HomeMy WebLinkAbout05142018 City Council Laydowns /605114
>
t, , ,,,
I
i.
Professional, Personal
rr
Believing in freedom ttCrou ti01It tf;e -IAA,rit, ( t Twili tncre sedcooperatIon betty tt.yuh1 officials-
Wulother natwnoiiy at intei riationallii', I
1 5
i
i
1 /
1 .
do hereby subscribe to the joilowiia3 yrsr. ip es atul ethics which I affirm.wiif i8over•n nal 'perso ial co uuct as a 1i/ember c f Jfv1C:
t , , community i"� ,{�....(at 3' 2.t;ti.is• true c;T t rese �'e that is<Y i isentrusted to me
TO 2£phoki c l i'ivtitut!;+,�i t lvie?'"f2't ent G,11 fie Ciws ! m _iii?aP„ ,:'i i'a` i. recon,.,. i i
fi a so conduct rayyubl.tc ands YLvate �t e as to be ,;n exa"lante to r ay
as if-it were mii own; and
TO st`i'Ve constantly to improve rhe administration c j fairs o my
ffl.ow citizens; � }
office eonsistentwitia applicable Cows coir t 'rouuo(i sty' :naecrri n
TO im ort to ' ? pro ession those sts.anoc,rds ,i ouatitu a'?a mit£ rit71 _.; �� 4 € gYisa i,titt£s
P x , . r; . ?r -' - i,^,racti es toyrodu continued progress and soli!(: .. r
that the ?'i 01't, a 1grs €.1 :"ask Ga'ttc shag. 3z' above ;e i?`c cs a
J J —
to my ccr munityy al of aers.
to merit flu€bl.c con ence in our community; J
- n ties rti17`qti/ as a mi,n&r o f ITMC d J plc,cit`to do,.n the i rcrrsr and `.
o e e e—mi,d i�et of nini neu ratitij anti tmpa't' it titi1, rendering equal pr!ri .x,,t,wr.icti marllovEr7a7r.,rtt has bun cstaWis(uu
ser°+ice to air annCr.to e -t'ndth� same ' � ,,is,7 to receive myself;
`
- . vo. re a�t WY4=t E i,�7,-3�N f. I � t-
l f ��-.
,iii
...... ne 77-�x sid i. .............. ..._ m
(membo-Y j �jA rtd�£'�
f...
'.Phis::nrtitfr,ac�-�ararit=rt(hi P‘'i i'vrutfiovert/c!�'tlet l'ritn�rat�6,�i7a(is7saxattc of.•::‘i ii,,i igh+t�fctkz.
ct y
it
IPMC. Executive . hecto
5114/2018 • The Outlier I icma.org
ICM/
Home/ News
The Outlier
Coping with the Nonconformist Elected Official
ARTICLE I Dec 27, 2017
Twitier Facebook Linkedln Email More 10
By Kevin Duggan, ICMA-CM
O C
If you haven't dealt with an outlier councilmember or elected
official,you probably will at some point in your management
career.While there are varying degrees of"outlier
behavior"—behavior by people who are considered
nonconformists—in the most extreme cases,these �� d
individuals can have a significant impact on their fellow
elected officials,the appointed chief executive,the members of the organization,and even the
community.
In 2014-2015,Cal-ICMA,the official state affiliate for the International City/County Management
Association in California,conducted a poll and a series of focus groups dealing with the major
challenges faced by city and county managers in the state.Called the Survival Skills project,the end
result was a report titled Challenges and Strategies: Maximizing Success for City and County
Managers in California (http://www.ca-ilg.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/cal-
icma_report_chal lenges_and_strategies.pdf).
This study revealed that while most of those surveyed viewed their relationship with elected officials
to be generally positive, in a large number of cases a significant concern was one or more dissenters
representing less than a majority of the governing body.
It was clear that even one such individual,depending on his or her conduct,could have a negative
impact on the manager and the organization.While outlier conduct can vary significantly,in the most
extreme cases it can present one of the most difficult and frustrating challenges for a manager.
https://icma.org/articles/pm-magazine/outlier 1/8
5/14/2018• The Outlier I icma.org
Based on these findings,Cal-ICMA sponsored two panels on the topic at League of California Cities
conferences in 2017—one at a manager's conference and one at a conference for elected officials.The
issues discussed and the strategies suggested are the subject of this article.
Different Types of Outliers
Sometimes an elected official,especially one who is newly elected,can be considered a nonconformist
simply because he or she represents a change to the prevailing pattern. Perhaps the council has seen
little change in recent years,and the new member is simply not someone familiar to the remaining
members.
In some circumstances,a new councilmember can represent a different cultural,ethnic, racial,or
gender group or a new generation.At other times,the member who is considered an outlier may have
a different philosophy or orientation regarding one or more community issues.They may challenge the
status quo.
In still other cases,the person's work style may vary from the other members and perhaps from
previous practice;for example, how much information the person needs and a preference on how it is
communicated.
And,of course,someone can be considered an outlier because of personality,communication style,
and nature of interpersonal skills. In the most challenging circumstances and probably what most of us
would consider outliers to be,the conduct of the individual is disruptive and counterproductive.
While this article will focus on this last example,it is sometimes important for managers to remind
themselves,as well as the elected officials they work with,that someone simply being new,
representing a different demographic, having a different style,or questioning the status quo is not in
and of itself inappropriate.
Assuming they are not conducting themselves in some fashion that is otherwise inappropriate or
counterproductive,they have a right to be "different" and to represent diverse perspectives.There
may be times when a manager needs to remind elected officials they work with that representing a
different perspective or having a different working style should not be considered a problem.
Elected councils and boards are often strengthened by having voices that represent a broader cross
section of their constituency. It can be counterproductive for managers and elected officials they work
with to try to change a colleague who may not reasonably need to change.
The Classic Outlier
https://icma.org/articles/pm-magazine/outlier 2/8
5/14/2018' The Outlier I icma.org
Unfortunately,the elected council and board members who managers work with are often challenged
by a much different type of outlier. Mike Conduff,a former manager who is a frequent PM magazine
columnist on manager-council relations,describes the stereotypical outlier as often displaying these
behaviors:
• Treats every staff presentation as an inquisition.
• Routinely discloses confidential information to the media.
• Spends all of his or her time on minutia and misses the big picture completely.
• Is never prepared for a meeting and regularly asks questions that were answered in the council or
board packet.
• Is never willing to bring closure and always wants more information before voting.
