Memorandum

City of Lawrence

City Manager’s Office

 

TO:

David L. Corliss, City Manager

 

FROM:

Cynthia Boecker, Assistant City Manager

 

CC:

Diane Stoddard, Assistant City Manager

Casey Toomay, Budget Manager

 

DATE:

February 3, 2009

 

RE:

Response to Vice Mayor Chestnut’s Questions Regarding Budget Reductions

 

 

The following is presented in response to questions posed by Vice Mayor Chestnut in response to the January 30, 2009 memo outlining the City Manager’s Budget Recommendations in response to the Governor’s recommended budget.  Vice Mayor Chestnut’s questions precede staff responses.

                              

E-gov coordinator - What website features and e-gov features would we lose without the position?

 

Because specific programming skills, expertise in software research and application would be lost with elimination of this position, the following website features and e-gov features would be eliminated:

 

In addition to the features mentioned above, elimination of this position would result in:

·         Projects related to the results of the November 2006 egov citizen survey:

o        View live City Commission meetings online

o        Renew contractor licenses or schedule a building inspection online

o        Order and pay for maps online

o        Register home alarm systems online

o        Reserve practice ball fields and shelters online

o        Purchase downtown parking passes online

·         Transaction to renew rental registration license online

·         Enhanced online mapping; similar to Google maps with city data

·         Integration of the coordinated City / KU transit maps online via Google Transit

·         Student targeted web presence with Facebook

·         Employment recruiting via web

·         RSS feeds for newly posted content

 

The city could retain private vendors to provide all or most of these website features, however, we estimate that this would cost significantly more than the resources necessary to retain this position.  For example, outsourcing web server maintenance would cost an approximately $14,000 per year.   The result of losing the position would be a minimal web presence that would reduce the level of service our citizens and the media have come to expect from the City of Lawrence.  The website would consist of the following: 

 

 

Historic preservation - Please explain the process that would be necessary with the state without this position?  Are other Kansas communities going through this process without this position?

 

If this function is cut, State Preservation law requirements would be shifted back to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Currently only Abilene, Garden City, Hutchinson, Lawrence, Leavenworth, Newton / North Newton, Salina, Topeka, and Wichita conduct reviews at the local level. All other municipalities send reviews to the SHPO. By law, the SHPO has 30 days to review the project. This review may result in a request for additional information which can add additional time to the review period. A City Official would be responsible for forwarding all building permits and required information for projects that require review under the statute to the SHPO. (All sidewalk dining applications in the Downtown would have to be forwarded to the SHPO as well as rezonings, SUPs, etc.) The SHPO would send a letter with a response to the City Official. If there is a determination that the project will encroach upon, damage or destroy the listed properties, the City Official would have to notify the project applicant. If the applicant chooses to appeal the decision, the appeal would still be to the Lawrence City Commission. The Commission or the City Manager would need to appoint staff to prepare any necessary reports and to make sure the process is followed. Typically, failure to follow the process is the subject of further appeal and litigation.  Based on information noted in the city’s records, Lawrence entered into the agreement with SHPO to conduct these reviews for the following reasons:

 

(1)  the review time is typically much shorter for the applicant

(2)  the review is completed by local stakeholders and professionals who understand the resources to be protected and the review includes public notice

(3)  at the local level, staff can work with the applicant to achieve the goals of the project while meeting the review standards. State staff simply issues “effect” or “no effect” letters and doesn’t necessarily “work out” design issues to comply and has no element of public notification. It is likely that the City Commission would see an increase in appeals cases.

 

The Historic Resources function for the city consists of several sub-programs. The review of projects under K.S.A. 75-2715—75-2725, as amended (State Preservation law), is only one aspect of this program. The Historic Resources Administrator is also responsible for the objectives outlined in Chapter 22 of the City Code. If the position is cut, it will be necessary to revoke all of Chapter 22 as there will be no professional staff to support the programs identified in the chapter.

 

In addition to revoking Chapter 22, Chapter 11 of Horizon 2020 would need to be amended or deleted. If Chapter 22 is revoked, Lawrence would be in violation of our cooperative agreement with the State and the National Park Service for the Certified Local Government program. The City would need to request decertification or upon notification by the SHPO the NPS will decertify Lawrence as a Certified Local Government. This program is used for leverage in grant funding and allows the City to compete for pass-through money from the Feds. This pass through money has provided the City over $171,000 since 2001 to produce products like the Downtown Design Guidelines and the new Chapter 11 of Horizon 2020 – The Comprehensive Preservation Plan Element and has also paid for intern positions to expedite reviews and do more public education and outreach. The HRA salary was used as the match for these funds.  The CLG status also increased the ranking for the City when applying for Transportation Enhancement grants. This status was very important in the funding of the brick street project and the Burroughs Creek Trail project. CLG status also guarantees the City a voice in the nomination process for all properties to the National Register. This comment is not required for non CLG entities.

