction
Design
Construction
C COMMENTS
Page 3 of3
FY05
BUDGET ISSUES
"PHASE II TOWN CENTER"
ISSUE:
Does the Commission desire to enter into a public private partnership with the James
Doran Company to construct Phase II of the Town Center?
DISCUSSION:
James Doran Company desires to move ahead with the construction of Phase II of the
Town Center including 350 luxury apartments over approximately 80,000 square feet of
fist floor retail.
James Doran Company is requesting the City to commit towards the construction of
streets, water and sewer, and water management facilities to make the Phase II project
financially feasible.
The City is currently conducting financial studies to document the gap financing
required, and the most feasible method of financing the gap.
FINANCIAL IMP ACT
FY 05 Budget impact is uncertain at this time. We hope to have this analysis completed
before August 1, 2004. The return on investment appears to be extremely favorable to
the City.
RECOMMENDATION:
None at this time.
FY05
BUDGET ISSUES
"1~ LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX"
ISSUE:
Does the Commission support appropriating additional funds from the 1 ~ local option
sales tax for the Town Center?
DISCUSSION:
Completion of road and drainage costs for the Town Center from the 1 ~ local option sales
tax will consume more dollars than the planned $1.7 million included in the original
program.
All of this will require reprogramming of the 1 ~ local option sales tax 10 year plan. We
will be bringing that to you at a later date in the budget process.
The important thing to remember is that the expenditure of 1 ~ local option sales tax funds
to leverage growth in our tax base represents a better use of these funds than repaving and
rehabilitating roads that offer no return on investment.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Not yet determined.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Commission support the utilization of I rt local option sales tax
funds for higher than expected road and drainage cost associated with the Town Center.
ATTACHMENT:
Original Once Cent Local Option Sales Tax Plan.
FY05
BUDGET ISSUES
1999 CONSTRUCTION FUND
ISSUE:
Does the Commission support the reprogramming of excess City Walk funds to support the
expanded scope of Magnolia Park and Blumberg Boulevard?
DISCUSSION:
The 1999 Construction Fund had $964,700 allocated for the Village Walk project and $800,000
allocated for Town Center Improvements.
Based upon our evolving understanding of the Town Center it has become apparent that we
needed to dramatically improve the planning for Magnolia Park and Blumberg Boulevard in
order to provide for larger scale events and amenities for the Town Center.
As a result the budget for the Town Center has grown from $800,000 to $2, I 00,000 as follows:
PHASE I
Magnolia Park
Blumberg Boulevard
Total
$ 930,000
$ 870,000
$1,800,000
PHASE II
City Hall Reflection Pond/Trail
$ 300,000
TOTAL
$2,100,000
The initial scope of the Village Walk project that was initially to be funded from the 1999
Construction fund in the amount of $964,700 has been funded from State Road funds and the 1 ~
local option sales tax. Those 1999 Construction Fund funds are no longer needed to pay for the
original scope of the Village Walk project. These excess funds need to be reprogrammed to the
revised plans for Magnolia Park, Blumberg Boulevard, and the City Hall Trail/Reflection Pond
projects.
The argument could be made that the funds remain in the Village Walk line code for additional
scopes of work over and beyond the original scope. However, it is essential that Magnolia Park
and Blumberg Boulevard be completed as quickly as possible in order to compliment the Town
Center.
FISCAL IMPACT:
$2,100,000
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Commission approve reprogramming of excess City Walk funds to
cover expanded costs for Magnolia Park and Blumberg Boulevard.