• Refuses to abide by the meeting rules of order.
• Circumvents the manager,going instead to internal staff, including the manager's assistants.
• Is always trying to make staff and the chief administrator and fellow elected officials look bad.
In addition,such individuals can often attack their fellow elected officials and sometimes members of
the public.They can also vary in their time demands on the manager, ranging from never being
available to meet or monopolizing large amounts of the manager's time.
Such behaviors can have these negative consequences:
• Being disruptive to the work of a council or board, including the effectiveness of public meetings.
• Causing elected officials and organization to lose the confidence of the public.
• Discouraging other members of the public to serve as elected officials or in other capacities.
• Hurting the morale of the staff, including the manager,and making it more difficult to have a highly
effective organization and possibly even to attract and retain staff.
Time for Intervention
While it is often uncertain if any form of intervention will likely change the behavior,the nature of the
negative impacts often compels the need to at least try.
https://icma.org/articles/pm-magazine/outlier 3/8
5/14/2018 ' The Outlier I icma.org
One of the first steps to take is to be clear regarding what behaviors are considered inappropriate and
why.As noted earlier,simply having a different personality,work style,or philosophy is not in and of
itself inappropriate.
It is important to be clear that the behaviors that are suggested be changed are truly outside the norm
of reasonable conduct for an elected official. It is also important to be clear about why the conduct
should be changed.What are the impacts,and why are those impacts negatively affecting the
governing board,staff,or public?
Among the challenges of determining how to deal with the conduct of a maverick official is avoiding
either overreacting or underreacting to the conduct. In regard to the former,sometimes we can
respond too aggressively to conduct that is an isolated incident or simply annoying.
In other cases, managers or elected officials can fail in their responsibility to deal with serious
inappropriate behavior,sometimes for fear of confrontation or the potential consequences of
intervention. It is important,therefore,to initially evaluate what the conduct is that is causing concern,
determine how far outside the norm of appropriateness it falls,and decide which strategies to
confront the behavior are reasonable.
Intervention is necessary in a number of circumstances, including when the effectiveness of the
elected body is negatively impacted,when the manager and staff's ability to conduct its work in a
reasonable environment suffers,or when the public confidence in the organization is eroded.
Once the conclusion is reached that intervention is appropriate and necessary,the question is: "Who
should do it?"A strong case can be made that the primary responsibility for dealing with an elected
official's inappropriate conduct lies with that person's elected peers.
In particular, if the consequences of the outlier's behavior primarily impacts the other elected officials
and the conduct of their business, it is usually appropriate for fellow elected officials to take the lead.
This often falls to the mayor or chair since they are considered the leaders of the elected body.
However,there can be circumstances when another of the elected officials is better positioned to
intervene.This can be the case when the mayor or chair has difficulty with having conversations on
challenging issues.(Yes,you might ask:Why are they in their positions?) Or perhaps when another
colleague is viewed as having more credibility with the person who is causing concern.
Unfortunately,the outlier's peers are often reluctant to take action due to concerns about the
consequences of confronting the problem.What they often underestimate is the negative
consequences of doing nothing.
https://icma.org/articles/pm-magazine/outlier 4/8
514/2018 ' The Outlier I icma.org
The Manager's Role
In these circumstances when the negative impacts are primarily on council (not staff),the manager can
decide to what degree to get involved.Some managers believe it is best to let the issue be addressed
without any of their involvement since it is an issue between councilmembers,while others believe
more direct involvement by the manager is appropriate.
The manager can often play a helpful role by suggesting to the other elected officials how they might
approach the issu—eserving as an adviser but not becoming directly involved.Some managers believe
that their direct involvement is appropriate and necessary since the effectiveness of the council
impacts the effectiveness of the organization as a whole.
The more the manager becomes directly involved, however,the more likely the outlier will directly
target him or her. In the worst-case scenario,the manager could end up being blamed for the friction
between councilmembers.
Often,outliers' conduct can be less public and primarily have negative impacts on the manager and
staff.While in such cases it is often still most appropriate for the conduct to be confronted by fellow
elected officials,the manager often has no choice than to become more directly involved.
If the manager's or staff's performance or working conditions are negatively impacted by the conduct
of an elected official,the manager must determine how to deal with it. It is often appropriate for the
manager to first intervene with the outlier directly to discuss the problematic conduct.
If eventually unsuccessful,the manager will probably need to enlist the assistance of the mayor,the
chair,and/or the elected body as a whole to address the issue.
And the manager's greatest responsibility is to protect the staff of the organization from inappropriate
conduct, including that which would result in a hostile work environment.Chief executives cannot
avoid their responsibility to protect their staff from undue influence and inappropriate conduct,even
from elected official—sat least not if they are to truly accept the responsibilities of their position.
Levels of Intervention
Here are the levels of intervention that can be undertaken:
• Personal intervention.
• Soliciting help from others, including potentially a facilitator.
• Formal and outside intervention:
https://icma.org/articles/pm-magazine/outlier 5/8
5/14/2018 • The Outlier I icma.org
• Censure.
• Investigation.
• Formal complaint.
It is usually best to try to resolve the matter as informally as possible. In the best situations,a private
conversation involving the manager and mayor can have the desired impact.
Often,the manage—ror mayor,depending on the circumstance—smay seek the help of someone else
to assist.This could be another councilmember who has a better relationship with the individual. It
could even be someone from the community who agrees that the conduct is counterproductive and
has a good relationship(possibly a campaign supporter)with the outlier.
Sometimes using an outside facilitator to intervene is a reasonable approac—heither in facilitating a
conversation or in conducting a group team-building session,during which time both positive and
counterproductive behaviors can be discussed.
In the worst-case scenarios,formal action and intervention may be required.This could include public
censure by the governing board,a formal investigation of the conduct of the elected official,or
registering a complaint with an outside agency.
While these actions are usually best left until all other strategies are exhausted,a single act of serious
misconduct might force one of these options to be implemented as a first step.
What If All Else Fails?
The unfortunate reality is that there can be many circumstances of negative and counterproductive
elected official behavior that cannot be changed.Assuming the conduct has not reached the point of
significant misconduct and is more in the realm of being negative or counterproductive,these
approaches may be helpful to keep in mind:
• Exercise emotional maturity/intelligence.Try to stay professional and not make it appear that you
have made it personal. Hold firm to required positions but in a way that does not communicate
personal animosity.
