Packet - City of Salida

Transcription

RIVER WEST SUBDIVISION, BY NATURAL HABITATS
RIVER'S EDGE RESTAURANT
DESIGN BY NATURAL HABITATS
UNIQUE THEATER, FACADE RENOVATION
DESIGN AND BUILD BY NATURAL HABITATS
MORGAN RESIDENCE, BEFORE
MORGAN RESIDENCE, AFTER
QUINCY'S RESTAURANT, BEFORE
QUINCY'S RESTAURANT, AFTER
BOATHOUSE CANTINA
WILBUR RESIDENCE
TWEIT RESIDENCE
215 COTTONWOOD
HOUSE IN COTTONWOOD GREENS
MARGY BROWN RESIDENCE
COTTONWOOD GREENS
CONDOS IN COTTONWOOD GREENS
CONDOS IN COTTONWOOD GREENS
Proposed Mesa subdivision should be lower
density
Posted October 23, 2014 by Karen Argys-Lloyd & filed under Letters.
Dan Thomas and Tom Pokorny of 7473 Crestone, LLC are submitting applications to the City of
Salida for a Major Subdivision/ Major Impact Review. The land to be subdivided is identified as
7473 Crestone (7473 C.R.160)- former planned MiraMonte Subdivision.
It is bordered by the Cottonwood Green subdivision to the East (which is directly west of the
Salida Golf Course), a single family home and property to the north, three 2-acre lots with single
family homes to the West and a vacant 18-acre parcel to the South.
The developers wish to build 46 units on the property and a one acre park. The development is
said to “mimic” downtown Salida but the “Mesa” is not downtown Salida.
The Mesa for all of us who grew up in Salida is not meant to have this density. I do not oppose
the development but hope to change the City Council’s mind to build 1/2 of the units, in essence,
mimicking the Cottonwood Greens subdivision and all the homes in the area.
The only ones who gain in this effort are the City of Salida who will garner huge tap fees per unit
and the developers who were able to get the land cheap. It does not help those who seek
affordable housing.
There is no where on the Mesa that has the density of the proposed subdivision nor do I
know of the same density in downtown Salida.
By signing the petition at www.gopetition.com (search for Stop the Mesa High Density
Development), you say to the Salida City Council to change the density of the proposed
subdivision to mimic the density of subdivisions on the Mesa.
Thank you,
Karen Argys-Lloyd
Response to Petition from Developer
October 25, 2014
Karen,
This is a response to your description of the Crestone Mesa Subdivision.
First, let me say that I appreciate your desire that we design the Crestone Mesa subdivision to mirror the
Cottonwood Subdivision since Dan was the general contractor that oversaw the construction of the
infrastructure of the development and between us we have designed and built 12 of the approximately 24
units within the subdivision. I can assure you that the Crestone Mesa subdivision will meet and exceed
the standards of the Cottonwood Greens subdivision; we have learned quite a lot in the last 10 years.
For example, we do not intend to use an H.O.A. that requires a minimum sized house of 1800 square feet,
as in Cottonwood Greens. Rather, we prefer to allow people who buy the lots to determine the size of the
house they need; any size house that complies to the code shall be allowed. We do not intend to force
people to build look-a-like houses dictated by an omniscient developer. We prefer an eclectic approach,
allowing the owner of the lot to choose their own building style, guided by tasteful Design Guidelines.
We will not invite our cars into our houses by allowing front-loading garages that dominate the
streetscape with garage doors and driveways. We prefer to keep our cars in a detached garage off the
alley and line our streets with a sidewalk beside a tree-lined parkway that will be planted and maintained
by an HOA. We do not intend to use our open space requirement merely to separate neighbors and
create a maintenance nightmare for space that is not used by anyone. Rather, we will build a large public
park that includes a Community Garden and greenhouse, a public Pavillion for weddings and parties, a
picnic area, a large playing field for children and playground equipment. We will welcome the public
into our community. And we will build a nice landscaped area along the bike path adjacent to Crestone
Avenue and install benches and a bus stop shelter for the kids. Rather than orienting the houses into
private backyards, we will demand front porches that face Mesa Park, a place that we can all use together
in community. Our lot sizes will vary. They will range from 5620 square feet to 9447 square feet. This
will allow people to choose a lot that fits their personal requirements and assure us that we do not cater to
a small sliver of society that fear others that are different from themselves. Does this subdivision I have
described still scare you?
My response to your desire that we “mirror” the Cottonwood Greens subdivision within our project is
this: Cottonwood Greens is a failed business model; why would we want to mimic it? The reason your
lots have been selling at a 20K discount to those in traditional neighborhoods as we propose is because of
all the comparisons given above 1) you require a minimum of an 1800 square foot house, 2) you require
the garage be integrated with the house and accessed from the front, and 3) you require look-a-like
houses. This limits the demographic that can afford to build such a large house, that wants to live in such
a large house, or that likes the exterior style you mandate. And why would we want to compete with an
adjacent development that still hasn’t built on half the lots after 10 years? If you want to know what the
public would rather have, look at Trailside (which has a potential density of 7.2 units per acre, more than
twice that of Cottonwood Greens), which currently has 6 houses under construction while Cottonwood
only has one (1) under construction, or look to the traditional stlye neighborhoods in Salida: they sell like
hotcakes. Mimic Cottonwood Greens? No thanks. And answer this: where does the mimicking end? If
we have to mimic Cottonwood Greens because it was there first, then by that logic, all future
development on the Mesa must mimic us, who mimicked you. Where does it end? In a world where all
houses look like Cottonwood Green?
Now to address the concerns stated within your petition. First, you state that the “Mesa” is not
downtown Salida. However, our subdivision, as is yours, is within City limits and both are zoned R-2
medium density.
Second, you state that “the Mesa for all of us who grew up in Salida is not meant to have this density.”
Well, I am glad that we have a Land Use Code that outlines proper density and uses and that we are a
society that operates under the Rule of Law, as opposed to operating by the opinions of “those who grew
up in Salida.” Since we are simply proposing a ‘Use by Right” project, I prefer we view the project by
the established rules.
Third, your entire premise of the petition is false. Do you not yet realize that the Crestone Mesa
subdivision is of a very similar density to the Cottonwood Green Subdivision? This has been explained to
you before by City Staff, your fellow neighbors and myself. Calculating housing density is a simple
math problem: units per acre = the number of units divided by the number of acres. Someone who has
spent as much time as you over the last two months circulating a petition to stop a subdivision based on
the claim that “There is nowhere on the Mesa that has the density of the proposed subdivision, nor do I
know of the same density in downtown Salida” should have taken a moment to do the math. It’s easy.
Let me show you.
Density comparison: Crestone Mesa vs. Cottonwood Green
-Cottonwood Green is zoned the same as Crestone Mesa: R-2
-Cottonwood has a total of 43 lots
-Cottonwood has 6 lots that currently allow 3 units/lot -- total of 18 units
-under current HOA language, the other 37 lots will support another 37 units
-total units allowed under current Cottonwood HOA = 55 UNITS
-If the subdivision HOA decides to change their restrictions, then:
-6 lots that currently allow 3 units/lot --------------- total of 18 units
-36 lots are large enough to support ADUs or duplexes - total of 36 units
-1 lot is of a size that would only allow 1 unit ---------- total of 1 unit
TOTAL UNITS POSSIBLE IN COTTONWOOE UNDER R-2 ZONING ------- 91 units
Cottonwood Green subdivision is 13.14 acres
- @ 55 units, 4.18 units per acre
Crestone Mesa:
Crestone Mesa is 10.63 acres
-highest possible number of units = 61 units (if everyone built an ADU that could).
If nobody builds an ADU: number of unit = 46 units
- @ 46 units (no ADUs), 4.3 units per acres.
- @ 61 units, 5.7 units per acre.
The density is very similar between the two subdivisions, as one might expect for the same zone district.
In fact, should Cottonwood Green choose to rescind its internal restrictions, then their density potential
under the code as an R-2 zone district would be higher by 21%
Note that Cottonwood Green subdivision currently has 9 condos squeezed onto three (3) lots (which we
designed and built) and has another three lots set aside to build 9-more condos. You can’t get any higher
in density than this area of what is already built in Cottonwood --- and it doesn’t seem to offend anyone.
We are not proposing such a high density district within the Crestone Mesa subdivision, even though we
could build 102 units as a use by right, rather than the 46 lots we propose. We are not the greedy
developers your group has called us.
Does that settle the density issue for you?
Fourth, you state that “The only ones who gain in this effort are the City of Salida who will
garner huge tap fees per unit and the developers who were able to get the land cheap.” I don’t
believe this comment is worth addressing.
Fifth, you state that “It (the development) does not help those who seek affordable housing.” We
do not propose “Affordable Housing”. I am not sure there is such a thing. There are government
subsidies that provide incentives for “Affordable Housing”, but that is a specialty outside of my
expertise. “Affordable Housing” is not a goal of this project. However, the only way I know to
provide a house that many of the people that work here in Salida for a living can afford is to
provide a smaller lot and a smaller house; this is common sense. Note: a small house does not
automatically equate to a ghetto house of lower quality, as some people seem to think.
Conclusion: Given the fact that you garnered those signatures for your petition by feeding them false
information about the density of the Crestone Mesa project, and given the fact that Crestone Mesa
actually “mimics” the density of subdivisions on the Mesa as I have just shown, I think your petition is
mute; the Planning Commission and the City Council should disregard your petition. Let’s keep the
concerns and discussion focused on facts.
Sincerely,
Tom Pokorny
Proposed Mesa subdivision should be lower
density
Posted October 23, 2014 by Karen Argys-Lloyd & filed under Letters.
Dan Thomas and Tom Pokorny of 7473 Crestone, LLC are submitting applications to the City of
Salida for a Major Subdivision/ Major Impact Review. The land to be subdivided is identified as
7473 Crestone (7473 C.R.160)- former planned MiraMonte Subdivision.
It is bordered by the Cottonwood Green subdivision to the East (which is directly west of the
Salida Golf Course), a single family home and property to the north, three 2-acre lots with single
family homes to the West and a vacant 18-acre parcel to the South.
The developers wish to build 46 units on the property and a one acre park. The development is
said to “mimic” downtown Salida but the “Mesa” is not downtown Salida.
The Mesa for all of us who grew up in Salida is not meant to have this density. I do not oppose
the development but hope to change the City Council’s mind to build 1/2 of the units, in essence,
mimicking the Cottonwood Greens subdivision and all the homes in the area.
The only ones who gain in this effort are the City of Salida who will garner huge tap fees per unit
and the developers who were able to get the land cheap. It does not help those who seek
affordable housing.
There is no where on the Mesa that has the density of the proposed subdivision nor do I know of
the same density in downtown Salida.
By signing the petition at www.gopetition.com (search for Stop the Mesa High Density
Development), you say to the Salida City Council to change the density of the proposed
subdivision to mimic the density of subdivisions on the Mesa.
FYI – The Salida Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 6) states:New neighborhoods or infill homes
should be compatible with community character with respect to density, design and
demographics…New neighborhoods should mirror traditional patterns of nearby
neighborhoods…
Thirty-seven foot lots that are proposed in this development DO NOT mirror patterns of the
neighboring subdivisions (Cochetopa Estates, Mesa Village, Cottonwood Greens and 2-acre
parcels to the west).
Salidans Unite – please sign the petition.
Thank you,
Karen Argys-Lloyd
The Citizen is happy to provide a forum for comments and discussion. Please be civil, truthful,
and relevant. Please suggest removal of comments that violate these standards. Real names are
appreciated.
16 Responses to “Proposed Mesa subdivision should be lower density”
•
•
1.
Steve October 23rd, 2014
"The only ones who gain in this effort are the City of Salida who will garner huge tap
fees per unit..."
I would just point out that the "City of Salida" doesn't gain from this. The city can't use
tap fees for anything other than cost recovery in the water enterprise fund. However, we
all - as in all water users connected to the City's system - gain in two ways: First, the tap
fees will reduce the need for future water rate increases (if only a little) and second,
having more users of the water and sewer systems reduces the fixed portion of the water
bill because it spreads the relatively fixed costs of operating the water system across a
larger number of households. The gist of all of that is that water rates will go up at a
slower rate if there are more users in the system and more collection of tap fees.
And on the main point, I do think Salida needs more higher-density development than we
currently have. Seems like the Mesa is as good of a place as any for it.
Like (10)
Reply
o
Tom Pokorny October 23rd, 2014
Hello Karen and all who read her plea to sign the petition above,
This is Tom Pokorny of Natural Habitats Design. The information given by Karen
Argys-Lloyd above is not accurate --- not even close to being accurate. I do not
have time at the moment to counter in detail --- more later. However, we will be
presenting the proposed subdivision to the Planning Commission this Monday
evening, October 27, in the Touber Building. I encourage you all to attend the
meeting to get the facts, or watch it live on our local channel T.V. --- channel 10,
before you comment or sign a petition based in inaccuracies, to put it politely.
More later,
Tom Pokorny
Edit: Here is a copy of the subdivision plan [1.6MB PDF].
Like (9)
Reply
Paige Judd October 26th, 2014
When are you taking reservations on these lots?
Like (1)
Fred Hubicki October 25th, 2014
o
Higher-density means more water users and that means we will again have to buy
more water rights in the future.
Please explain why you think Salida needs higher-density. More people will need
more services and many will want what they left in other areas.
Like (1)
Reply
Lawton October 25th, 2014
"Higher density" regarding this subdivision has to do with number of
homes per acre, and this subdivision is not high density nor is it higher
density than the neighboring subdivision (both "medium" density). The
question of more people in Salida is a separate issue, but it does seem like
more people are coming!
Lawton
Like (2)
Tom Pokorny October 25th, 2014
Fred,
Salida currently is in very good shape concerning water rights and existing