A TT ACHMENT:
Preliminary FY 05 1999 Construction Fund.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
FISCAL YEAR 2004.2005 PRELIMINARY BUDGET
1999 CONSTRUCTION FUND REVENUES & EXPENDITURES. 305
1999 CONSTRUCTION FUND - 305
Projected OrigInal Revised Baseline New Total
Account FY 02103 FY 03/04 FY 03/04 FY 03/04 FY 04105 FY 04105 FY 04105
~ Description of Revenues Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget
361100 Interest Eamed $41,371 $23,200 $23,200 $23,200 $30,000 $0 $30,000
TOTAL 1999 CONSTRUCTION FUND REVENUES $41,371 $23,200 $23,200 $23,200 $30,000 $0 $30,000
389100 Appropriation from Fund Balance $0 $102,200 $1,741,500 $102,200 $0 $1,800,000 $1,800,000
TOTAL 1999 CONSTRUCTION FUND REVENUES AND
APPROPRIATIONS FROM FUND BALANCE $41,371 $125,400 $1,764,700 $125,400 $30,000 $1,800,000 $1,830,000
Projected Original Revised Baseline New Total
Account FY 02103 FY 03/04 FY 03/04 FY 03/04 FY 04105 FY 04/05 FY 04105
Number Description of Expenditures Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget
53680 Unrecognized Gain/loss $5,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
63000 Improvements434 Village Walk Project $0 $0 $964,700 $0 $0 $0 $0
63000 Improvements- Town Center Trail & Infrastructure $0 $0 $400,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
63100 Infrastructure-Magnolia Park $0 $0 $400,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
65000 30044 CIP - 434 Village Walk $0 $20,000 $0 $20,000 $0 $0 $0
65000 30045 CIP - Town Center Trail & Infrastructure $0 $60,000 $0 $60,000 $0 $870,000 $870,000
65000 70008 CIP - Magnolia Park $6,207 $45,400 $0 $45,400 $0 $930,000 $930,000
TOTAL 1999 CONSTRUCTION FUND EXPENDITURES $11,307 $125,400 $1,764,700 $125,400 $0 $1,800,000 $1,800,000
59990 Appropriation to Fund Balance $30,064 $0 $0 $0 $30,000 $0 $30,000
TOTAL 1999 CONSTRUCTiON FUND EXPENDITURES AND
APPROPRIATiONS TO FUND BALANCE $41,371 $125,400 $1,764,700 $125,400 $30,000 $1,800,000 $1,830,000
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE
FUND BALANCE. October 1 $1,992,979 $2,023,043 $1,967,479 $2,023,043 $1,920,843 $1,920,843
APPROPRIATION TO (FROM) FUND BALANCE $30,064 ($102,200) ($1,741,500) ($102,200) $30,000 ($1 ,800,000) ($1,770,000)
FUND BALANCE. September 30 $2,023,043 $1,920,843 $225,979 $1,920,843 $1,950,843 $150,843
70008 CIP. Magnolia Park: CIP . Town Center Trail:
Trail Head $450,000 8 Arboretums $260,000
Fountain $150,000 Benches+ $75,000
Landscape $180,000 Pavilllon $150,000
Contingency $150,000 VFW Monument $50,000 Future Plans:
$930,000 Trall- Blumberg $85,000 Phase 11- Retention Pond $300,000
Trail-Doran $50,000
Trail Landscape $200,000
$870,000
E-28
FY05
BUDGET ISSUE
"BUDGET CUT - ADD BACKS"
ISSUE:
Does the Commission desire to add back any items to the budget that were cut from the
original departmental request?
DISCUSSION:
Some $386,075 in expenditures were deleted from the original request to get the budget
into a no millage increase status.
A list of these items is attached for the Commission to consider. They are listed under a
priority rating.
1. - Very Important
2. - Important
3. - Nice But Not Necessary
4. - Not Needed/Funded From Other Source
The only items of vital importance are the Priority 1 Urban Beautification items. Weare
currently having extreme difficulty keeping up with the vast amount of new landscape
plant material that has been added in the Town Center, S.R. 434 medians, and Tuskawilla
Road medians. Additionally, our tree replacement program is suffering because we are
unable to provide the level of care needed during the critical initial planting phase. The
reason for this is that there are no employees dedicated to landscape maintenance.
Therefore, the City Arborist and Urban Beautification Coordinator are required to
compete for maintenance assistance from the Public Works Department, which has
higher priority demands.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impact will be dependent upon the amount of add backs the Commission
makes.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Commission add back those items for which the Commission
feels are important enough to justify millage increases.
It is recommended that the only items that rise to this level of importance are the above
referenced Priority 1 items dealing with the Urban Beautification programs.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
FY 'OS BUDGET WORKSHOP
GENERAL FUND OPTIONS' WORKSHEET
MILLAGE PER PREUMINARY BUDGET
1- Very Important:
Urban Beautification Maintenance Worker
Urban Beautification P ram
2- Important:
Parks & Rec - rounds maintenance worker
Parks & Rec - overtime
3- Nice but not Essential:
New Communi
uesf is for $7K in outside services
Enhanced Health Insurance 0 tion
Ci
General Services - 0 ratin
Information Services - 0 ratin
Public Works - Streetli htin
Police - 0 ratin
Fire - 0 eratin
4- Not Needed I Funded from Other Sources:
General Government - ADA Para Transit
Ci Clerk - furniture
Public Works - truck/com uter
Fire - vehicle
Parks - multi-media ro'ector
Communi
Total
AMOUNT
$30 000
$15000
$29 080
$9 233
$38 362
$46 022
$13 400
$1 200
$1 300
$1 300
$3 300
$10000
$26 000
$18 350
$81 728
$6 000
$26 400
$22 000
$3 000
$4 400
$386,075
MILLAGE
4.3000
0.0214
0.0107
0.0207
0.0066
0.0273
0.0322
0.0050
0.0095
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0024
0.0071
0.0185
0.0131
0.0582
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A