• Keep communication open. It won't be helpful to shut down communication with the individual,
though he or she may choose to do so.
https://icma.org/articles/pm-magazine/outlier 6/8
5114/2018• The Outlier I icma.org
• Keep it in perspective.Don't let the conduct of one individual monopolize your attention and that of
the council and staff. If this elected official's goal is to disrupt,minimizing that disruption to the
greatest extent possible is the best response.
• Insulate your staff from any negative conduct to the greatest extent possible.
• Help the council and staff stay focused on the work of the organization.
• Accept that the best you may be able to do is to minimize the negative consequences of the
outlier's conduct.
You Are Not Alone
Dealing with a challenging outlier is not an unusual circumstance in the management profession.While
it is one of our profession's most vexing challenges,do your best not to let it get in the way of your
appreciation for all the other positive individuals you work with.Stay focused on the good you and
your organization are doing for your community on a daily basis.
While we can't control who gets elected to a governing body, managers can control how they react to
these individuals. In the case of problematic outliers,carefully reflecting on the type of conduct being
exhibited and the role that you or others play in responding to the conduct and the actions to take,will
best position you to appropriately respond to the challenge.
Kevin Duggan, ICMA-CM,is ICMA West Coast Regional Director, Mountain View,California
(kduggan@icma.org)and is the former city manager of Mountain View.
Want to add a comment?
Login to your account or Create a free account to leave a comment and get access to more features.
Login
https://icma.org/articles/pm-magazine/outlier 7/8
Fr NIA,
/005/Lt.
Z - =G Local Government Revenue Chale ges
Assembly Chambers
May 7, 2018 2:00 PM-4:00 PM George A. Navarre Kenai Peninsula
Borough Administration Building
Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly Homer City Council and Kenai City Council and
and Administration Administration Administration
Kachemak City Council and Seldovia City Council and Seward City Council and
Administration Administration Administration
Soldotna City Council and
Administration
JOINT WORK SESSION AGENDA
A discussion with KPB Administration and local city government officials about
revenue challenges.
1 . Introductions and Statement of Primary Revenue Concerns (Assembly and
City Council member) (25 minutes)
2. Kenai Peninsula Borough Current Financial Position (Mayor Pierce /
Finance Director Harbaugh) (15 minutes)
3. Discussion of Potential Tax Scenarios and Effect on Cities
a. KPB Administration Tax Plan: Raise Borough Wide Sales Tax from 3.0%
(S.') ' ) Ra i to 5% AND Cut Mill Rate from 4.5 Mills to 3.0 Mills (Mayor Pierce and
City Managers) (15 minutes)
b. Increasing the Borough Sales Tax Rate from 3.0 Percent to 3.5
Percent by Amending KPB 5.18.100, Subject to Approval by the
Voters in the Regular Election on October 2, 2018 (Assembly
Member Cooper and City Managers) (15 minutes)
, s64 c. Amending KPB Chapter 5.18 to Establish a 6 Percent Areawide Sales
Tax on Temporary Lodging and Overnight Camping Facilities and
• Providing for an Exemption of Up to 3 Percent of the Levy on
o,) hG.4 ;�f{fc�� Temporary Lodging and Overnight Camping within the Boundaries
c_k of Cities in the Borough that Levy a Similar Sales Tax in Addition to
an Existing General Sales Tax, Subject to Approval by the Voters in
the Regular Election on October 2, 2018 (Assembly Member Bagley
Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly Page 1 of 2
LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVENUE CONCERNS JOINT WORK SESSION
Fund: 100 General Fund
Fund Budget: FY2018 FY2018 FY2019
FY2016 FY2017 Original Forecast Mayor FY2020 FY2021 FY2022
Actual Actual Budget Budget Proposed Projection Projection Projection
Taxable Values(000'S)
Real 5,742,736 6,013,762 6,338,989 6,344,166 6,366,592 6,366,592 6,430,258 6,558,863
Personal 297,106 334,593 316,943 327,709 307,293 310,366 313,470 316,605
Oil&Gas(AS 43.56) 1,224,525 1,467,353 1,468,600 1,468,600 1,532,963 1,486,974 1,442,365 1,442,365
Total Taxable Values 7,264,367 7,815,708 8,124,532 8,140,475 8,206,848 8,163,932 8,186,093 8,317,833
Mill Rate 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50
Revenues:
Property Taxes:
Real $25,809,011 $26,823,764 $28,525,451 $28,548,747 $28,649,664 $28,649,664 $28,936,161 $ 29,514,884
Personal 1,372,333 1,516,639 1,397,719 1,445,197 1,355,162 1,368,714 1,382,403 1,396,228
Oil&Gas(AS 43.56) 5,510,364 6,554,687 6,608,700 6,608,700 6,898,334 6,691,383 6,490,643 6,490,643
Penalty and Interest 451,705 473,179 463,041 463,041 462,442 462,442 462,442 462,442
Flat Tax 462,966 465,849 560,000 560,000 560,000 560,000 560,000 560,000
Motor Vehicle Tax 711,148 708,224 712,000 712,000 712,000 712,000 712,000 712,000
Total Property Taxes 34,317,527 36,542,342 38,266,911 38,337,685 ' 38,637,602 38,444,203 38,543,649 39,136,197
Sales Tax 30,116,611 30,400,062 29,979,123 29,979,123 30,578,705 30,885,242 31,502,947 32,133,006
Federal Revenue 3,861,218 3,287,614 2,740,000 2,740,000 2,740,000 2,740,000 2,740,000 2,740,000
State Revenue 6,110,398 4,698,998 4,698,328 4,857,463 4,440,064 3,619,497 3,592,258 3,585,189