infrastructure to support future demand for water and sewer. Since the
purchase of the Vandeveer ranch/water rights, I believe we use less than
half the available water. And since the City recently expanded and brought
up to code both the sewer plant and water plant --- and added the water
tank up on the Mesa --- we will not need to spend money to
expand/upgrade the infrastructure for decades. Moreover, the developer
pays all the expense of any new infrastructure needed for a new
subdivsion: water lines and hydrants, sewer lines and manholes, gas lines,
electrical lines, phone and cable.
More users tapping into the existing City infrastructure for water and
sewer means that the cost of maintenance and loan interest is spread out
over more people and thus your share of the expenses would go down.
Will your bill go down? I doubt it. But it certainly will not go up because
of some new houses hooking into the existing system.
As far as high density housing is concerned, the City would prefer higher
density housing, as do most municipalities. Municipalities now know that
they cannot support suburban sprawl or low density housing as there are
not enough people to pay for the upkeep up the roads, sewer, water, gas,
etc.
As far as Crestone Mesa density is concerned, the lots are single family
lots of sizes similar to your neighborhood, 37'-6" x 150', 42' x 150 and 50'
x 150' with an alley and garages in the rear and facing a Park. Actually, a
better example is the Alpine Park neighborhood, except we do not have
the small 25' x 150' lots that border Alpine Park to the north and southeast.
Thanks for your question.
Like (3)
2.
Greg Follet October 23rd, 2014
I think it is important to take a breath here, and really think about the type of "density"
we are talking about here. Tom and Dan are not talking about putting up multi-family
apartment complexes, or even multi-unit condominiums here. For the most part, we are
talking about single family homes, on individual lots. Yes, they are smaller than the lots
on "the Mesa", but are they really that much smaller than the ones next door in
Cottonwood Circle? I would bet that if you compare side by side, they are very similar.
Making it 23 lots would certainly not put it on par with Cottonwood.
So, smaller lots, with inevitably smaller homes does not promote affordable housing? But
somehow, larger lots with larger houses does? Show me the math on that.
if we are to promote this community to young, working class families, this is the type of
development that needs to happen! I would encourage all to really look at the facts, and
listen to Tom and Dan's plans from them before signing a petition. If after hearing them
out, you still don't agree, fine, but at least you will have made an informed decision.
Greg
Like (15)
Reply
3.
Tom Pokorny October 23rd, 2014
Karen,
This is a response to your description of the Crestone Mesa Subdivision.
First, let me say that I appreciate your desire that we design the Crestone Mesa
subdivision to mirror the Cottonwood Subdivision since Dan was the general contractor
that oversaw the construction of the infrastructure of the development and between us we
have designed and built 12 of the approximately 24 units within the subdivision. I can
assure you that the Crestone Mesa subdivision will meet and exceed the standards of the
Cottonwood Greens subdivision; we have learned quite a lot in the last 10 years.
For example, we do not intend to use an H.O.A. that requires a minimum sized house of
1800 square feet, as in Cottonwood Greens. Rather, we prefer to allow people who buy
the lots to determine the size of the house they need; any size house that complies to the
code shall be allowed. We do not intend to force people to build look-a-like houses
dictated by an omniscient developer. We prefer an eclectic approach, allowing the owner
of the lot to choose their own building style, guided by tasteful Design Guidelines. We
will not invite our cars into our houses by allowing front-loading garages that dominate
the streetscape with garage doors and driveways. We prefer to keep our cars in a detached
garage off the alley and line our streets with a sidewalk beside a tree-lined parkway that
will be planted and maintained by an HOA. We do not intend to use our open space
requirement merely to separate neighbors and create a maintenance nightmare for space
that is not used by anyone. Rather, we will build a large public park that includes a
Community Garden and greenhouse, a public Pavillion for weddings and parties, a picnic
area, a large playing field for children and playground equipment. We will welcome the
public into our community. And we will build a nice landscaped area along the bike path
along Crestone Avenue and install benches and a bus stop shelter for the kids. Rather
than orienting the houses into private backyards, we will demand front porches be built
that face Mesa Park, a place that we can all use together in community. Our lot sizes will
vary. They will range from 5620 square feet to 9447 square feet. This will allow people
to choose a lot that fits their personal requirements and assure us that we do not cater to a
small sliver of society that fear others that are different from themselves. Does this
subdivision I have described still scare you?
Now to address the concerns stated within your petition. First, you state that the “Mesa”
is not downtown Salida. However, our subdivision, as is yours, is within City limits and
both are zoned R-2 medium density.
Second, you state that “the Mesa for all of us who grew up in Salida is not meant to have
this density.” Well, I am glad that we have a Land Use Code that outlines proper density
and uses and that we are a society that operates under the Rule of Law, as opposed to
operating by the opinions of “those who grew up in Salida.” Since we are simply
proposing a ‘Use by Right” project, I prefer we view the project by the established rules.
Third, do you not yet realize that the Crestone Mesa subdivision is of a very similar
density to the Cottonwood Green Subdivision? This has been explained to you by City
Staff, your fellow neighbors and myself before. Calculating housing density is a simple
math problem: units per acre = the number of units divided by the number of acres.
Someone who has spent as much time as you over the last two months circulating a
petition to stop a subdivision based on the claim that “There is nowhere on the Mesa that
has the density of the proposed subdivision, nor do I know of the same density in
downtown Salida” should have taken a moment to do the math: It’s easy. Let me show
you.
Density comparison: Crestone Mesa vs. Cottonwood Green
-Cottonwood Green is zoned the same as Crestone Mesa: R-2
-Cottonwood has a total of 43 lots
-Cottonwood has 6 lots that currently allow 3 units/lot -- total of 18 units
-under current HOA language, the other 37 lots will support another 37 units
-total units allowed under current Cottonwood HOA = 55 UNITS
-if the subdivision HOA decides to change their restrictions, then:
-6 lots that currently allow 3 units/lot --------------- total of 18 units
-36 lots are large enough to support ADUs or multifamily - total of 36 units
-1 lot is of a size that would only allow 1 unit ---------- total of 1 unit
TOTAL UNITS POSSIBLE IN COTTONWOOD UNDER R-2 ZONING ----- 91 units
Cottonwood Green subdivision is 13.14 acres
Crestone Mesa:
-highest possible number of units = 61 units (if everyone built an ADU that could).
If nobody builds an ADU: number of unit = 46 units
- @ 46 units (no ADUs), 4.3 units per acres.
- @ 61 units, 5.7 units per acre.
The density is very similar between the two subdivisions, as one might expect for the
same zone district. In fact, should Cottonwood Green choose to rescind its internal
restrictions, then their density potential under the code as an R-2 zone district would be
higher than the potential density of Crestone Mesa by 21%
Note that the Cottonwood Green subdivision currently has 9 condos squeezed onto three
(3) lots (which we designed and built) and has another three lots set aside to build 9-more
condos. You can’t get any higher in density than this area of what is already built in
Cottonwood --- and it doesn’t seem to offend anyone. We are not proposing such a high
density district within the Crestone Mesa subdivision, even though we could build 102
units as a use by right, rather than the 46 lots we propose. We are not the greedy
developers your group has called us.
Does that settle the density issue for you? I think the Planning Commission and the City
Council should consider disallowing your petition into the record, since you garnered
those 90 signatures by feeding them false information and they didn’t take the time to
find the truth for themselves.
I will not address all the issues at this time, but rather at the upcoming presentation to the
Planning Commission and City Council. I encourage anyone who is interested in this
issue to attend the the Planning Commission session this Monday evening October 27 at
the Touber Building.
You can see the actual proposed Crestone Mesa subdivision plan at the bottom of my first
comment in the “Edit” line. Judge for yourself if this is the “Ghetto on the Mesa” as
Karen enjoys calling it.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Tom Pokorny
Like (22)
Reply
o
Nancy October 23rd, 2014
Dear Karen,
I’d like to respond to your letter, beginning with this passage; “The only ones who
gain in this effort are the City of Salida who will garner huge tap fees per unit and
the developers who were able to get the land cheap. It does not help those who
seek affordable housing”.
The city is not developing this project and tap fees apply uniformly to all lots sold
in Salida.
The developers paid market value for the parcel. A price which could have been
paid by any party interested in having control of its future use. Perhaps mesa
residents could have passed the hat in the five years it was for sale.
And indeed there are others who will gain from this project; particularly those
who would like to have a new home close to town that could potentially cost less
than $300,000. This is not affordable housing and has never presented itself to be.
Is it more affordable than a home in Cottonwood Green? Thankfully yes.
Considering that two previous development efforts have been on the table for this
parcel, was it really a surprise that another effort would be made to develop it?
Instead, you waited to voice your fears until after it was purchased by established,
reputable business people (who also designed and built the homes in Cottonwood
Green), who followed the code of law as well as the intentions clearly stated in
the city comprehensive plan for development. Your timing is unfortunate by any
measure.
Surely you are aware that Cottonwood Green and Crestone Mesa have the same
density - Medium. Crestone Mesa simply utilizes more open space in the form of
a large central park.
This is a case of Use by Right. Please educate yourself about the meaning of this.
The owners of the property have the right to use it according to the law that exists
when they purchased it. Planning and Zoning reviewed the project and found that
yes, requirements have been met. The question before city council is whether the
developers have followed the code of law. It is not a public hearing to vent your
fears of living next door to people who chose to live in smaller homes than you
do. That you earlier referred to this development as a “ghetto” says much about
you and nothing at all about this beautifully planned neighborhood. Thank you
Natural Habitats, for your vision and awareness of what your community desires
and needs.
Like (14)
Reply
4.
Lee Hunnicutt October 24th, 2014
Take a deep breath everyone. "Use by right" is the operative phrase here. No one needs
your permission to do this project and your misleading petition is pointless, as are your
mischaracterizations. We should be appreciative of the fact that a local firm with close
ties to our community and a long track record of quality projects has taken this
opportunity along with the risk. The density issue, as Tom laid out in his response, is a
non-issue. My former hometown was over run by tract builders from outside the area
building maximum densities with the quickest, cheapest housing and no regard for the
property or the community. I applaud Natural Habitats, as you should, for taking this
project on before someone like that did. If you have issues with current density, take it up
with Planning and Zoning now and not after the fact with well intentioned local
businessmen acting within our laws and guidelines. Thank you.
Like (14)
Reply
5.
Lawton October 24th, 2014
I can't help but note the irony of Karen's letter falling just beneath Salida Citizen's banner
caption;
“Some people think they are in community, but they are only in proximity. True
community requires commitment and openness It is a willingness to extend yourself to
encounter and know the other”.
- David Spangler
Like (5)
Reply
6.
Randy Cone October 24th, 2014
Years ago I purchased through the open market a vacant lot on the mesa. Shortly
afterward the neighbor across the alley said to me " I hope you are not going to build
here. It would ruin our view."
I decided later that I was probably not a good fit for the mesa and sold the lot. Of course
there is a house there now.
To me this petition seems to be a similar scenario.
Like (5)
Reply
7.
Jimmy Descant October 24th, 2014
Thank you Tom and Dan for the COMPLETE explanations and comparisons, though not
truly necessary by law. Also, thank you for your politeness in your professional behavior
of being community builders, of which you have a fantastic track record and reputation in
Salida. Wordage such as “Ghetto on the Mesa” as Karen enjoys calling it, is not accurate
and does a disservice to the city and actually the petition signers. So please withdraw this
and watch it unfold for the positive.
Like (13)
Reply
8.
Judy Smith October 25th, 2014
After years of this property awaiting sale, I was pleased to hear the plans to develop have
actually become less dense than the proposed Mira Monte subdivision. So for those
opposing, perhaps they may want to consider the alternative had a less community
minded developer obtained this piece of land. A better plan, with open space and a
central park has come in front of the planning and zoning with a recommendation for
approval.
Like (8)
Reply
9.
Mike October 25th, 2014
Put all the rhetoric aside for a moment. Yes, this proposed subdivision does meet most of
the legal requirements as attested to by the above commenters. It's just a coincidence that
many of these comments are from realtors or others connected with land development.
The bottom line is that the proposed thirty-seven-foot-wide lots and the proposed alleys
are ugly and do not fit visually with the surrounding subdivisions. Imagine looking out
your back window and seeing an alley, complete with dumpsters, cars, RV's, ATV
trailers and whatever else is stored in an alley. Keep in mind that such alleys will serve
only houses within the Crestone subdivision--they will have virtually no utility to the
homes in the adjoining neighborhoods. If you live in one of the neighborhoods adjoining
the proposed Crestone Mesa subdivision, either oppose this proposal or get used to seeing
long, narrow lots and alleys with their accompanying eyesores.
The developers need to rework this plan. Eliminate the alleys and narrow lots, and they'll
have a plan that almost everyone would support. It's that simple. They could even throw
in a few condos and thus still have the density that they're after.
Like (1)
Reply
o
Tom Pokorny October 25th, 2014
Mike,
Nobody will look out their back window and see an "alley, complete with
dumpsters, cars R.V.s ATV trailers" , etc. The developer, me, has proposed a 6'
fence along the property line adjacent to Cottonwood Greens. You will have to