 

Additional consideration will need to be given to the Historic Resources Administrator’s roll in the review of all applications required to have review under Urban Conservation Overlay Districts. This review would need to be shifted to the Current Planning Division – which will need specific training to be able to complete the reviews. Currently there are 2 of these districts in Lawrence. If the duties can not be shifted, the Overlay Districts would need to be rezoned without the overlay design standards. This would effectively place the Downtown under the new Commercial Design Standards which do not reflect the importance or significance of the Downtown area. The current Historic Resources Administrator also functions as a current planner for projects that require multiple reviews (site plan and HRC review). The removal of the position and the HRC review will not negate the need for current planning review and this burden will be shifted to the Current Planning staff.

 

One of the most important functions of the Historic Resources program is to provide preservation expertise to property owners in Lawrence. While the Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit program (20%) and the State Rehabilitation tax credit program (25%) can be positive revenue generators for owners of historic properties, (and rehabilitation dollars in existing structures are typically the most beneficial to the local economy as they tend to use local labor and local products) they are government programs that require an expertise in how to apply and what costs are eligible. By having the expertise at the local level, this program is more user-friendly and therefore, used to a high degree. Lawrence has one of the highest percentages of rehabilitation in the State.

 

This brief assessment does not venture into the importance of the Historic Resources program and economic development, especially heritage tourism. Freedom’s Frontier has a great amount of information about the economic impact of heritage tourism on local economies.

 

Long range planner - What work plan items would not be accomplished with the loss of one planner? 

 

If one position were lost, the list of active planning efforts would need to be prioritized, to determine which long range projects would be delayed or possibly not accomplished in the foreseeable future. The list of long range projects currently in process include:

 

  1. Chapter 7 - initiated in 2004
  2. Chapter 16 – Environmental Chapter – initiated in fall of 2008
  3. Chapter 10 – Community Facilities – staff analysis began in 2008
  4. Annual report for PDS for 2008
  5. Ongoing floodplain responsibilities and public notice on the Community Rating System
  6. Work with Economic Development Coordinator on Retail Market database (inventory)
  7. West of K-10 Sector Plan (returning to PC and CC ultimately to discuss designations in southeast portion of plan)
  8. Comp plan amendment to review Urban Growth Area boundaries (One County Commissioner recently noted a desire to review this issue this year)
  9. Working with transportation staff on updating access management standards and Ch 8, the Transportation chapter of H2020
  10. SmartCode implementation and processing text amendments to address architectural standards and to reflect the SmartCode in the Development Code
  11. Oread Neighborhood Plan - recently initiated
  12. Industrial Design Guidelines – will be submitted to PC in a month or two
  13. Annual Comp Plan review and report (statutorily required) – submitted to PC in the spring
  14. CUP status follow up – ongoing as CUPs expire
  15. Staffing the PC-appointed Gateways and Boulevards subcommittee

 

Projects we believe that are on the horizon include:

 

  1. Coordinate sector plans with GIS and Utilities for any future Water and Sewer Master Plan
  2. Complete a sector plan for N. Lawrence and Grant Township
  3. Processing and reviewing Farmland development – annexations, compliance with Redevelopment Plan, etc.
  4. Update the Northwest Area Plan
  5. Working with Census Bureau on 2010 census
  6. Complete office and multi-family market studies

 

It should be noted that this division took on additional duties in 2008 to support the Current Planning division due to the reduction in that division in 2008.  The Long Range division is lending support in the form of additional Planner of the Day duties and current planning assignments such as tracking and initiating CUP applications for ones that have expired.  Since the reduction from five to three Current Planners, the GIS planner has assumed Board of Zoning Appeals duties, a function that was being performed in the Current Planning division.  Additionally, the Historic Resources Coordinator and the County Planning Coordinator perform current planning duties to offset the reduction in Current Planner positions. The planning side of PDS has been reducing the division of duties between divisions since 2007 to account for reductions in staff and in an attempt to use existing resources to maintain the same level of product.

 

Does the concrete crew work consistently throughout the year on repair?  Are there times when weather does not permit?  Is there a possibility of making this part-time with supervision?

 

This crew works consistently throughout the year on any number of public infrastructure needs.  The Street Maintenance Division is responsible for the routine maintenance of the City’s streets, alleys, sidewalks, curbs, and gutters. The budget provides funds for concrete, asphalt, sand, rock, and salt for snow and ice control. This work requires the use of a variety of equipment and vehicles. The majority of work completed by the division is routine maintenance and small projects that are not cost effective to contract.

 

The Street Division has four functioning crews:  concrete, asphalt, levy, and stormwater.  Each crew consists of the minimum number of people for an efficient operation to complete projects.  Some of the tasks performed in each crew are similar, i.e. pavement removal (concrete or asphalt), excavation (stormwater or concrete).  Most of the employees are cross-trained and can fill in for each other if a larger project is needed in any one area.  Concrete can be done year round and we have completed several small projects this winter --many in-house projects including Fire Station #4 drive repairs, repairs to sidewalks at City facilities, and ADA ramps. 