Interest Revenue 967,412 492,658 855,000 855,000 685,000 623,480 383,934 117,182
Other Revenue 378,683 405,749 250,000 250,000 250,000 350,000 350,000 350,000
Total Revenues 75,751,849 75,827,423 76,789,362 77,019,271 77,331,371 76,662,422 77,112,788 78,061,574
Other Financing Sources:
Transfers From Other Funds: - 193 - - - - - -
Total Other Financing Sources - 193 - - - - - -
Total Revenues and Other
Financing Sources 75,751,849 75,827,616 76,789,362 77,019,271 , 77,331,371 76,662,422 77,112,788 78,061,574
Expenditures:
Personnel 13,902,613 13,520,086 14,529,597 14,529,597 14,368,460 14,655,829 15,022,225 15,472,892
Supplies 176,712 133,281 222,697 259,651 190,640 194,453 198,342 202,309
Services 3,953,093 4,048,866 4,304,726 4,820,235 3,945,113 3,945,113 4,024,015 4,104,495
Capital Outlay 99,418 84,071 75,565 95,210 81,670 83,303 116,624 118,956
Interdepartmental Charges (1,211,515) (1,026,778) (984,631) (984,631) (1,414,175) (1,442,459) (1,471,308) (1,500,734)
Total Expenditures 16,920,321 16,759,526 18,147,954 18,720,062 17,171,708 17,436,239 17,889,898 18,397,918
Operating Transfers To:
Special Revenue Fund-Schools 48,238,432 48,238,432 49,738,432 49,738,432 50,741,048 51,796,193 52,314,155 52,837,296
Special Revenue Fund-Solid Waste 6,074,403 6,006,891 7,548,932 7,548,932 7,306,501 7,403,742 7,537,324 7,689,353
Special Revenue Funds-Other 1,067,812 1,289,307 1,526,785 1,867,029 1,523,666 1,219,374 1,271,590 1,334,764
Debt Service-School Debt 4,136,679 4,126,067 3,811,948 3,811,948 3,801,562 3,794,995 3,756,081 3,745,984
Capital Projects-Schools 1,375,000 1,425,000 1,075,000 1,075,000 1,200,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000
Capital Projects-Other 299,000 527,202 - - - 250,000 250,000 250,000
Total Operating Transfers 61,191,326 61,612,899 63,701,097 64,041,341 64,572,777 65,714,304 66,379,150 67,107,397
Total Expenditures and
Operating Transfers 78,111,647 78,372,425 81,849,051 82,761,403 81,744,485 83,150,543 84,269,048 85,505,315
Net Results From Operations (2,359,798) (2,544,809) (5,059,689) (5,742,132) (4,413,114) (6,488,121) (7,156,260) (7,443,741)
Projected Lapse - - 907,398 907,398 858,585 784,631 805,045 827,906
Change in Fund Balance (2,359,798) (2,544,809) (4,152,291) (4,834,734) (3,554,529) (5,703,490) (6,351,215)
(6,615,835)
Beginning Fund Balance 28,138,634 25,778,836 23,234,027 23,234,027 18,399,293 14,844,764 9,141,274 2,790,059
Ending Fund Balance $ 25,778,836 $ 23,234,027 $ 19,081,736 $ 18,399,293 $ 14,844,764 $ 9,141,274 $ 2,790,059 $ (3,825,776)
1
. ?/0 341Lts
11\c--�.17f t.
Fund: 100 General Fund
Fund Budget: FY2018 FY2018 FY2019
FY2016 FY2017 Original Forecast Mayor FV2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030
Actual Actual Budget Budget Proposed Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection
Taxable Values(000'S)
Real 5,742738 8,012762 8,338,989 6,344,166 6,366,592 6,366,592 6,430.258 6,558,863 6,690,040 6.823,841 6,960,318 7,099,524 7,241,514 7,386,344 7,534,071 7,684,752
Personal 297,106 334,593 316,943 327,709 307,293 310,386 313,470 318,605 319,771 322,969 326,199 329,461 332,756 336,084 339,445 342,839
Oil 8 Gas(AS 43.56) 1,224,525 1,467,353 1,468,600 1,468,600 1,532,963 1,486,974 1,442,385 1,442,365 1,442,365 1,442,385 1,442,365 1,442,365 1,442,365 1,442,365 1,442,385 1,442,385
Total Taxable Values 7,264,367 7,815,708 8,124,532 8,140,475 8,206,848 8,163,932 8,188,093 8,317,833 8,452,176 8,589,175 8,728,882 8,871,350 9,016,635 9,164,793 9,315,881 9,469,956
Mill Rate 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3:00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Revenues:
Property Taxes:
Real $25,809,011 $26,823,764 $28,525,451 $28,548,747 $28,649,664 $19,099,776 $19,290,774 5 19,676,589 $20,070,120 $20,471,523 $20,880,954 $21,298,572 $21,724,542 $22,159,032 $22,602,213 $23,054,256
Personal 1,372,333 1,516,639 1,397,719 1,445,197 1,355,162 912,478 921,602 930,819 940,127 949,529 959,025 968,615 978,303 988,087 997,968 1,007,947
Oil 8 Gas(AS 43.56) 5,510,384 6,554,687 6,608,700 6,808,700 6,898,334 4,460,922 4,327,095 4,327,095 4,327,095 4,327,095 4,327,095 4,327,095 4,327,095 4,327,095 4,327,095 4,327,095
Penalty and Interest 451,705 473,179 483,041 483,041 462,442 482,442 482,442 462,442 462,442 462,442 462,442 482,442 462,442 462,442 482,442 482,442
Flat Tax 462,966 465,849 560,000 580,000 560,000 560,000 560.000 560,000 560.000 560,000 580.000 560,000 560,000 560,000 560,000 560,000
Motor Vehicle Tax 711,148 708,224 712,000 712,000 712,000 712,000 712,000 712,000 712,000 712,000 712,000 712,000 712,000 712,000 712 000 712,000
Total Property Taxes 34,317,527 36,542,342 38,266,911 38,337,685 38,837,602 26,207,816 28,273,913 26,668,945 27,071,784 27,482,589 27,901,516 28,328,724 28,764,382 29,208,656 29,661,718 30,123,740
Sales Tax 30,116,611 30,400,062 29,979,123 29,979,123 39,557,453 80,754,883 51,321,830 51,734,046 51.,992,748 52,25.2,882 53,513,945 52,776,515 31:040.398 53,305,600 53.572,528 53;839,988
Federal Revenue 3,861,218 3,287,614 2,740,000 2,740,000 2,740,000 2,740,000 2,740,000 2,740,000 2,740,000 2,740,000 2,740,000 2,740,000 2,740,000 2,740,000 2,740,000 2,740,000
State Revenue 6,110,398 4,698,998 4,698,328 4,857,463 4,440,064 3,619,497 3,592,258 3,585,189 3,585,189 3,585,189 3,585,189 3,585,189 3,585,189 3,585,189 3,585,189 3,585,189