pull yourself up and above the fence to see what is over the other side. Note: the
H.O.A. documents which have been made public do not allow dumpsters, R.Vs,
ATV trailers and such to be stored in public view; they must be in a garage or
hidden behind a fence.
The only reason that the alleys will have no utility to the adjacent subdivision is
because the developer of Cottonwood Greens did not listen to others that
explained about the probable layout of future adjacent developments given the
City's Comprehensive Plan and the demographic trends that show traditional grid
layout are the future. This is evidenced in the fact that the previous two
developments proposed for this property both used alleys along the property line.
This development is well thought out, it meets the intent of the Comprehensive
Plan, it meets the Code, and it has been approved by all the City Department
Heads and the Planning Commission. I guess the rest of us that live in Salida with
"long narrow lots and alleys with their accompanying eyesores." Really? Face it,
this is the usual NIMBY reaction to change in their neighborhood.
And as far as building another Cottonwood Greens to "mimic" what you have,
why would we want to mimic a failed business model? Cottonwood Greens has
been around for ten years now and not even half the subdivision is built. Look at
Trailside for comparison, which has six units under construction to Cottonwood's
one (1) unit. Your 1800 square feet minimums and look-a-like houses require a
budget of well over 400K to build. That cost hurdle and the narrow aesthetic
allowed limits the clientele. This is not the desire of the People --- and our goal is
not to lose money. So, why would we build another Cottonwood Greens when
you can't sell the lots in your subdivision?
Sorry, Mike, the above comments are not some sort of rhetorical story
orchestrated by me. It was Karen that initiated this public debate/comment session
by posting her Petition. Why not hear what the public has to think rather then your
neighbors and family when confronted with one-sided information? Karen should
have learned what the public thinks about the project when she posted her "Stop
the Ghetto on the Mesa" petition on the Salida Swap. She didn't hear what she
wanted, so she pulled it off the public venue and circulated her private petition
where there was no fact checking available.
Have a good night,
Like (3)
Reply
•
•
CITY OF SALIDA, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. 82
(Series of 2014)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALIDA, COLORADO,
APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MIRAMONTE ANNEXATION
AGREEMENT WITH 7473 CRESTONE, LLC.
WHEREAS, in Septem ber 2007, a f ormer Owner filed an Annexati on Petition with the
Salida City Clerk requesting that the Salida City Council commence proceedings to annex to the
City a certain unincorporated tract of land lo cated in the Co unty of Chaffee, State o f Colorado,
known as the Mira Monte Annexation and m ore pa rticularly described on Exhibit A, attached
thereto and incorporated therein by this reference (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly notic ed public hearing to consider annexation
of the Property on February 4, 2008, and on
February 19, 2008 annexed the Property by
Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2008, and zoned the Property with the Mira Monte P lanned Unit
Development Overall Development Plan by Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2008; and
WHEREAS, together with the annexation and zoning of the Property, the City appro ved
the Mira Monte Annex ation Agreement, which Agreement is recorded as Reception No. 374731
in the Office of the Chaffee County Clerk and Recorder; and
WHEREAS, on February 7, 2011 the City and a former Owner am ended and restated in
their entirety the terms and conditions for annexation of the Property; and
WHEREAS, the City and the current Owner , 7473 CRESTONE, LLC wish to am end the
Annexation Agreement to delete the requirement of a Real Estate Transfer Assessment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes the Amendment is appropriate.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SALIDA, COLORADO THAT:
1.
The Salida City Council incorporates the
facts, determinations, and findings.
foregoing recitals as its conclusions,
2.
The Second Amendment to the Annexation Ag reement attached hereto as Exhibit
A is hereby approved.
RESOLVED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 4th day of November, 2014.
[SEAL]
ATTEST By
Mayor
________________________________
City Clerk/Deputy City Clerk
___________________________________
SECOND AMENDMENT TO MIRA MONTE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this ___day of ________________, 2014 by
and between the CITY OF SALIDA, COLORADO, aColorado statutory city (hereinafter “City”),
and 7473 CRESTONE, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (hereinafter “Owner”).
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, in September 2007, Owner filed an Annexation Petition with the Salida City
Clerk requesting that the Salida City Council commence proceedings to annex to the City a certain
unincorporated tract of land located in the Countyof Chaffee, State of Colorado, known as the Mira
Monte Annexation and more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider annexation of
the Property on February 4, 2008,and on February 19, 2008 annexedthe Property by Ordinance No.
2, Series of 2008, and zoned the Property with the Mira Monte Planned Unit Development Overall
Development Plan by Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2008; and
WHEREAS, together with the annexation andzoning of the Property, the City approved the
Mira Monte Annexation Agreement, which Agreement is recorded as Reception No. 374731 in the
Office of the Chaffee County Clerk and Recorder; and
WHEREAS, Owner subsequently filed an application with the City to rezone the Property
from Planned Unit Development to Medium Density Residential (R-2) Zone District with the intent
of marketing and selling the Property; and
WHEREAS, on Septem ber 21, 2010, the Salida C ity Council held a duly noticed public
hearing to consider rezoning of the Property and zoned the Property Medium Density Residential
(R-2) Zone District by Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2010; and
WHEREAS, on February 7, 2011 the City and Owneramended and restated in their entirety
the terms and conditions for annexation of the Property; and
WHEREAS, the Owner has requested certain amendments to the Annexation Agreem ent
related to the Real Estate Transfer Assessment (“RETA”); and
WHEREAS, the Salida City Council wishes toamend the Annexation Agreement regarding
the RETA.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the m utual prom ises and covenants
contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is
hereby acknowledged, the City and Owner agree as follows:
1.
The Parties agree that Section 6. c. of
Agreement is hereby deleted.
1
the Am ended and Restated Annexation
2.
No Further Modifications. Except as e xpressly m odified herein, all term s and
conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
3.
Severability. If any covenant, term , c ondition or provision contained in this
Amendment to Agreement is held by a court ofcompetent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal,
or unenforceable in any respect, such covenant, term condition or provision shall be severed
or modified to the extent necessary to m ake it enforceable and the resulting Am endment
shall remain in full force and effect.
4.
Authority. Each person signing this Amendment, and any addendums or attachments
hereto, represents and warrants that said personis fully authorized to enter into and execute
this Agreement and to bind the party it represents to the terms and conditions hereof.
5.
Entire Agreem ent. This Am endment and the Agreem ent represent the entire
agreement of the parties, and neither party has relied on any prom ises or representations
except as expressly described herein.
By ____________________________________
Mayor
[SEAL]
ATTEST:
______________________________
Deputy City Clerk
7473 CRESTONE, LLC
By:
Name:
Title:
2
STATE OF COLORADO
)
COUNTY OF CHAFFEE
)
)
ss.
Acknowledged, subscribed, and sworn to before m e this _____ day of _________ 2014 by
_________________________, as Mayor, and by _________________________, as Clerk, on
behalf of the City of Salida, Colorado.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My Commission expires: ___________________.
_____________________________________
Notary Public
STATE OF COLORADO
)
COUNTY OF
)
)
ss.
Acknowledged, subscribed, and sworn to before m e this _____ day of _________ 2014 by
____________________ as __________________ of 7473 CRESTONE, LLC.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My Commission expires: ___________________.
_____________________________________
Notary Public
3
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
A
IITEM
________
____________
_______
__
___________________________________________________
MEETIN
NG DATE:
No
ovember 4, 2014
AGEND
DA ITEM TIT
TLE:
Co
onsent Agend
da Items
PRESEN
NTED BY:
Ch
hristian R. Sam
mora, Deputty City Clerk
AGEND
DA SECTION
N:
Sch
heduled Item
ms
REQUESSTS:
a.
Approval of Agenda
b. Approval of Minutes: October 21, 2014
c. Tree Boarrd 2015 Workk Plan – Reso
olution 20144-75
BACKGR
ROUND:
a. Tree Board 2015 Work Plan
P
1) The Saalida Tree Bo
oard presenteed their 2015 work plan too the Salida C
City Council at
the Occtober 21, 2014 meeting; however
h
the plan docum
ment was not included as aan
attachm
ment. The pllan is attacheed to the resoolution for thhe Council’s consideration
and app
proval.
ACTION
N:
If Counciil wishes to approve
a
the items
i
on the consent agennda;
A Counciil Member sh
hould make a motion to combine
c
andd approve thee items on th
he consent
agenda. Followed
F
by a second, an
nd then a sim
mple voice voote.
Consen
nt Agenda ite
tems are con
nsidered rou
utine requessts. Should
d a Council M
Member wissh to
discus
uss any of the
hese items, a request sho
hould be madde to removve an item, aand to placee it
und
der anotherr section of tthe agenda.
ME
EETING OF
F THE CIT
TY COUNC
CIL
City Co
ouncil Cham
mbers
448 East 1st Street, R
Room 190
City off Salida, Collorado
Tuesday,
T
Occtober 21, 20014 6:00 p.m
m.
The Cityy Council may
m take actiion on any of
o the follow
wing agendaa items as pr
presented or
modified
d prior to orr during the meeting, an
nd items neecessary or cconvenient tto effectuatee the
agenda items.
i
I. REGU
ULAR MEET
TING CAL
LLED TO ORDER
O
II. PLEDGE OF ALL
LEGIANCE
E – Led by Mayor
M
Jim Diickson
IIII. ROLL CALL
IIV. CITIZEN PARTIICIPATION
N – 3 minutee time limit. C
Citizen particippation is for iteems not on the agenda
and for agenda
a
items thhat are not scheeduled public hearings.
Rick Raamsey of Saliida stated thaat he owns seeveral pieces of art by Daave Larcom. There are seeveral
businessses in the Ciity who woulld like Larcom
m’s murals annd he was inn full supportt of the busin
nesses
having the ability to
o do so.
Ed Berg of Salida wanted
w
to thaank the staff members
m
forr compiling tthe budget. T
The budget iis not
easy to understand, but the stafff stuck with the
t statutory requirementts. Operatio
ons are tight; the
petition
n is looking to move expeenditures from
m operating to capital. H
He continuedd to state the
proposal is to enlargge an alreadyy large capitall budget. Hee requested thhat the city ccouncil respo
ond as to
how the budget wouuld be changged before th
here is an elecction.
Chuck Rose of Salid
da requested each membeer to describee how the citty would deaal with the
ramificaations of the 2A initiativee. He continuued to requesst that the Coouncil not haave staff form
mulate
the soluutions. Rosee stated that the
t Council needs
n
to priooritize the citiies expendituures because people
are morre important than things. In closing Mr.
M Rose stateed that you ccan remove tthings and haave a
commuunity, but if you
y remove people
p
you no longer havve a communnity.
Dave Larcom
L
of Sallida requesteed some lenieency to paint murals in Saalida. He saiid the mural on the
Bowlingg alley will lo
ook magnificent, and if it doesn’t, thenn he will covver it up himsself.
Minokaa Griesenbecck of Salida wanted
w
to askk the council how the Cityy managed to
o have a welllfunctioning Fire and
d Police befo
ore the 2A was passed in 2008.
Cathy Chochon
C
of Salida
S
felt it was
w a valid sp
pecial electioon to have beefore the peo
ople. She feltt the
originall 2A was a baait and switch
h with the taxxpayers. Shee was very diisappointed tthat the fundds were
going to
o emergencyy personnel. She continuees to say the fees were unnreasonable aat the SteamP
Plant
and thee City needs bring
b
the pricce down to bring
b
the num
mber of rentaals up. Chocchon stated tthat the
City sho
ould discontiinue dental in
nsurance for the City empployees becaause many peeople in the
1
Minutes October 21,
21 2014
community do not have dental insurance and it would only be fair. Chochon felt the City needed an
outside counsel for the NRCDC conversation because two weeks is not long enough. The Mayor
thanked Ms. Chochon.
V. PROCLAMATION – CITIES AND TOWNS WEEK
Mayor Dickson read the proclamation aloud to the City Council and the members of the public who
were present.
VI. PRESENTATION
a. Sports Combines – Estes Banks
Mr. Banks introduced himself and spoke about sports complexes. In his presentation he
mentioned among other topics that the size of the youth athletic market is a 7 billion dollar industry
and there’s an opportunity to put together a sports complex for Salida and Buena Vista. Mr. Banks
concluded by thanking the Council.
b. Urban Deer – Jim Aragon/Emily Katsimpalis
Katsimpalis introduced Jim Aragon and gave a grief background on the subject matter that Mr.
Aragon would be speaking on. The urban deer taskforce had suggested the use of GonaCon.
Aragon introduced himself as the Regional Wildlife Manager. He stated that there have been
special deer seasons north of 50, east of 285 and south of 291. A total of 130 doe tags were issued
for the area with about 113 in that area last year. Additionally, several state wildlife areas have been
opened to hunting including Mt. Shavano wildlife area and Mt. Ouray wildlife area. Aragon
continues to say the areas are open for deer hunting, archery, slug shotguns, and muzzle loaders.
Aragon stated that GonaCon is not approved on the deer and testing has not been completed in an
open environment within a city.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
Hallett introduced a letter with various motions to be considered under New Business. Baker
stated that the New Business section of the agenda is to add things to the next agenda.
Brown asked if it would be agreeable for Hallett to read the motions into the record and discuss
them at a later time.
Yerkey stated that at the end the Council can vote as to whether it should be added to a future
agenda.
Hallett read the motions in the letter aloud.
Brown motioned to have the letter added to a future agenda either individually or collectively
for discussion. Hallett seconded the motion.
Rogers felt that it should be discussed in executive session and that it was improper to discuss in
open session.
In a 3-4 vote, THE MOTION FAILED. Rogers, Baker and Yerkey had the dissenting votes.
Mayor Dickson broke the tie with a dissenting vote and the motion failed to pass.
VIII. SCHEDULED ITEMS – 5 minute time limit. The Council would like to hear different viewpoints of all
citizens and needs to conduct its business in an orderly and efficient manner. Public comments will be taken during
scheduled public hearings. Comments should be concise and not repetitive.
Minutes October 21, 2014
2
1. Consent Agenda (Christian Samora)