 

Members of all crews provide snow removal, crack sealing, pothole repair, special event activities (provide barricades), emergency management activities (clean-up after storms, floods, tornadoes), and storm sewer inlet cleaning.  Some larger projects may take combining two or more crews.  With any Public Works project, weather plays a factor.  Typically, if it is raining or flooding, staff is barricading streets and opening plugged inlets.  When it is extremely cold, concrete and asphalt projects are mainly focused on maintaining and repairing as needed to get by until a more permanent repair can be completed.

 

Concrete finishing is laborious but does require a lot of skill.  Trying to hire part-time help and supervise would cause poor quality and workmanship.  Current crew members can complete projects without constant supervision.  It would not be recommended as a part-time position.

 

Routine maintenance of the existing storm water network includes the cleaning of ditches, storm sewer pipes, inlet throats and catch basins. Storm water operations crews are managed under the Street Maintenance Division. Work in this area includes levee maintenance and mowing.

 

The division is comprised of 1 division manager, 4 crew supervisors and 40 maintenance workers assigned to various crews throughout the year with each crew focusing on a primary function, such as concrete repairs, storm water, street sweeping or asphalt paving. Each crew member is an integral part of the entire division and crew members at time are interchanged to accommodate leaves, projects that require larger crews and natural disasters, such as snow/ice control or tornado’s.

 

Throughout the year all Street Maintenance crews continue to have a large work load. During the winter months crews are either participating or preparing for snow/ice control events. As weather allows during the winter crews are assigned small projects that are short in duration that can be started and finished within a window of good weather. The winter months are also used to maintain equipment, train personnel, prepare for upcoming projects, patch pot-holes and perform general maintenance to the streets. Kansas weather usually allows us to work year round on most activities. And when the weather is inclement we are most likely treating roadways or cleaning up after a snow/ice event.

 

While any budget can absorb cuts it is not without impact. Cutting two full time positions from the Street Maintenance Division will have a negative impact. It will reduce our capability to perform some of the projects we are asked to complete in any given year. Currently the concrete crew has a back log of 250 projects. A reduction in the size of that crew will slow down that progress and in some cases eliminate our ability to complete a project in-house due to its size. The reduction of positions will eliminate one entire snow route. Resulting, in the merging of that snow route into the other existing routes creating a delay in snow removal operations overall.

 

Help me with the math of a 32% reduction in outside agency funding out of the general fund.

General Fund cuts totaling $570,000 are necessary when state funding levels are combined with the transfer of costs for the SRO positions from the Special Alcohol Fund to the General Fund.  Reductions in other areas (school crossing guards, fire department services, human relations staffing reductions) total $240,500.  The remaining reductions were recommended in their entirety from outside agency funding, with an across the board reduction recommended for all agencies.  The 32% reduction netted the closest figure necessary to reach $329,500.

 

I think we should get a list of special events.  In contrast to closing all rec facilities every weekend, this might be a good tradeoff.

 

Closing all recreation centers on weekends unless there is a paid reservation for use of the facility provides an estimated $15,000 in savings.  Outlined below are special events with revenues, expenditures and net profit or loss for each.  Profit and loss information reflects program expenses only (part-time staff, supplies, materials).  One full-time staff person coordinates all special events.  Full-time salary and utility/maintenance overhead costs are not reflected.  Note that elimination of summer band concerts at $12,000 is already included in recommendations for programmatic cuts.  As the table below illustrates, the single largest cost savings opportunity in special events would be to eliminate the five summer playground sites.

 

Event

Income

Expenses

Net

Breakfast with Santa

$1,848

$987

$861

New Years Eve Overnighter

$1,671

$880

$791

Holiday Happenings

$1,583

$667

$916

Turkey Trot 5K Run

$1,678

$961

$717

Holiday Bazaar

$6,135

$483

$5,652

Kids Day Off

$1,620

$526

$1,094

Halloween Paint In

$550

$481

$69

Fall Arts & Crafts Festival

$9,070

$1,199

$7,871

Fun Days of Summer & End of Summer Flings

$8,016

$5,543

$2,473

Brown Bag Concerts

$500

$1,945

($1,445)

Wednesday Night Band Concert

$0

$12,357

($12,357)

Summer Playgrounds 5 Sites

$42,617

$61,754

($19,137)

Skateboard Competition

$0

$180

($180)

Fishing Derby Mary’s Lake (Spring)

$0

$50

($50)

Dam Run

$2,588

$1,327

$1,261

Egg Hunt

$0

$591

($591)

Spring Break Camp

$3,545

$1,610

$1,936

Springfest

$6,135

$480

$5,655

Kids Day Off

$1,800

$453

$1,347

Dog Frisbee Contest

$0

$107

($107)

Total

$89,356

$92,580

($3,225)

 

 

Please provide a summary of changes in number of full time employees in the organization.

 

See FTE History 1999-2009 attached.