Interest Revenue 967,412 492,658 855,000 855,000 685,000 1,000,588 1,095,779 1,171,790 1,237,838 1,286,848 1,317,568 1,328,681 1,318,796 1,288,449 1,230,101 1,148,129
Other Revenue 378,683 405,749 250,000 250,000 250,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,001 350,002 350,003 350,004 350,005 350 006 350,007
Total Revenues 75,751,849 75,827,423 76,789,362 77,019,271 86,310,119 84,632,384 85,273,780 86249,972 86,977,529 87,697,309 88,408,221 89,109,112 89,798,768 90,475,899 91,139,142 91,787,053
Other Financing Sources:
Transfers From Other Funds: - 193 - - - - -
Total Other Financing Sources - 193 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Revenues and Other
Financing Sources 75,751,849 75,827,616 76,789,362 77,019,271 86,310,119 84,632,384 85,273,780 86,249,972 86,977,529 87,697,309 88,408,221 89,109,112 89,798,768 90,475,899 91,139,142 91,787,053
Expenditures:
Personnel 13,902,613 13,520,086 14,529,597 14,529,597 14,368,460 14,655,829 15,022,225 15,472,892 15,937,079 16,415,191 16,907,647 17,414,876 17,937,322 18,475,442 19,029,705 19,600,596
Supplies 176,712 133,281 222,697 259,651 190,640 194,453 198,342 202,309 206,355 210,482 214,692 218,986 223,366 227,833 232,390 237,038
Services 3,953,093 4,048,866 4,304,726 4,820,235 3,945,113 3,945,113 4,024,015 4,104,495 4,186,585 4270,317 4,355,723 4,442,837 4,531,694 4,622,328 4,714,775 4,809,071
Capital Outlay 99,418 84,071 75,565 95210 81,670 83,303 116,624 118,956 121,335 123,762 126237 128,762 131,337 133,964 136,643 139,376
Interdepartmental Charges (1,211,515) (1,026,778) 984 631 984 631 (1414175) (1442459) (1471308) (1500734) (1530749) (1561364) (1592591) (1624443) (1656932) (1690071) (1723872) (1758349)
Total Expenditures 16,920,321 16,759,526 18,147,954 18,720,062 17,171,708 17,436,239 17,889,898 18,397,918 18,920,605 19,458,388 20,011,708 20,581,018 21,166,787 21,769,496 22,389,641 23,027,732
Operating Transfers To:
Special Revenue Fund-Schools 48,238,432 48,238,432 49,738,432 49,738,432 50,741,048 51,796,193 52,314,155 52,837,296 53,471,344 54,113,000 54,762,356 55,419,504 56,084,538 56,757,552 57,438,643 58,127,907
Special Revenue Fund-Solid Waste 6,074,403 6,006,891 7,548,932 7,548,932 7,306,501 7,403742 7,537,324 7,889,353 7,689,353 7,689,353 7,689,353 7,689,353 7,689,353 7,689,353 7,689,353 7,689,353
Special Revenue Funds-Other 1,067,812 1,289,307 1,526,785 1,867,029 1,523,666 1,219,374 1,271,590 1,334,784 1,334,764 1,334,764 1,334,764 1,334,764 1,334,764 1,334,764 1,334,764 1,334,764
Debt Service-School Debt 4,136,679 4,126,067 3,811,948 3,811,948 3,801,562 3,794,995 3,756,081 3,745,984 3,745,984 3,745,984 3,745,984 3,745,984 3,745,984 3,745,984 3,745,984 3,745,984
Capital Projects-Schools 1,375,000 1,425,000 1,075,000 1,075,000 1,200,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1250,000
Capital Projects-Other 299,000 527202 - - - 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250 000 250,000
Total Operating Transfers 61,191,326 61,612,899 63,701,097 84,041,341 64,572,777 65,714,304 66,379,150 67,107,397 67,741,445 68,383,101 69,032,457 69,689,605 70,354,639 71,027,653 71,708,744 72,398,008
Total Expenditures and
Operating Transfers 78,111,647 78,372,425 81,849,051 82,761,403 81,744,485 83,150,543 84,269,048 85,505,315 86,662,050 87,841,489 89,044,165 90,270,623 91,521,426 92,797,149 94,098285 95,425,740
Net Results From Operations (2,359,798) (2,544,809) (5,059,689) (5,742,132) 4,565,634 1,481,841 1,004,732 744,857 315,479 (144,180) (635,944) (1,161,511) (1,722,658) (2,321251) (2,959,244) (3,638,886)
Projected Lapse - - 907,398 907,398 858,585 784,631 805,045 827,906 851,427 875,627 900,527 926,146 952 505 979,627 1,007,534 1,038,248
Change in Fund Balance (2,359,798) (2,544,809) (4,152,291) (4,834,734) 5,424219 2,266,472 1,809,777 1,572,563 1,166,906 731,447 264,583 (235,385) (770,153) (1,341,624) (1,951,710) (2,602,438)
Beginning Fund Balance 28,138,634 25,778,836 23,234,027 23,234,027 18,399,293 23,823,512 26,089,984 27,899,761 29,472,324 30,639,230 31,370,677 31,635,260 31,399,895 30,629,742 29288,119 27,336,409
Ending Fund Balance25,778,836 $23,234,027 $ 19,081,736 $ 18,399,293 $23,823,512 $26,089 984 $27 699 761 $ 29 472 324 30 5 639 230 $ 31,370,677 $ 31 635 260 $ 31 399 895 $ 30 629 742 $ 29 288 119 $ 27 336 409 S 24 733 971
wit%i a Past, Cit. wit%i a Futur-e
` 210 Fidalgo Ave, Kenai,Alaska 99611-7794
Telephone: (907) 283-7535 I Fax: (907) 283-3014
the www.kenai.city
KENAI,ALASKA
\v/
MEMORANDUM
TO: Wayne Ogle, Assembly President
Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly
FROM: Paul Ostrander, City Manager
Terry Eubank, Finance Director
DATE: May 4, 2018
SUBJECT: Joint Work Session - Local Government Revenue Concerns
This analysis attempts to quantify the impacts to City of Kenai residents and to the City of
Kenai of the various revenue generating measures that the Kenai Peninsula Borough is
considering to close its fiscal gap. Specifically, it identifies the financial impact of the
proposed changes to Kenai residents and describes how the different approaches will impact
the City's ability to generate revenue for its operations and capital needs in the future. The
impact to local municipalities should be considered by Borough policymakers when crafting
a plan to fill the Borough's fiscal gap.