Approval of Agenda

Approval of Minutes: October 2, 2014

Property and Special Event Liquor Permit Requests: (1) Salida Elks Lodge Special Event
Liquor License – November 11, 2014; (2) Salida Elks Lodge Special Event Liquor License –
November 22, 2014; (3) New Year’s Day 5k Run Walk – January 1, 2015;

Street Closures: (1) Light up Salida! Holiday Parade – November 28, 2014; (2) Arkansas
Headwaters 25th Anniversary – November 7, 2014
Yerkey motioned to combine and approve the items on the Consent Agenda. Rogers seconded
the motion. With all in consensus, THE MOTION CARRIED.
2. Tree Board Plan for 2015 (Marilyn Moore)
Resolution 2014-75 approving the Salida Tree Board 2015 Work Plan.
Moore thanked the Council and urged more care be given to the street trees because more trees are
being removed than are being planted in the city. She continued to say that City crews are skilled at
removing tree, but the City should be budgeting $30,000 per year for pruning. Moore stated that
the $80.00 adoption fee is to cover the cost of the tree as well as transportation for the tree.
Monika Griesenbeck of Salida felt the Tree Board Meetings should be in a more public place and
should not be at Café Dawn. Additionally she stated that a different meeting time may also be
beneficial.
Moore stated that the next Tree Board Meeting will be at River’s Edge.
Brown asked if the plan was in the City Council Packet, MacDonald replied that it was not and
Council can continue the item until the next meeting.
Rogers motioned to approve Resolution 2014-75, a resolution of the City Council, City of Salida
approving the 2015 annual work plan of the Salida Tree Board. Yerkey seconded the motion.
Rogers withdrew the motion.
Brown motioned to continue Resolution 2014-75 until the next meeting, Baker seconded the
motion. With all in favor, THE MOTION CARRIED.
3. Adoption of Fee Schedule (Jan Schmidt)
Resolution 2014-76 establishing or updating fee schedules pursuant to various chapters of the
Salida Municipal Code.
Schmidt gave a grief background of the fee schedule.
Hallett asked about the appeal fee being $450 and felt that would be discouraging.
MacDonald stated the fee is $150 plus a retainer for any kind of outside review. The retainer is
twice as much as the application fee, which is how it comes to $450.
Schmidt explained that the SteamPlant fees are not changing and are competitive with other
venues.
Hallett did not think it was the intent to have the SteamPlant used for weddings.
Rogers stated that people are also using the theatre in the facility.
MacDonald stated that bringing people in from out of town is beneficial to business and trying to
increase cost recovery.
Brown asked if there was any consideration to be given to a letter that the Deputy City Clerk
delivered to the city council shortly before the meeting.
3
Rogers felt that the Council was short on time.
MacDonald stated that the fee schedule is not a new document and has been essentially the same
for several years.
Yerkey felt the letter was too late.
Brown felt increases in water sewer fees should be justified by increased cost instead of being based
on the rate study.
Rogers stated that the City has been concerned about not taking out a loan at any time and that
essentially all of the water reserves have been used and have dipped into sewer reserved. The fund
needs to be built back up so that other improvements can be made.
Brown stated that it wasn’t long ago that the Council approved to double the water treatment plant
when it was not needed. Brown could not support an increase in water and sewer fees without an
increase in expenses.
Discussion continued.
Rogers motioned to approve Resolution 2014-76, a resolution of the City Council of the City of
Salida, Colorado establishing or updating fee schedules pursuant to various chapters of the
Salida Municipal Code. Baker seconded the motion.
Hallett did not see any justification for the increase of water and sewers fees.
Yerkey felt that 2.9% is a fair cost of living increase.
Baker stated that they will be facing major costs in the future.
Bowers had a problem with the water, sewer and the SteamPlant fees. He was also concerned
about the Open Records fees.
Rogers felt it was interesting that councilmembers want the SteamPlant to pay for itself but not
have the fees for it to do so.
Bowers thought maybe a non-profit could take it over.
In a 4-3 vote, THE MOTION CARRIED. Hallett, Bowers and Brown had the dissenting
votes. Mayor Dickson broke the tie by voting in favor and the motion passed.
4. Certification of Delinquencies ( Jan Schmidt)
Resolution 2014-77 certifying delinquent charges, assessments, or taxes to the Chaffee County
Treasurer to be added to the 2014 tax roll.
Schmidt gave a background on the Resolution.
Yerkey motioned to approve Resolution 2014-77, a resolution certifying delinquent water, sewer
and special charges to the Chaffee County Treasurer to be added to the 2014 tax role, and
authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the order. Baker seconded the motion. With all
in consensus by a roll call vote, THE MOTION CARRIED.
5. Adoption of Pay Plan, First Reading (Jan Schmidt)
Ordinance 2014-27 amending the employee pay plan encompassing compensation policies and
salary ranges.
Schmidt back background and mentioned that the pay plan does not change the low or the high
end of the pay scale.
Hallett felt the arts and recreation director position was backdooring the position into the plan.
Schmidt stated that the position was in the current pay plan.
4
Hallett felt the Council was told that the position was not created.
Bowers thought he was told that the director’s position would not be hired for.
Schmidt stated that the positions are in the policy document, but are not necessarily going to be
filled.
MacDonald stated that it is similar to the Fire Marshall position. It exists, but will not necessarily
be filled.
Brown asked if the increase in minimum would give those at the bottom a raise.
Schmidt stated that without the adjustment, then employees would drop off the bottom of the pay
scale.
MacDonald stated that having an accurate salary ranges is very important with recruitment.
Rogers stated that the Mayor’s proclamation was appreciation for probably the best service staff in
Town.
Baker motioned to adopt Ordinance 2014-27, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of
Salida, Colorado amending the 2015 pay plan policy encompassing compensation policies and
salary ranges; setting a public hearing for November 4, 2014 and ordering the ordinance to be
published in full. Rogers seconded the motion.
Hallett felt the increases could not be justified and it does not include the merit.
Baker stated that the City’s salaries are still only 85-90% of salaries in other organizations and the
private sector.
Rogers stated that in 5 of the last 12 years there were no pay increases.
Brown stated that it is not to do with pay, but with wage brackets.
Yerkey mentioned that the 2.9% cost of living needs to be considered.
In a 4-3 vote, THE MOTION CARRIED. Hallett, Bowers and Brown had the dissenting
votes. Mayor Dickson broke the tie by voting in favor and the motion passed.
6. Amendment to the NRCDC Development Agreement, First Reading (Karl Hanlon & Dara
MacDonald) Resolution 2014-78 approving the fourth amendment to the Development Agreement
with the Salida Natural Resource Development Corporation.
Hanlon gave background on the amendment to the NRCDC agreement.
Rogers asked if this was discussed at the NRC meeting earlier in the day.
Baker stated that it was discussed at the last meeting. The only question is that if they wanted to
go back to the 63-20, would they be able to.
Jim Miller stated that he could answer any questions the Council may have.
Brown stated that he is reiterating his position on the NRCDC Corporation and that an exhaustive
review was never completed.
Yerkey stated that Brown did not complete a summary as he said he would.
Discussion Continued.
Hanlon stated that no one has attempted to obtain the 63-20 designation again, so there may be
other, more appropriate means for a similar designation.
Jim offered to take any and all Council members through the NRCDC Budget, so that they may
have a better understanding of it.
Yerkey motioned to approve Resolution 2014-78, a resolution approving the fourth amendment
to the Development Agreement with the Salida Natural Resource Development Corporation.
Baker seconded the motion. In a 5-1 vote, THE MOTION CARRIED. Hallett had the
dissenting vote.
5
7. Workforce Housing RFQ (Dara MacDonald)
Osborn gave a brief overview of the agenda item.
Hallett felt the cart was before the horse and she would not be comfortable with the situation.
Osborn stated that the City has been talking about this for quite some time.
Hallett stated that the date should be pushed out.
Osborn stated is that this is to drive interest in the Salida community.
Brown asked how much of his time was being spent on this project. Osborn stated that it was not
a very significant amount of time because he already has background and he felt it fell under his
umbrella of responsibilities.
Hallett felt that there would have to be money spent by the City on the project.
MacDonald stated that workforce housing is something that is clearly needed. She reminded the
Council that the City has control over the property and the NRCDC cannot transfer property
without permission from Council.
Yerkey motioned to direct staff to proceed with issuing the request for qualifications and
interest, incorporating and suggestions or changes made by the Council during discussion.
Rogers seconded the motion.
Baker felt that it is very important; the Vanderveer property is probably the single most valuable
asset that the City will have for the next hundred years.
Brown would like to see estimates of any time involved and stated that NRCDC costs should be
added into the budget and be completely forthcoming and transparent.
Yerkey felt that workforce housing was the responsibility of the city.
With all in consensus, THE MOTION CARRIED.
8. Administrator/City Attorney/Deputy City Clerk
a.
City Administrator Report – Dara MacDonald
MacDonald discussed several potential locations for the recycling facility to move it out
of a residential neighborhood. The various locations included city owned property as
well as property that would need to be purchased by the City.
Monarch Investments and Monarch Mountain are interested in partnering with the city
to advertise Salida with a kiost at Monarch Mountian. The total cost of the kiosk would
be approximately $10,000 and with the direction of the City Council, the City would
share in half the cost.
Baker motioned to approve partnering with Monarch Mountain, Brown seconded the motion.
In a 5-1 vote, THE MOTION CARRIED. Brown had the dissenting vote.
There will be new holiday decorations for 2014 since all of the old decorations were
retired. The new decorations will include lights to outline the Touber Building and flags
on poles in the downtown area.
MacDonald had received a request for the City to look at the parking limitations along
lower E Street near the Lewis and Glenn Funeral Home. She continued to say that
Chief Clark visited the site and recommended that 2 hour parking limits be initiated in
the area. MacDonald stated that unless there is objection from Council, staff will
proceed to make the changes.
MacDonald reported that Habitat for Humanity is interested in developing their
6
b.
c.
property at the corner of 1st and C Streets unless the City is interested in trading for
another property.
MacDonald referenced a request from Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area to utilize
city facilities.
Following up on a prior discussion, MacDonald reported that the five minute limit on
public comment was added after a discussion with the Mayor because according to the
Salida Municipal Code and Colorado Revised Statutes state that the Mayor presides over
all meeting of the City Council. After a brief discussion, the Council was in general
agreement to remove the time limit on scheduled items.
The City was awarded a $469,176 grant from CDOT to complete the HWY 50
streetscape project between HWY 291 and Palmer long HWY 50.
MacDonald attached several photos of the pool project progress and gave a brief
update.
Included with MacDonald’s report was a thank you letter from the Cotopaxi 4th graders
who visited City Hall.
Also included was a thank you letter from the Town of Springfield for a police car that
was donated by the City.
MacDonald reminded the City Council that the intergovernmental meeting would be on
October 29th at Grimo’s in Poncha Springs and that the Salida Holiday Party would be
on December 6th.
MacDonald Confirmed that the November 4th meeting is to start at 6pm for a land use
public hearing.
City Attorney Report – Karp, Neu, Hanlon, PC
Hanlon reminded the City Council that they will have a land use hearing at the next
meeting and they will need to be prepared to reviewed and make a decision based upon
what they are presented with that night.
Deputy City Clerk Report – Christian Samora
No report.
9. Elected Official Reports

City Treasurer – Cheryl Brown-Kovacic

Brown-Kovasic provided the sales tax report and highlighted that $441,000 was
received in sales tax for August, which was 5.4% higher than 2013.

City Clerk – Betty Schwitzer
Schwitzer reported that the proponents of the 2A initiative have returned their petitions
to City Hall for review and to determine whether they are sufficient. She continued to
say that if they are sufficient, then City Council would have 20 days to adopt the
Ordinance. If the City Council decided not to adopt the Ordinance, then an election
would need to be scheduled 60 to 150 days after the petitions were declared to be
sufficient.

Mayor – Jim Dickson – Dickson asked if the caboose flag poles are on order.
MacDonald was not entirely positive, but will find out.

City Council- Keith Baker, Michael Bowers, Melodee Hallett, Eileen Rogers, Hal Brown
and Tom Yerkey.
IX. EXECUTIVE SESSION –
Rogers motion to enter into Executive Session for discussion of a personnel matter under C.R.S. Section 24-6402(4)(f) and not involving: any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open
session; any member of this body or elected official; the appointment of any person to fill an office of this body
or of an elected official; or personnel policies that do not require the discussion of matters personal to particular
employees. Baker seconded the motion.
AND THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR IDENTIFICATION
7
PURPOSES: City Attorney/Legal Services review.
X. REPORT/ACTION ON EXECUTIVE SESSION MATTERS
Bowers stated that the issue at hand was discussed; no decisions will be made and the issue will be
tabled until a later date.
Bowers motion to adjourn, Brown seconded at 10:27 P.M.
XI. ADJOURN –
____________________________
Mayor
[SEAL]
______________________________
City Clerk
8
________
__________
_____CITY COUNCIL
C
AGENDA ITEM_____
___________________
MEETIN
NG DATE:
No
ovember 4, 2014
AGEND
DA ITEM TIT
TLE:
Sallida Tree Boaard 2015 Woork Plan
PRESEN
NTED BY:
Bo
ob Salmi, Director of Pubblic Works
AGEND
DA SECTION
N:
Sch
heduled Item
ms
REQUESST:
Accept an
nd approve the
t 2015 worrk plan of thee Salida Treee Board
BACKGR
ROUND RE
EVIEW:
Memberss of the Salida Tree Board
d are attendin
ng this counccil meeting too present theeir 2015 workk
plan and answer any questions
q
abo
out their worrk and budgeet request. A copy of the work plan iss
included in the counccil packet.
The 20155 proposed budget includ
des $11,000 in
n funding forr tree mainteenance. Altho
ough this is a
significan
nt decrease frrom the 20144 budget of $20,000,
$
the pproposed funnding for nexxt year is muuch
more than
n the amoun
nt spent in alll but two of the
t previous ten years. O
Over that timee period, the City
spent an average of $55,300. And, over
o that perriod of time, many tree m
maintenance n
needs were b
being
deferred and we are now
n starting to
t catch up. Although
A
$1 1,000 does nnot address all requests off the
Tree Boaard in 2015, we
w believe so
ome work can
n be perform
med internallyy and high prriority requessts
can be ad
ddressed.
The Treee Board is one of several boards
b
and commissions
c
whose mem
mbers are app
pointed by a
majority of
o the City Council.
C
In acccordance wiith the powerrs and dutiess prescribed iin Chapter 2 of
the Salidaa Municipal Code,
C
the Treee Board preepares and prresents to thee council a w
written work p
plan
each yearr.
Saalida Municip
pal Code §2--11-30. Poweers and dutiess
(a)
It shall be the responsib
bility of the T
Tree Board tto study and develop and/or
up
pdate a writtten proposed
d work plan. Said plan wiill include reccommended practices andd
asssociated cossts for the care, preservatiion, trimminng, planting, rreplanting, reemoval or
diisposition off street and park
p trees.
(b)
The Publicc Works Direector shall bee consulted bby the Tree B
Board prior to
presentation of
o the propossed annual work
w
plan to tthe City Couuncil to ensurre said plan ddoes
not conflict with
w ongoing and/or prop
posed City acctivities.
(c)
The plan will be presented annually to the City Council and, upon its
acceptance and approval, shall constitute the official comprehensive tree plan for the City.
The City Council will attempt to follow, as closely as possible, the plan submitted by the
Tree Board.
(d)
The Tree Board, when requested by the City Council, shall consider,
investigate, make findings, report and recommend upon any special matter of question
coming within the scope of its work.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends acceptance and approval of the Tree Board’s 2015 work plan.
ACTION:
A council member should make a motion to approve Resolution 2014-75, a resolution of the City
Council, City of Salida approving the 2015 annual work plan of the Salida Tree Board.
Followed by a second and a vote.
RESOLUTION NO. 75
(Series of 2014)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALIDA, COLORADO,
APPROVING THE SALIDA TREE BOARD 2015 WORK PLAN
WHEREAS, the Salida Tree Board is one of several boards and commissions whose
members are appointed by a majority of the City Council in accordance with the powers and
duties prescribed in Chapter 2 of the Salida Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Salida Tree Board prepares and presents to the council a written work
plan each year; and
WHEREAS the City Council has reviewed the Salida Tree Board 2015 Work Plan.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SALIDA, COLORADO, THAT:
1.
The Salida City Council incorporates the foregoing recitals as its conclusions,
2.
The Salida City Council accepts the Salida Tree Board 2015 Work Plan.
RESOLVED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day November, 2014
[SEAL]
By: ____________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
_____________________CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM_____________________
MEETING DATE:
November 4, 2014
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:
Revisions to Pay Plan for 2015 Salary Ranges
Second Reading and Public Hearing
PRESENTED BY:
Jan Schmidt
AGENDA SECTION:
Scheduled Items
REQUEST:
To approve a cost of living adjustment to the salary ranges for most job levels to be effective
January 2015 and an increase in the city’s contribution to employee insurance policies not to exceed
the lesser of the increase in the approved 2015 budget or the actual increase in premiums effective
July 2015.
BACKGROUND REVIEW:
At the end of 2008, the City Council adopted a pay plan that articulated the importance of qualified
and high-performing employees, expectations of staff, a compensation philosophy, the
determination of job levels and compensation ranges for each job level. Over the course of the past
six years, a number of minor changes have been made to refine the policy for better equity within
and across departments and as new positions have been created or positions have been modified to
meet changing needs of the City. And, typically on an annual basis, an update is made to the salary
ranges to be effective at the first of each year and budget cycle.
As we discussed in 2008, implementation of an employee pay plan that would begin to close the gap
between city wages and market comparables had long been a top priority of council. For several
years, the cost of employee insurance and the overall cost of living in our community had exceeded
annual pay increases. Prior to 2008, the last time a pay plan was developed was in 2001; however, it
was abandoned within a year because the city could not afford to implement it. One of our
objectives with the current plan remains to have a policy that is achievable with current city
resources and that provides for equity between workers performing at similar levels between
departments. We believe that we can substantially meet that goal with the changes proposed.
City of Salida wages were compared to other municipalities when the plan was initially created. This
analysis was fully updated as part of the 2012 budget process and was again updated for the 2014
budget process. In addition to CML data, the City requested data from local employers and created a
second table for validation of the City’s pay ranges. Most employees are currently between the
minimum and mid-point of the pay ranges for their respective levels
Generally, we are proposing to reflect the 3% COLA included in the draft budget with the following
exceptions: 1) No increase at the top or bottom of the pay scale; 2) a 4.5% increase at Level 2; and a
2% increase at Level 3, which would allow for more ratable increases between levels. The average
increase would be 2.4%.
The survey data from other Colorado municipalities and local employers validated the proposed
salary levels for 2015. Also, keep in mind that most employees are currently between the minimum
and mid-point of the pay ranges for their respective levels. In both comparisons, the City ranks
lower than average at the lower levels to varying degrees. The local salary survey indicates the senior
levels of the organization are below market while the CML data indicates we are right about where
we need to be. Finally, the results for the middle levels vary between the two different comparisons.
The process of comparing salaries to other entities is not perfect. Job duties vary from entity to
entity for a variety of reasons – size of entity, services provided, industry requirements and
organizational structure to name just a few.
We must also consider our recent internal experience in recruiting candidates to fill open positions.
The city has an opening for a police officer received no applications for many weeks. The pool of
qualified applicants for all recent openings in senior positions has been much smaller than we would
like.
While we believe the City has certain part-time positions that are appropriate at the lower level of
the pay scale, we recognize adjustments are needed for some of the employees at that level. We are
attempting to correct this on an individual basis through a combination of the equity and merit
increases. This does not impact the pay plan policy in any way since the adjustments will be within
the existing pay ranges.
Listing of entities included in our government entity comparison (primarily based on the spring 2014
CML salary survey) are the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Alamosa
Breckenridge
Brush
Buena Vista
Canon City
Chaffee County
Cortez
Crested Butte
Estes Park
Fairplay
Firestone
Fort Lupton
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Frederick
Frisco
Fruita
Glenwood Springs
Gunnison
Gypsum
Lamar
Monte Vista
Pagosa Springs
Rocky Ford
Walsenburg
Woodland Park
Recent increases in base wages are as follows:
 2014 – 2% COLA
 2013 – 2% COLA*
 2012 – 2% COLA*
 2011 – no increase
 2009 – Various percentages based on adoption of pay plan
 2008 – 3% COLA
 2005 – 3% COLA
 2004 – 2% COLA
*In addition, some specific market adjustments were made in 2012 and 2013.
Finally, the following information is being provided again in this cover memo as a re-cap to aid
readers’ understanding the format of the pay plan. In order to have equity between workers
throughout the City, the first step when the plan was first created was to develop consistent job
descriptions that have since been maintained and updated as needed for each position. Job
descriptions include an evaluation of criteria that result in the assignment of a job level. Criteria
used to rank positions are the following:
1. Scope of Authority – Outlines the boundaries of an employee’s role in decision making and
determining actions to accomplish a job. A measure of the level of automony that exists in
any given job. This covers the amount of supervision one receives, or conversely, the
amount of supervision exercised over others. It also includes problem resolution, long-range
planning and judgment.
2. Technical Skills – Outlines the skills necessary to do the job and, at higher levels, the amount
of role-specific or municipal knowledge one must possess in order to grasp the principles of
the job.
3. Education, Training and Certifications – This criterion sets the minimum for education,
training and certification requirements that a particular job requires utilizing the job
descriptions to make this determination. Positions are ranked based on the requirements to
accomplish duties; an individual’s level of education or certification not necessary to
accomplish the job does not affect the ranking of a position.
4. Impact of Results – This criterion gauges the typical consequences of decision-making. For
instance, a small mistake that has no significant effect on the overall operation of the City is
different from a substantial mistake that may be made by a higher-level position, resulting in
a public safety issue, loss of credibility, a lawsuit or substantial monetary loss to the city.
5. Interpersonal & Communication Skills – Customer service and basic communication skills
are essential in any position with the city. Progression between job levels encompasses
stronger customer service and conflict resolution skills and an employee's ability to build
effective working relationships across departments at all levels of the organization and with
the public. Also included are the ability to influence others, earn credibility and respect and
negotiation of mutually successful outcomes with other parties. Effective written and oral
communications skills and presentation ability are also ranked.
6. Working Conditions – This criterion recognizes the differences in the environmental aspects
of the job, for example, sitting at a desk in an air-conditioned or heated office as opposed to
working outside in extreme hot or cold temperatures or working under hazardous
conditions. This is a factor in determining appropriate pay within a job level as opposed to a
factor for evaluating personnel.
ACTION:
A council member should make a motion “to adopt Ordinance 2014-27, an ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Salida, Colorado amending the 2015 pay plan policy encompassing
compensation policies and salary ranges and ordering the ordinance be published by title only.”
Followed by a second and a roll call vote.
Attachments:
 Comparison of current salaries to CML and local data
 Ordinance 2014-27
 Employee Pay Plan
ORDINANCE NO. 27
(Series of 2014)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALIDA, COLORADO
AMENDING THE EMPLOYEE PAY PLAN ENCOMPASSING COMPENSATION
POLICIES AND SALARY RANGES.
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes
mission and goals of each City department; and
that its em ployees are critical to attain the
WHEREAS, the City wishes to attract and retain competent, professional, and resultsoriented staff; and
WHEREAS, the City of Salida currently operates with an employee compensation policy
adopted by the City Council by Ordinance 2013-28 and amended by Ordinance 2014-15, and;
WHEREAS, cost of living adjustm ents will inc rease the salary ranges f or all job le vels
except the top and bottom of th e pay scale, a provision has
been added to allow for the
adjustment of the City’s costs for employee in surance in accordance w ith the budget effective
with the July renewal, and other m inor updates have been made to the pay plan subsequent to it s
re-adoption by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to re-affi
rm and re-adopt the pay plan with
revisions to the salary ranges to becom e effect ive with the first pay date in January 2015 and
revisions to the statem ent related to the City ’s costs for employee m edical, dental and other
insurance policies to become effective on July 1, 2015.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT OR DAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY O F
SALIDA THAT:
1.
The Salida City Council incorporates th e foregoing recitals as its conclusions,
2.
The Employee Pay Plan policy attached he reto as Exhibit A incorporated herein
by this reference are hereby adopted as the official Employee Pay Plan of the City of Salida; and
3.
The City Council hereby authorizes the C ity Administrator to administer specific
details of the Em ployee Pay Plan including, but not lim ited to, the assignm ent of individual
positions to job levels, updates and modifications of job descriptions, minor modifications to job
criteria definitions, and other minor modifications that may be necessary to implement a fair and
equitable pay plan now and in the future.
4.
With the exception of the City Adm inistrator’s salary the City Council authorizes
the City Administrator to set individual employee compensation within the adopted salary ranges
subject to annual review and appr oval of such aggregate changes for all employees as part of the
annual budget process.
5.
The City Adm inistrator’s salary sha ll be set annually by the City Council and
such salary shall be within the adopted Employee Pay Plan range for the City Administrator.
INTRODUCED ON FIRST READING,
on October 21, 2014, ADOPTED and
ORDERED PUBLISHED IN FULL in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Salida
for second reading and public
by the City Council on the 21 st day of October 2014 and set
hearing on the 4th day of November 2014.
INTRODUCED ON SECOND READING , FINALLY ADOP TED and OR DERED
PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY, by the City Council on the 4th day of November, 2014.
[SEAL]
___________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
City Clerk/Deputy Clerk
PUBLISHED IN FULL in the Mountain Ma il after First Reading on the ______ day of
_____ 2014, and PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY, afte r final adoption on the _____ day of
_____ 2014.
___________________________
Attachment
Comparison of current salaries to CML and local data
Annual Pay - All Employees
Full-time Salary
Job Levels
Level
Min
Mid
Max
City Administrator
10 $ 85,439 $ 106,799 $ 128,159
Director
9
63,908
79,885
95,862
Manager
8
53,610
67,013
80,416
Supervisor III / Senior Worker III 7
47,030
58,788
70,545
Supervisor II / Senior Worker II
6
41,255
51,568
61,882
Supervisor I / Senior Worker
5
34,964
43,705
52,446
Worker III
4
29,631
37,038
44,446
Worker II
3
24,488
30,610
36,732
Worker I
2
19,909
24,886
29,863
Entry Level / Seasonal
1
18,720
23,400
28,080
General Employees (2,080 hours/year)
Job Levels
Level
Min
Manager
8
25.77
22.61
6
19.83
5
16.81
Worker III
4
14.25
Worker II
3
11.77
Worker I
2
9.57
1
9.00
% of 2014
Difference betw
(using m
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% average
$ 26,914
12,872
8,225
7,220
7,863
6,667
6,428
5,724
1,486
$ 83,399
Hourly Rates
Mid
32.22
28.26
24.79
21.01
17.81
14.72
11.96
11.25
Max
38.66
33.92
29.75
25.21
21.37
17.66
14.36
13.50
COMPARASION DATA
CML 2014 Salary Survey Averages
Full-time Salary
Job Levels
Level
Min
Mid
Max
City Administrator
10 $ 97,106 $ 105,577 $ 114,143
Director
9
69,566
80,645
94,109
Manager
8
54,160
64,369
74,622
52,261
59,360
68,741
6
45,651
52,925
61,468
5
42,239
48,775
56,162
Worker III
4
33,791
39,291
46,104
Worker II
3
28,645
34,709
40,528
Worker I
2
23,177
26,738
34,016
1
20,401
25,975
29,468
Proposed ranges as a percentage
Local Salary Survey Averages
Full-time Salary
Job Levels
Level
Min
Mid
Max
City Administrator
10 $ 96,834 $ 116,471 $ 136,463
Director
9
79,514
104,163
135,141
Manager
8
61,513
75,737
92,257
46,878
58,431
69,482
6
43,844
53,059
62,696
5
34,174
41,511
47,257
Worker III
4
31,029
38,284
42,356
Worker II
3
27,568
31,884
37,013
Worker I
2
25,602
30,822
34,953
1
20,613
25,571
26,220
Proposed ranges as a percentage
88%
92%
99%
90%
90%
83%
88%
85%
86%
92%
88%
80%
87%
100%
94%
102%
95%
89%
78%
91%
101%
99%
104%
99%
97%
90%
94%
88%
93%
90%
92%
77%
88%
101%
97%
105%
97%
96%
81%
92%
112%
102%
108%
103%
101%
93%
96%
91%
88%
95%
94%
71%
87%
102%
99%
111%
105%
99%
85%
107%
EMPLOYEE
PAY PLAN POLICY
Introduction & Background:
The Salida City Council and administrative leadership (“we”) recognize that employees are critical to achieving
the the City’s annual and long-term goals. We must attract and retain competent, professional, and resultsoriented staff and compensate them fairly. Increases in compensation are primarily based upon a merit system
that rewards employee performance and results.
We expect employees to uphold the vision and values of the City. We value employee behaviors,
contributions and achievements that demonstrate concern for the well-being of the City, its citizens and coworkers. Customer service skills to further the mission and goals of the community are considered a
foundational requirement, and we expect employees to apply root cause analysis in resolving problems facing
our community. We value proactive identification of opportunities to partner with or reach out to the
community.
Employees will continually gain new knowledge and develop better practices in performing their jobs. This
personnel development requirement may entail additional training, more schooling, some off-the-job reading,
or other programs for skills and knowledge enhancement. Specific development plans are discussed as part of
the annual performance review process.
An important aspect of the City’s ability to meet the expectations of the residents is for employee behavior to
be focused on the very best interests of the City, rather than tied to the needs or desires of the individual,
their department or a special group within the City. While these City interests are articulated by the Mayor
and City Council and implemented by the Administrator, it is incumbent upon each department head and all
employees that the best interests of the City are a priority.
We expect employees to enjoy their work and offer their best efforts in performing their duties. If the job
only represents a paycheck to our employees, we believe they and the community are ill-served.
Scope:
This Pay Plan applies to all employees of the City of Salida and was developed to provide a basis for
personnel management in addition to establishing the pay range for each position. Specific criteria were
defined to objectively group employees into a pay grade, or job level.