Property Tax
Property taxes make up approximately 25% of the City's revenues, generating an estimated
$877,219 per 1 mill of assessment. All property tax is paid by the business and property
owners within the City boundaries. Approximately 5% of property tax in the City of Kenai is
related to AS 43.56 property - Oil and Gas Production Taxes. AS 43.56 property is taxed at
a flat 20 mills and therefore there is no direct impact on the oil and gas property owner as a
result of an increase or decrease in the mill rate. Without consideration of AS 43.56, the
direct impact on a City resident property owner from an increase to the Borough's mill rate
would be commensurate with the increase; residents would see a proportional increase on
their tax bill. The impact on local businesses that own property in Kenai would be similar.
The impact to City residents who rent homes or business owners who lease business space
would be similar due to the likelihood that rental/lease rates would increase to compensate
for the additional holding costs incurred by the owner of the property. An increase in the mill
rate would not generate revenue for the City or have a significant effect on the City's ability
to levy additional taxes in the future to support identified capital or operational needs.
i
Page 3 of 3
Joint Work Session - Local Government Revenue Concerns
all revenue generated by a bed tax will be paid by non-residents and is not likely to affect a
visitor's decision to visit Kenai as a bed tax is a common occurrence in most areas.
The next component of a revenue-generating plan should be an increase in the property tax
mill rate. The Borough projects that 50% of property taxes are paid by non-residents,
including the 18.7% of Borough property taxes paid under AS 43.56. A mill rate increase will
have no impact on AS 43.56 taxpayers, rather it simply reduces the State's share of the
statutory 20 mill tax levy. Alternatively, a decrease in the mill tax rate results in a loss of the
Borough's share and a need for those revenues to be generated by other revenue sources.
The focus here again is on the role of the party paying the tax and minimizing the impact on
residents.
Finally, if sales tax is a component of the plan, a seasonal rate should be considered in an
effort to target non-resident consumers, and no amount of a sales tax increase should be
implemented to offset a decrease in the property tax mill rate. Sales tax is too important of a
revenue source to municipalities, and a shift of burden from property owners to consumers
significantly impacts the ability of municipalities to meet their current and future revenue
needs.
Thank you for your consideration.
/ oi Loaide.x471-1
IP fae. 0012 - 030
Exhibit L-12
r- City of Seward, Alaska Cert
r)
r" Wastewater Enterprise Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenses I 06 3
r
and Change in Net Position
E
Year Ended December 31, 2016 2015
7
7 Operating Revenues
r
Residential $ 637,860
Small general service $ 604,405
194,606 191,365
Large general service 279,178 260,495
Seward Marine Industrial Center 35,895 36,304
Miscellaneous
4,224 3,482
Total Operating Revenues 1,151,763 1,096,051
Operating Expenses
Salaries and employee benefits 342,653 380,132
Purchased services
234,191 235,560
- Contracted services
73,021 25,805
a Supplies and maintenance 35,599 64,645
Administration and general 152,718 156,188
Depreciation 367,543 235,468
Total Operating Expenses 1,205,725 1,097,798
Loss from Operations (53,96
(1,747)
Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses)
Intergovernmental - PERS on-behalf 6,861 10,980
Investment income (loss) 2,997 (4,242)
Other revenue
239
Interest expense (5,900)
Net Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses)
3,958 6,977
li Loss Before Contributions and Transfers (50,004) 5,230
-
Capital contributions
Transfers in 1,470,230
12,000 30,826
Transfers out
/(98,114) (93,676)
— Change in Net Position 136,118) 1,412,610
0 Net Position, beginning 6,993,150 5,580,540
Net Position, ending $ 6,857,032 $ 6,993,150
111
0 `.
t9ft L-13
City of Seward, Alaska 2of3
Wastewater Enterprise Fund
Statement of Cash Flows
Year Ended December 31, 2016 2015
Cash Flows from(for)Operating Activities
Receipts from customers and users $ 1,141,454 $ 1,089,219
Payments to suppliers (314,845) (329,642)
Payments to employees (275,221) (325,630)
Payments for interfund services used (152,718)
(156,188)
Net cash flows from operating activities 398,670 277,759
Cash Flows from (for)Noncapital Financing Activities
Transfers in 12,000 , 30,826
Transfers out (98,114) (93,676)
Net cash flows for noncapital financing activities (86,114) (62,850)
Cash Flows from (for)Capital and Related Financing Activities
Principal payments on notes payable (58,986) -
Increase(decrease)in due to other funds jok221) 62,221
Capital contributions received
81('111, 0 1,534,202 1,300,0
Acquisition of property,plant and equipment (3,099)
(2,865,040)
Net cash flows from (for)capital and related financing activities 1,409,896 (1,502,819)
Cash Flows from(for)Investing Activities
Investment income(loss) 2,997 (4,242)
Net Increase(Decrease)in Cash and Investments 1,725,449 (1,292,152)
Cash and Investments,beginning 1 • 152
Cash and Investments,ending z -
Reconciliation of Loss from Operations to Net
Cash from (for)Operating Activities
Loss from operations $ (53,962) $ (1,747)
Adjustments to reconcile loss from operations
to net cash flows from (for)operating activities:
Depreciation 367,543 235,468
Noncash expense-PERS on-behalf 6,861 10,980
Other nonoperating revenue - 239
Increase in allowance for doubtful accounts 486 333
Increase in assets and deferred outflows of resources:
Accounts receivable (10,795) (7,404)
Deferred outflows of resources related to pensions (7,294) (43,929)
Increase(decrease)in liabilities and deferred inflows of resources:
Accounts payable 27,966 (3,632)
Accrued payroll and related liabilities 1,148 (9,702)
Accrued annual leave (5,069) 6,460
Net pension liability 72,640 104,538
Deferred inflows related to pensions (854) (13,845)
Net Cash from Operating Activities $ 398,670 $ 277,759
Noncash Capital and Related Financing Activities
Capital contributions $ - $ 1,534,202
112
/'
City of
ISoy El"..---v-ctAit,y.../)l
Seward
Capital Improvement Plan
te41476( 3
Wastewater-Related Capital Projects
, 2018 and 2019
New or Project Funding Source
Project Description Replace Year Cost Rating(a) City Portion Other Source Source
PROJECTS SLATED FOR 2018 and 2019:
High-Risk Capital Needs:
Double wall fuel tank-1000 gal. R 2018 $150,000 H $150,000 Wastewater Fund
Moderate-Risk Capital Needs:
Auto dialer phone line IS-1(Harbor) N 2018 $15,000 $15,000 Wastewater Fund
MAJOR REPAIR&REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE/ASSETS:
Critical Capital Needs:
SMIC bypass valving R $72,000 C $72,000 Wastewater Fund
Lowell Point sludge pile disposal R $490,000 C $490,000 Wastewater Fund
#1 standby generator R $150,000 C $150,000 Wastewater Fund
High-Risk Capital Needs:
SMIC piping for bypass(engineering/design) R $50,000 H $50,000 Wastewater Fund
Manhole refurbishment R $120,000 H $120,000 Wastewater Fund
Moderate-Risk Capital Needs:
SMIC lower lift station(engineering only) R $250,000 M $250,000 Wastewater Fund
vile disposal R $25,000 M $25,000 Wastewater Fund
Replace existing distribution system($800K/yr.) R Annual $800,000 M $800,000_______)
Wastewater Fund
Replace infrastructure past useful life($75R/yr) R Annual $75,000 M $75,000 Wastewater Fund
LIST OF POTENTIAL NEW FACILITIES/ASSETS/INFRASTRUCTURE:
Critical Capital Needs:
Forest Acres lift station(engineering) N $92,000 C $92,000 Wastewater Fund
Moderate-Risk Capital Needs:
GIS system N $30,000 $30,000 Wastewater Fund
Wastewater utility rate study N $30,000 $30,000 Wastewater Fund
Maple Street Wastewater N $400,000 New $400,000 State Grant
Total Wastewater Fund Projects: $2,749,000 $2,349,000 $400,000
Total Wastewater Fund Projects for 2018 and 2019: $1852000 $165,000
Rating(a):
Critical Risk(C): Likely to fail within next 5 years
High Risk(H):Likely to fail in 5-10 years
Moderate Risk(3):continuous increasing cost to maintain and operate.