Job Levels – Progression of position rankings based upon a set of criteria. Each individual job within
the city's operations is assigned a job level. We periodically review the job levels as position duties
and technology requirements may change from time to time.

Job Level Criteria – Characteristics common to all positions used to objectively distinguish between
job levels (scope of authority; technical skills; education, training and certification; impact of results;
interpersonal and communication skills). Used to objectively evaluate employees who may be eligible
for promotion to a more senior level. Critiera were kept to a manageable number but may be
modified or expanded in the future.
Page 1 of 13
Policy:
All employees are paid a a wage within the pay scale that is in effect as of their date of hire or promotion. Pay
is based on the level of the employee’s level of authority, technical skills, education and other factors detailed
in each job description. Employees are typically hired or promoted into a position between the minimum and
middle points of the pay scale. Once an employee reaches the maximum level of pay, they are no longer
eligible for pay increases. Instead, they will receive a lump sum payment in lieu of a raise. If an adjustment to
the salary range results in employees falling below the minimum pay for their job level, they will receive a
market adjustment to the bottom of the range.
Employee raises shall be determined based upon a combination of merit and inflation (or cost of living) and,
in some situations, equity or market adjustments. The timing of pay increases shall be determined by the City
Administrator. New hires and newly promoted employees shall be entitled to a either a full or pro-rated
increase depending upon the length of time in their position prior to the effective date of the pay increase:
 In position for six months or more – eligibility for full increase
 In position between three and six months – eligible for pro-rated increase based upon length of service
 In position less than three months – ineligible
The City provides employees with a total compensation package of pay and benefits comparable to other
governmental and private employers, both within and outside of the community, that compete for qualified
workers. We offer employees a competitive base pay and benefits package that encourages the physical and
mental wellness of employees and their dependents and that assists with retirement planning.
The City offers medical and dental coverage to all employees working an average of 30 hours or more per
week and pays all or a significant portion of the premiums for such coverage in accordance with a schedule
reviewed during each budget cycle. Employees working an average of 20 hours or more per week qualify for
certain benefits and are eligible for a stipend toward the premiums should they enroll. The City’s financial
contribution for employee insurance and wellness benefits are established as part of the annual budget process
and reviewed during each budget cycle. The full listing of benefits available on the City’s Summary of Benefits
and the current City’s contributions are included as an attachment to this policy.
Employee retirement savings accounts are funded in accordance with applicable plan documents, which is 8%
for police officers and firefighters and up to 6% for other full time employees, defined as those working at
least 40 hours per week.
Procedure:
This pay plan was originally adopted by the City Council in 2008. It is reviewed with each annual budget cycle
and updated as needed. The budget for salary increases is generally approved by the City Council during the
annual budget cycle. Individual employee raises are recommended by each Department Head and approved
by the City Administrator. Raises become effective on the first day of a pay cycle (currently the first pay date
after the start of the new fiscal year, but subject to future modification). Salary ranges are updated annually in
by the percentage of the cost of living adjustment approved by City Council during the budget process.
Attachments:




Job Level Criteria – Definitions
Job Level Criteria – Ratings
Job Classification Matrix
List of Jobs by Level



Job Level Evaluations
Salary Ranges
Financial Contributions for Employee
Insurance Coverages
Page 2 of 13
JOB LEVEL CRITERIA – DEFINITIONS
Job Level Criteria
Description of Criteria
1
Scope of Authority
Outlines the boundaries of an employee’s role in decision
making and determining actions to accomplish a job. A measure
of the level of automony that exists in any given job. This
covers the amount of supervision one receives, or conversely,
the amount of supervision exercised over others. It also
includes problem resolution, long-range planning and judgment.
2
Technical Skills
Outlines the skills necessary to do the job and, at higher levels,
the amount of role-specific or municipal knowledge one must
possess in order to grasp the principles of the job.
3
Education, Training and Certifications
4
Impact of Results
5
Interpersonal & Communication Skills
6
Working Conditions
This criterion sets the minimum for education, training and
certification requirements that a particular job requires utilizing
the job descriptions to make this determination. Positions are
ranked based on the requirements to accomplish duties; an
individual’s level of education or certification not necessary to
accomplish the job does not affect the ranking of a position.
This criterion gauges the typical consequences of decisionmaking. For instance, a small mistake that has no significant
effect on the overall operation of the City is different from a
substantial mistake that may be made by a higher-level position,
resulting in a public safety issue, loss of credibility, a lawsuit or
substantial monetary loss to the city.
Customer service and basic communication skills are essential
in any position with the city. Progression between job levels
encompasses stronger customer service and conflict resolution
skills and an employee's ability to build effective working
relationships across departments at all levels of the organization
and with the public. Also included are the ability to influence
others, earn credibility and respect and negotiation of mutually
successful outcomes with other parties. Effective written and
oral communications skills and presentation ability are also
ranked.
This criterion recognizes the differences in the environmental
aspects of the job--sitting at a desk in an air-conditioned or
heated office as opposed to working outside in extreme hot or
cold temperatures or working under hazardous conditions.
This is a factor in determining appropriate pay within a job level
as opposed to a factor for evaluating personnel.
Page 3 of 13
PAY PLAN
JOB LEVEL CRITERIA - RATINGS
Scope of authority
1. Operates within defined standards and basic written or oral instructions that are clearly spelled out.
Performs mostly routine or repetitive tasks with supervision and assistance readily available. Work is
subject to review / oversight by a supervisor or more senior employee.
2. Duties are generally routine, using standard instructions with assistance available as needed. Employees
expected to selects appropriate course of action based on procedures. Instruction is usually given at the
beginning of a standard project. The majority of the work is subject to review by a supervisor. May
provide some direction to less senior workers but does not generally supervise the work of others.
3. Duties involve semi-diversified assignments and procedures. Precedents for most situations have been
established, but employee is frequently required to select an appropriate course of action based upon the
situation. Performs job requirements as an individual but may be a team leader or supervise the work of
others. Some individual work is subject to review by higher level supervisor(s).
4. Requires creative thinking to develop, organize and evaluate data to resolve problems. Decisions may
require modification or adaptation of policies or procedures to fit new circumstances. Exercises
independent judgment in determining course of action which may involve complex situations. Formulates
function-specific procedures and initiates activities with the scope of the position. Supervises or oversees
work of others; exercises control over assigned personnel.
5. Performs work requiring use of judgment and/or supervises the work of staff. Develops short range
plans and schedules work for department. Interprets and applies policy. Formulates general policies and
procedures within the scope of the position.
6. Supervises others directly and/or through subordinates. Assumes responsibility for operation of
department. Makes long range plans; forecasts staffing requirements and cost estimates for approval by
council. Responsible for efficient and effective procedures and the initiation of activities with the scope
of the position.
7. Is responsible for executive supervision of the City’s activities. Formulates policies under which the City
operates after consultation with Council. Recommends to Council, defines and supervises rules and
procedures through subordinates. Responsible for executive supervision of the City’s activity. Applies
broad plan of operation as determined in consultation
Technical Skills
1. Follows simple written or oral instructions and performs defined tasks. Uses basic tools and/or office
equipment
a. Administrative position: Requires reading, writing and mathematical skills as well as familiarity with
standardized work procedures. Requires some knowledge of office equipment and ability to follow
instructions involving a number of steps. Limited software skills, including simple edits of previously
created documents.
b. Maintenance and facilities position: Performs manual labor as a helper in a crew. Assists with
routine maintenance of grounds, buildings or equipment. Performs general utility work such as
installation, repair or maintenance of water or sewer lines and streets.
c. Public safety position: POST certified or certifiable trainee; State certified firefighter I with EMT
basic.
Page 4 of 13
2. Workers will perform skill level described for the following types of positions:
a. Administration. Under general supervision, performs administrative support in the form of data entry
and word processing operations; compiles data for reports and processes a variety of documents
according to well-established guidelines.
b. Maintenance. Performs a variety of maintenance duties such as equipment maintenance, general
construction, parks, repairs, streets, utilities. May operate heavy equipment.
c. Public safety. Police Officer I Post Certified plus completion of field training and one year
experience with Salida Police Dept.; Firefighter I – EMT basic plus completion of one year of field
training at a probationary position.
3. Workers will perform skill level described for the following types of positions:
a. Administrative. Performs more complicated administrative support in the form of data entry and
word processing operations; analyzes data for use by department head. Determines best practices to
achieve the end results required. May alter established guidelines to achieve more efficient results.
b. Maintenance. Performs more complicated equipment maintenance tasks, serve as lead worker over an
assigned crew on a project-by-project basis. Operates heavy equipment.
c. Public safety. Police Officer II — Same as level 1 position, plus 40 hours annual training; Entry
Level Basic Supervisor class to be completed between 3rd and 5th year.
4. Detailed knowledge in a specialized field or discipline such as accounting, administration, finance, water
treatment, wastewater treatment, street construction and maintenance, utility distribution or recreation.
Master firefighter—Firefighter II certification, EMT Basic with IV certification and Current Hazardous
Materials Operations Certification; police sergeant—college courses in law enforcement; three years law
enforcement experience, with two in Salida Police Dept.
5. Highly concentrated knowledge, requiring application of extensive skills in a trade, field or technical
function and a grasp of theory and principles. Ability to perform nonstandard assignments. Capable of
understanding and operating complex equipment and software. In charge in the absence of department
head. Fire captain—all previous requirements plus Colorado Officer I or Instructor I certification; Police
operations manager—all previous requirement plus broad knowledge of City ordinances, EEOC, FLSA
and POST requirements.
6. Highly concentrated knowledge, requiring application of extensive skills in a trade, field or technical
function and a grasp of theory and principles. Also, a solid general understanding of other technical
disciplines in municipal government. Ability to perform nonstandard assignments. Determines
alternative based on guidelines and standard practice. May modify existing procedure or methods.
Capable of understanding and operating complex equipment and software.
7. Highest average level of knowledge of all operations of City government including statutes governing
municipalities; municipal law; City ordinances; human resource activities, policies and procedures.
Provides council direction to municipal departments; prepares reports and analyses for council; performs
special projects. May assist in grant writing, budget development, capital improvement projects and may
be public information officer. Ability to negotiate effective terms on behalf of the City.
Education, training and certification
1. Some high school level classes with no or very limited work experience.
2. High school education completed or in process; one to three years work experience or minimum
certification requirement (if applicable) for the job.
3. High school education or equivalent completed; three to five years work experience plus minimum
4. High school education or equivalent completed; five or more years work experience plus minimum
5. Two-year college degree or equivalent with five years experience and minimum certification requirement
(if applicable) for the job; or any combination of formal education and on the job training that provides
knowledge necessary to perform the job.
6. Bachelors degree or equivalent with more than seven years relevant experience along with full
certification for the job.
Page 5 of 13
7. Bachelors degree in a relevant field of study; preferably a master’s degree in public administration or
business; more than five years relevant experience including personnel managment and more than ten
years total experience.
Impact of results
1. Small. Errors are easily prevented and/or detected and corrected. Mistakes would generally result in
small dollar or work product losses. Minimal risk to the health and safety of citizenry as a result of the
employees direct actions.
2. Moderate. Errors are identified relatively early. May cause internal confusion and delays affecting work
unit and/or department. Some possibility of public health / safety issues, embarrassment or dollar loss to
City.
3. Significant. Errors are difficult to detect and correct. Problem solution requires large amounts of time.
Other departments and their results are impacted. There may be public health and safety issues, large
dollar loss or embarrassment to the City.
4. Substantial. Errors may not be corrected. Impact of actions is significant to overall City operations and
its citizens. May diminish impact of critical successes or lead to loss of credibility of the City and pose a
serious health / safety risk.
Interpersonal and communication skills
1. Courtesy and tactfulness are required in contact with the public and co-workers. Interpretation of
communications is not usually necessary, but there is an importance to understand the direction given.
Shares information with others.
2. Requires use of tact and professionalism in greeting the public and working cooperatively with other staff
on projects. Listening and questioning skills to ensure understanding are important in performing the job
competently. Constructively participates in discussions. Addresses conflict and able to resolve most
situations. May be required to influence and persuade others.
3. Both written and oral contact within and without the City requires tact to influence others and resolve
conflict. Questioning to ensure understanding of the nature of the problem often involves explanation of
detailed information. Actively participates in discussions and shares information and provides feedback
with others appropriately. Ability to diffuse difficult situations with customers.
4. Contacts with others concern matters important to the success of the City. Proactively shares appropriate
information to help others accomplish work and be fully informed. Requires an ability to successfully
listen well to others’ concerns to evaluate behavior and motivation of others’ actions. Has an ability to
discuss multiple outcomes and remain open to possible conclusions. Written and oral communication is
needed to direct employees in performance of their duties, as well as provide feedback to subordinates.
The written message, using proper English grammar and excellent presentation skills, is important in
keeping Council and City Administrator apprised of ongoing projects and in communicating with outside
service providers. Strong conflict resolution skills.
5. Contacts with others concern matters vital to the success of the City. Proactively shares appropriate
information to help others accomplish work and be fully informed. Ability to establish rapport needed to
generate understanding and motivation in others. Offers praise and points out improvement when
appropriate. Provides honest, helpful feedback to others to increase their performance. High
requirement for tact, persuasion and timing. Must demonstrate effective public communication.
6. Contacts with others, both within and without the City, concern matter critical to the success of the
overall goals of the City. Very high requirement for tact, persuasion and timing. Promotes ideas or
outcomes that benefit the City, working to integrate others’ needs and concerns when possible.
Requirement for persuasive, effective communication, both written and oral, in public presentations to
achieve the goals of City. An ability to meet with assurance and self-confidence community, state and
national leaders.
Page 6 of 13
Working conditions
1. Normal physical effort found in office work or equivalent, generally with an absence of disagreeable
conditions.
2. Normal physical effort found in office work or equivalent, with minor discomfort due to noise, fumes,
heat dust, ventilation, etc. Safety procedures are necessary on occasion.
3. Physical effort generally involving standing, stooping, bending, lifting, etc. with fairly light level or activity
that is not constant throughout the workday, with minor discomfort due to noise, fumes, heat, dust,
ventilation, etc. Safety procedures are necessary on occasion.
4. Continuous physical effort involving standing, stooping, bending, lifting, climbing ladders, operating
equipment, etc. Constant work activity generally producing fatigue at the end of the workday. Minor
discomfort due to noise, fumes, heat, dust, materials handled and ventilation. Safety procedures may be
necessary and personal protective equipment is necessary on occasion.
5. Continuous physical effort involving standing, stooping, bending, lifting, climbing ladders, operating
equipment, etc. Constant work activity generally producing fatigue at the end of the workday.
Uncomfortable or hazardous working conditions, exposure to noise, fumes, heat, dust, temperature
extremes, materials, tools, chemical, etc. Generally unpleasant working environment with use of safety
procedures important. Personal protective equipment often required while on the job.
Page 7 of 13
JOB CLASSIFICATION MATRIX
Expected Ratings by Level
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Education,
Training
Impact Interpersonal &
Scope of Technical
and
of
Communication
Authority
Skills
Certification Results
Skills
Job Levels
1 to 7
1 to 7
1 to 7
1 to 4
1 to 6
Totals
City Administrator
7
7
7
4
6
31
Director
6
6-7
6-7
4
5-6