"New"reflects creation or purchase of a new asset;not replacing an existing asset
i
r.1
i
1
I. 1
206
Brenda Ballou From: FriSlater /50 / L{ ddk)Sent: Fridd ay, May 18, 2018 9:56 AM /
To: Brenda Ballou
Subject: Fwd: Meeting tonight (KeAt
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: <eslater@cityofseward.net>
Date: May 14, 2018 at 10:10:04 AM AKDT
To: <dlsquires@cityofseward.net>, <mkeil@cityofseward.net>
Subject: Meeting tonight
Unfortunately due to extreme staffing issues at both restaurants I am unable to attend tonight's
meeting. Staffing issues being, I have none. The 4 kitchen guys I had lined up to start this last
week either bailed or didn't show. So I have been bouncing staff between the two places
everyday as well as myself working on the line to fill spots. Working on more people . The
resolution I asked to bring back I just wanted to touch base again on but wasn't too concerned
with the last decision. Just felt the need to digest Rissy's info more.
Many thanks
Erik
Sent from my iPhone
1
Data Sources:
71K—atore NANeb ..WIN rad Y.wMrwe Melina WYYaW MWYk1bW y.0.101Amr
•
Cimlmunil\ ;Inti I:c`itm i :\11:11.1
HOME COMMIMI)Y INFORM.IION Fuso:Ns NI SOUS. r.. .,•HNlcat NFsouacIs Petersburg 2016 Financial Statements:
[erns Peep.arms. —r.eommtt«a..rewrwv 4.e.+ hot
v.r.adi..w•c.....rt. maul. p://www.ci.petersburg.ak.us/vertical/sites/%786795AS1C-8710-4546-82D2-2A07534E232B%7D/uploads/Petersburg_Borough_FV16_Financial_Statement.pdf
Petersburg Finance Staffing levels:
FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS DELIVERY SYSTEM http://www.ci.petersburg.ak.us/index.asp?SEC=1A333944-3A83-4673-SFEE-FDD560E6117F&Type=B_DIR
Welcome to the Financial Documents Delivery System
Every Ley and borough in Alaska is remotest under slate law AS/q 20 640)to annuaey S.M.Its eunenl
annual budge)and audit to the Alaska Department of Commerce.Co...,and Ecomc moe.e.opn-em City of Kodiak Personnel:
needy fourdeo saes Ilse cnncM/rave..rnords nave been correct.add used by Dnniona https://www.commerCe.alaska.gov/dcra/DCRARepoExt/RepoPubs/FinDocs/Kodia kFY2018Budget.pdf
Communav B Rego.)Allain staff to nnplemenl sono finencr.l assatance pmgibra.monde..eal
govemmenl leemaral a,sntanceand adage Sloe aper.es a.a olhuaa regard.ng Idol fiscal cotaauns 1r City of Kodiak 2016 Financial Statements:
oonse to in c leasing demand for copies or Mese nronc lel documents.the Dnis no of Commvary
vlegional Alain has re oiled the 00,1,14,10a wren's Deur,system Now.•MCeas to even muntepal hoops://www.commerce.alaska.gov/dcra/DCRARepoExt/RepoPubs/FinDocs/KodiakFY2016Audit.pdf
budget arta real-en0 hnam rat statement submitted to the Onisidn O avaaaule wen a ample cbck of a button
nklpal budgets are the annual adopt.operating Augers for each munkldatm and date moa to Fr20oo City of Homer 2016 Financial Statements:
theyear-end linancul statements dale beck to Fr 14ve ono consist or either an auall w 0 pre..
nano lar statement cer[.as true and complete by the local governing body ma orlon or communirya https://www.cityofhomer-ak.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/finance/page/30051/city_of_homer__audit_2016.pdf
Regional main does not Aust these document.In any manner and is not respons..ax ler the.c=uncy or City of Homer 2018 Personnel:
quality of rnunkpaI mencial rep arts The Fnanclel Documents DeA,en Svsteen IS updated I010lgr,t me
sear as tsrancu:recons are scanned and posted in the Dine and COMM.in andnmey ale receded haps://www.cityofhome r-ak.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/finance/page/32351/2018_adopted_budget.pdf
City of Cordova 2016 Financial Statements:
location: • _duds - https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/dcra/DCRARepoExt/RepoPubs/FinDocs/CordovaCY2016Audit.pdf
cstefory: ivJ City of 2018 Cordova Personnel:
YaM:/ole http://www.cityofcordova.net/images//eforms/financial/2018%20Budget.pdf
,.Nm a.;MN.ar luta. City of Valdez(does not produce an annual financial statement or CAFR;only a budget)
http://www.cimaldez.ak.us/DocumentCenter/View/4247
City of Valdez 2018 Personnel:
http://www.ci.yaidez.ak.us/DocumentCenter/View/4247
City of Wrangell 2016 Financial Statements:
https://www.commerce.a laska.gov/dcra/DCRARepoExt/RepoPubs/FinDocs/W ra ngelIFY2016Audit.pdf
City of Wrangell 2018 Personnel:
https://www.commerce.a las kat gov/dcra/DCRARepoExt/RepoPubs/FinDocs/W range IIFY2018Budget.pdf
City of Petersburg 2016 Financial Statements:
http://www.ci.petersburg.ak.us/vertical/sites/786795A51C-8710-4546-B2D2-2A07534E232B%7D/uploads/Petersburg_Borough_FY16_Financia l_Statement.pdf
City of Petersburg 2018 Personnel:
hoop://www.ci.petersbu rg.a k.us/vertical/sites/%786795A51C-8710-4546-82D2-2A07534E2328%7D/uploads/FY_2018_Adopted_Budget.pdf
Cordova: Per Finance Director(Jon Stavig,424-6200)one partial position is a grant accountant but not shown
in Finance,and another position handles taxes and is not in Finance.
CITY OF CORDON-A,ALASKA
2019 BUDGET
STAFFING PLAN
FT'018
Category FF 200- F F 2072 FF 2014 V) 201" Budget
Ci Mana•er 2 2 2 2 2
IMEEMIIIMM 2 2 2 2 2
Public Safe 10 13 12 11 11
Fire 2 2 2 2 2
Pants and Rec 4 5 4 4 4
Harbor 6 6 6 6 6
Information Set-vices 9 10 10 9 6.5
Finance 4 4 4 4 4
PW Admin 1 1 1 1 1
Facili Maint. 1 2 2 2 2
Streets 5 7 7 7 6
Water/Sewer 4 5 5 5 5
Refuse 5 5 5 5 5
Plaunin• 2 2 2 2 2
General Fund 36 43 41 39 36.5
Enterprise Funds 20 23 23 23 22
Petersburg: Finance department includes 6 employees,not 4.
Alk A
PETERSBURG
ALASKA
Lithe Norway_Hiq AdventurD.
,-41trar.Iialair ?A (.harsher olCommar.
1 741, . '-7--
... ,,,,,,,,, 1 __.7.0 . itri ,,,,„ I 1 .,
Finance Contact Information
H.nne -
ttorough Assembly
lode Tow
Cornmissr ns.Committees and Hoards
Finance Director
()elm;urinate
Petersburg Development ode Revision Anna Cantors
C
Utility R.Harbor Online Hill Pay Utility BONN
Customer Forms - Cantle Gain
Public Meetings Schedule and Audio 01 Live Accounts payable Saks and Use Taxes
and Archived Meetings
Municipal Code R title!9 Pinot Rotten
Employment Opportunities Capnal Propctn and Grants
Current Bid Advertisements Starr Lube
Contact Webmaster 8 Site Disclaimer Accounts Receivable
In Departments. Shannon McCalouah
•MIDaifltaion
•Assisted Lrvitn and Elderly Hounin Properly Tax
Dillingham: Finance department includes 7 employees,not 6
•
Alaska '
_.i. :tea 2, ' • -- tic
3t ? J1. f
� 1�
--_�5eafch
._
Ilame Finance
Niq,adnwnts
The Finance Department is responsible at accounting budgeting and financial services for the city The
Govomrromt . include accounts payable,payroll.the collection of sales taxaccounts referrable for watedsewer,grant
administrseonpurchasng fixed assets.collections investments phone reception real and personal
Commune./Interest x property assessments and issuing business licenses
...,R Anuouncumenta s The financial and accounting achvM complies wth all federal elate and municipal laws and regulations
compliancethe department is audited annually
Departments! The Finance Department is located on the 2nd floor of City Hall
al us office Han Office Hours:Monday through Friday,8 a .-5 p to(Except Municipal Holidays)
Forms&Permits Contact our Finance Staff:
City Adanirtistration Phone 907 8423211-Extensions listed below
Fax 907 842.5691
- Ctty Cork
Finance Navin Blsaram Finance Director Ext 204
Audit Reports - AtaBa/taNr AMIN OMNI Dd.208
•
BudgetsArtaa Fuller Ors* Eat 208
Btseness licenses �e0s*l AYar M201
tfetle Rector Property Tana/COBecwn FA 2135
Property Tan Information Ip ,t MimeoMOM&111talrhle ed 203
Sales Tax Reporting Dtraceih Hayes Krauts Payable r Perot Est 202
• Wagse and Wastsw.atrs Fees
Kodiak: Finance department includes 7.25 employees,not 6
0
io
S . Annual Operating Budget
July 1,2017—June 30,2018
City of Kodiak
Fiscal Year 2018 Personnel Summary
Department FTE
Execution 8 Emergency Sources 4.00
City Clerk 3.00
Finance 7.25
Police 42.50 •
Fire 13.75
Public Works 950
Engineering 2.00
Parks 8 Recreation 5.75
Library 7.00
Cargo Terminal 3.00
Boat Harbor 11.40
Boat Yard/Lift 2.00
Public Utilities 18.00
Total 129.15
FTE-Full Time Equina:ent
City of Homer:
http://www.c i.pete rsb u rg.a k.u s/vertical/sites/%7 B6795A51C-8710-4546-B2 D2-
2A07534E232B%7D/uploads/Petersburg_Borough_FY16_Financial_Statement.pdf
City of Homer
2018 Operating Budget
Personnel by Department (FTEs) 2018
Public Works, 11.825
Water&Sewer, 16.18
Port&Harbor, 17.40
Airport, 0.625
City Admin, 6.53
///////II Park&Rec, 1.45
-__City Clerk, 3.00
Finance, 6.00
Police, 22.00 Fire, 6.00
Library, 7.50
Planning, 3.00
Department FY 2018 Adopted Budget FY 2017 Adopted Budget
Port&Harbor 17.40 17.40 0.00
Airport 0.625 0.60 0.025
City Admin 6.53 6.53 0.00
Park&Rec 1.45 2.05 (0.60)
City Clerk 3.00 3.00 0.00
Finance 6.00 6.00 0.00
Fire 6.00 6.00 0.00
Library 7.50 7.50 0.00
Planning 3.00 3.00 0.00
Police 22.00 22.00 0.00
Water&Sewer 16.18 16.18 0.00
Public Works 11.825 11.25 0.575
Total FTE 101.50 101.50