27 - 30
Manager
6
6
5-6
3-4
4-6
24 - 26
Supervisor III / Sr. Worker III
5
5
4-5
3
4-5
21 - 23
Supervisor II / Sr. Worker II
4
4-5
4-5
2-3
3-4
18 - 20
Supervisor I / Sr. Worker
3-4
3-4
3-4
2
3-4
15 - 17
Worker III
2-3
2-3
2-3
2
3
12 - 14
Worker II
2
1-2
2
2
2-3
9 - 11
Worker I
1-2
1-2
1-2
1
1-2
6-8
1
1
1
1
1-2
5-6
NOTES:
See individual job descriptions for the expectations of each position.
Ranges allow for different specific requirements within each department. For example, certain jobs will
require stronger interpersonal skills and less technical skills while other positions have a reverse requirement.
The ranges allow for such differences while incorporating a system for interdepartmental equity.
Page 8 of 13
JOBS BY LEVEL
Level 10
City Administrator
Level 9 – Director
Arts and Recreation Director
Community Development Director
Director of Finance and Administrative Services
Level 8 – Manager
Engineer / Project Manager
Recreation Manager
Fire Chief
Police Chief
Public Works Director
Wastewater Plant Manager
SteamPlant Director
Level 7 – Supervisor III / Senior Worker III
Deputy City Clerk
Plant Operator – Class A
Fire Captain
(Water or Sewer)
Level 6 – Supervisor II / Senior Worker II
Building & Grounds
Planner II
Supervisor
Plant Operator – Class B
Fire Marshal
(Water or Sewer)
Streets Supervisor
Senior Police Investigator
Level 5 Supervisor / Senior Worker
Accountant II
Patrol Officer II
Events Coordinator II
Planner I
Mechanic
Plant Operator – Class C
Municipal Worker IV
(Water or Sewer)
Water Plant Manager
Police Operations Lieutenant
Utilities Inspector
Police Sergeant
Senior Accountant
Recreation Supervisor
Senior Firefighter/EMT
Level 4 – Worker III
Accountant I
Administration Coordinator
Event Coordinator I
Firefighter/EMT
Front Desk Coordinator
Lesson Coordinator
Lifeguard Coordinator
Municipal Worker III
Patrol Officer I
Planning Technician II
Plant Operator – Class D
(Water or Sewer)
Police Investigator
Facility Maint. Coordinator
Recreation Coordinator
Level 3 – Worker II
Accounting Assistant
Administrative Assistant
Audio / Video Technician
Bus Driver
Code Enforcement Officer
Community Development
Intern
Event Assistant
Lifeguard III
Municipal Court Clerk
Municipal Worker II
Planning Technician I
Special Projects Technician
SP Facility Worker II
Level 2 – Worker I
Bartender
Lifeguard II
Municipal Worker I
Front Desk Clerk II
Parks and Recreation Intern
Plant Operator - Trainee
Pool Instructor (WSI)
Reserve Firefighter / EMT
SteamPlant Facility Worker I
Level 1 – Entry Level / Seasonal Worker
Front Desk Clerk I
Seasonal Worker
Custodian
Lifeguard I
Recreation Staff
Page 9 of 13
JOB LEVEL EVALUATIONS
Education,
Interpersonal &
Scope of Technical Training and Impact of Communication
Skills
Authority Skills Certification Results
Position
Scale 1 to 7
1 to 7
1 to 7
1 to 4
1 to 6
Administration Department
City Administrator
7
7
7
4
6
Director, Finance & Admin Services
6
6
7
4
6
Deputy City Clerk
5
4
4
4
5
Senior Accountant
4
5
5
2
4
Accountant II
3
4
4
2
3
Accountant I
3
3
3
2
3
Administrative Coordinator
3
3
3
1
3
Municipal Court Clerk
2
3
3
2
1
Special Projects Technician
2
3
3
1
2
Audio Visual Technician
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
1
Total
Working
Job
Conditions Level
1 to 5
31
29
22
20
16
14
13
11
11
11
11
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
10
9
7
6
5
4
4
3
3
3
3
Community Development Department
Community Development Director
City Planner II
City Planner I
Planning Technician II
Planning Technician I
Community Development Intern
6
4
3
3
3
2
6
4
3
3
3
3
6
5
4
2
2
2
4
3
3
2
2
2
6
4
3
3
3
2
28
20
16
13
13
11
2
2
2
2
2
2
9
6
5
4
3
3
Police Department
Police Chief
Operations Lieutenant
Senior Police Investigator
Police Sergeant
Patrol Officer II
Police Investigator
Patrol Officer I
Code Enforcement Officer
6
5
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
6
5
4
4
3
2
2
1
3
6
5
4
4
3
2
2
2
2
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6
5
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
28
23
18
18
15
12
12
9
11
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
2
9
7
6
6
5
4
4
3
3
Fire Department
Fire Chief
Captain
Fire Marshal
Senior Firefighter/EMT
Firefighter/EMT
Reserve Firefighter/EMT
6
5
4
4
3
3
2
1
6
5
5
4
3
3
2
2
6
4
4
3
2
3
2
2
4
3
3
3
2
1
2
1
5
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
27
21
20
17
13
13
10
8
4
5
5
5
5
1
2
5
9
7
6
5
4
4
3
2
Page 10 of 13
Position
Education,
Interpersonal &
Scope of Technical Training and Impact of Communication
Authority Skills Certification Results
Skills
Scale 1 to 7
1 to 7
1 to 7
1 to 4
1 to 6
Total
Working
Job
Conditions Level
1 to 5
Public Works Department
Public Works Director
Engineer / Project Manager
Plant Manager
Plant Operator - Class A
Utilities Inspector / Supervisor
Streets Supervisor
Buildings & Grounds Supervisor
Plant Operator - Class B
Mechanic
Municipal Worker IV
Plant Operator - Class C
Municipal Worker III
Plant Operator - Class D
Municipal Worker II
Plant Operator - Trainee
Municipal Worker I
Parks & Recreation Intern
Custodian
Seasonal Worker
6
5
6
4
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
3
3
1
2
1
1
1
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
6
6
5
4
6
4
4
3
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
2
3
1
1
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
3
3
4
2
1
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
4
4
3
3
4
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
1
1
27
26
26
21
23
20
20
20
17
17
17
13
13
12
11
11
8
8
8
5
5
4
4
5
5
4
4
4
5
4
4
5
4
1
5
4
2
5
4
3
4
4
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
6
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
Recreation
Arts and Recreation Director
Recreation Manager
Recreation Programs Supervisor
Facility Maintenance Coordinator
Front Desk Coordinator
Lesson Coordinator
Lifeguard Coordinator
Recreation Coordinator
Accounting Assistant
Bus Driver
Lifeguard III
Lifeguard II
Lifeguard I
Pool Instructor (WSI)
Front Desk Clerk II
Front Desk Clerk I
Recreation Staff
Custodian
6
6
4
3
3
3
4
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
6
6
4
3
4
4
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
6
5
4
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
4
3
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
5
3
2
3
3
2
3
1
2
3
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
28
25
17
14
14
14
14
14
11
9
11
8
6
8
8
6
6
5
2
2
3
4
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
4
9
8
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
SteamPlant Event Center
SteamPlant Director
Event Coordinator II
Event Coordinator I
Event Assistant
Facility Worker II
Facility Worker I
Bartender
6
4
3
2
2
2
1
2
6
3
2
3
3
1
1
1
5
3
2
2
2
1
1
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
5
4
4
1
1
3
2
2
25
16
13
10
10
9
7
8
2
2
2
2
1
3
3
2
8
5
4
3
3
3
2
2
Page 11 of 13
2015 SALARY RANGES
Annual Pay - All Employees
Job Levels
City Administrator
Director
Manager
Worker III
Worker II
Worker I
Full-time Salary
Level
Min
Mid
Max
10 $ 85,439 $ 106,799 $ 128,159
9
65,826
82,282
98,738
8
55,219
69,023
82,828
7
48,441
60,551
72,662
6
42,492
53,115
63,738
5
36,013
45,016
54,019
4
30,520
38,149
45,779
3
24,953
31,192
37,430
2
20,805
26,006
31,207
1
18,720
23,400
28,080
General Employees (2,080 hours/year)
Job Levels
Level
Manager
8
7
6
5
Worker III
4
Worker II
3
Worker I
2
1
Hourly Rates
Min
26.55
23.29
20.43
17.31
14.67
12.00
10.00
9.00
Mid
33.18
29.11
25.54
21.64
18.34
15.00
12.50
11.25
Max
39.82
34.93
30.64
25.97
22.01
18.00
15.00
13.50
24-hour Shifts (2,904 hours/year)
Hourly Rates
Job Levels
Level
Min
Mid
Max
Manager
8F $ 19.01 $ 23.77 $ 28.52
7F
16.68
20.85
25.02
6F
14.63
18.29
21.95
5F
12.40
15.50
18.60
Worker III
4F
10.51
13.14
15.76
Worker II
3F
8.59
10.74
12.89
Page 12 of 13
2014-2015 FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE COVERAGES
Available Coverages
Tele-doctor (see note 1)
Life / AD&D - $20,000 (see note 1)
Life / AD&D - $50,000 (see note 1)
Vision
Dental
Assurity supplemental policies
Short-term Disability (see note 1)
Long-term Disability (see note 1)
Medical
Wellness program
Employees Working 30+ hours
Employee
Employee
+
Employee
Only
Child(ren) + Spouse
Family
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Employees
working 20 to
<30 hours
X
X
X
X
X
X
Financial Contribution (per month) by the City:
Life / AD&D premiums are fully paid by the City, and employee wages are grossed up by the amount of
disability insurance premiums deducted from their pay. The average amount of this cost is $40 per employee
per month.
For Medical Insurance:
* without participation in wellness
$ 494.00 $ 707.00 $ 848.00 $ 1,151.00
n/a
* with participation in wellness
$ 519.00 $ 732.00 $ 873.00 $ 1,176.00
n/a
Dental or other optional plans
$
26.00 $
63.00 $
52.00 $
89.00 $
40.00
Notes:
(1) 100% enrollment required by eligible class for these plans and costs are paid in full by the City.
(2) Eligible employees with other medical coverage who have provided proof of such coverage may opt out
of the City plan and receive a City contribution in an amount not-to-exceed 50% the City's contribution
toward employee-only medical insurance to be applied to other offered plans.
(3) The financial contribution by the City is subject to update on July 1st with the annual policy renewals by
a percentage not to exceed the lesser of 8% or the percentage increase in premiums.
Page 13 of 13
________
__________
_____CITY COUNCIL
C
AGENDA ITEM_____
___________________
MEETIN
NG DATE:
No
ovember 4, 2014
AGEND
DA ITEM TIT
TLE:
Buudget Amend
dment
PRESEN
NTED BY:
Jan
n Schmidt, Fiinance Direcctor
BACKGR
ROUND RE
EVIEW:
The 20144 budget was adopted on December 3rd
3 and amennded on Apriil 15, 2014. SSince that tim
me,
some new
w revenue sources becam
me available an
nd council haas provided direction to m
make certain
n
changes and/or
a
appro
oved some acctions that afffect the 20144 budget. Soome emergen
ncy repairs an
nd
other unaanticipated on
ne-time costs have been or expected to be incurreed before thee end of the yyear.
All of thee changes aree detailed in the
t resolution
n.
With the changes auth
horized by co
ouncil, a greaater use of reeserves is now
w projected ffor all funds and
is reflecteed in the upd
dated budget.
Additiion to
(U
Use of) Reservves –
Net
(Use of) Reservess after
Current Buudget
Change
Buudget Amenddment
 General
G
Fund
d
($4200,600)
($14,300)
($4344,900)
 Water
W
($1,0355,100)
$286,000
($7499,100)
 Wastewater
W
($899,600)
$882,900
$172,500
General Fund
F
reservees have increaased over thee past severall years and w
will remain att a sufficient level
with the use
u of reservves currently budgeted. Th
he water systtem reserves will stay justt above below
w the
debt servvice and the operations
o
an
nd maintenan
nce reserve reequirements of its loan co
ovenants as tthe
budget cuurrently stand
ds.
RECOMMENDATIO
ON:
A Counciil person sho
ould make a motion
m
“to approve
a
Resoolution No. 22014-79, a resolution of th
he
City Coun
ncil of the Ciity of Salida, Colorado, ap
ppropriatingg additional suums of moneey to defray
expenses in excess of amounts budgeted for th
he 2014 budgget year.”
CITY OF SALIDA
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 – 79
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SALIDA, COLORADO
APPROPRIATING ADDITIONAL SUMS OF MONEY TO DEFRAY
EXPENSES IN EXCESS OF AMOUNTS BUDGETED FOR THE 2014
BUDGET YEAR.
WHEREAS, on Dece mber 3, 2013, the City Council adopted, by Resolution No. 201374, the 2014 Budget and by Resolu tion No. 2012-75 appropriated sum s of m oney for the 2014
budget year; and
WHEREAS, on April 15, 2014, the City Council adopted, by Resolution No. 2014-24, a
resolution appropriating additional sums of money for the 2014 Budget; and
WHEREAS, the City of Salida is receiving unantic ipated revenue from sales taxes and
grants which were unanticipated at the tim e the budget was adopted and which the council
intends to spend; and
WHEREAS, certain decisions have been made by the City Council and events,
conditions and external factors that affect the budget in 2014 have occurred or changed during
the past several months; and
WHEREAS, a contingency could not have been r easonably foreseen at the tim e of the
adoption of the budget; and
WHEREAS, the money to finance all expenditures is available from current revenues or
in the same fund as unrestricted reserves;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
Section 1: The aforementioned recitals are incorporated here in and adopted as findings
and determinations of the City Council.
Section 2: T hat the 2014 revenue for the General Fund is incr eased from $7,650,700 to
$8,068,800 and 2014 appropriation for the General Fund is hereby increased from $8,071,300 to
$8,543,700 for the following purposes:
(A)
To increase revenue for additional statew
$22,000
ide taxes dis tributed to th e City –
(B)
To update 2014 tax revenue projections based on year-to-date trends:
1. From 2% to 4% annual growth in City sales tax – $124,800
2. From 1% to 4% annual growth in Chaffee County sales tax – $32,300
3. Occupational lodging tax – $40,000
(C)
To increase revenue and expenditures due to the award f or funding from the
Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program – $0 net
1. Federal grant revenue – $195,500
2. Capital expenditures (machinery & equipment) – $195,500
(D)
To increase revenue and expenditures due to the award for funding from GOCO
for the River Trail project – $6,500 net
1. State grant revenue – $43,500
2. Capital expenditures – $50,000
(E)
To true up Chaffee County Dispatch
charges based on final calculation and
allocate to departments with call volume upon which the charge is based – $4,400
1. Police – $3,700
2. Fire – $600
3. Public Works – $100
(F)
To increase public notice expense due to re-publication of Salida Municipal Code
Chapter 16 in full in the Mountain Mail – $7,500
(G)
To increase the community funding
budget per discussion at prior council
meetings:
1. Per April 16 meeting, an additional amount for city fee waivers - $3,000
2. Per June 17 meeting, an amount to support LiveWell Chaffee County - $3,000
(H)
To re-appropriate final costs of playground equipment ordered in 2014 – $16,000
(I)
To increase the budget for the following items – $117,500
Administration:
1. General legal trended higher than expected mid-year – $25,000
2. Lawsuit costs – $8,000
3. Audit – $1,500
4. Information Technology – $5,000
5. Travel costs – $3,000
6. Event costs (School District of Distinction) - $1,000
Police:
7. Medical clearances – $17,000
8. Towing, travel and storage costs for criminal case investigation – $5,400
Fire Dept
9. Replace broken dishwasher – $600
Public Works
10. General Engineering – $5,000
11. Motor Vehicle parts – $15,000
Parks:
12. Operating Supplies – $11,000
13. Water – $20,000
(J)
To increase the budget for the various capital projects approved by council during
past meetings – $70,500
1. Correction (decrease) of last budget amendment and then add costs for
additional amenities for historic Caboose – $3,000
2. Lights at Marvin Park – $12,000
3. Kiosk at Monarch Mountain – $5,000
4. Amendment to DSI contract for pool project – $47,000
5. Increase budget for contract awarded to DSI for sidewalk replacement project
– $8,500
Section 3: That the 2014 revenue for th e W ater Fund is increased from $2,694,100 to
$3,134,600 and the 2014 appropriation for the Wate r Fund is hereby increased from $3,783,300
to $3,811,300 for the following purposes:
(A)
To increase grant revenue for 50% of supplemental DOLA grant for the plant
upgrade (rem ainder budgeted in 2015) and es timated project co st (2014 portion
only) – $126,500 net
(B)
To increase revenue for water leases – $67,500
(C)
To increase system developm ent fees for greater volume of new taps than
expected – $120,000
(D)
To decrease the pro ject cost for th e H Stree t water lines per bid awarded –
$98,500
Section 4: That the 2014 revenue for the Sewer Fund is increased from $1,418,200 to
$1,978,200 and the 2014 appropriation for the Se wer Fund is hereby increased from $1,608,700
to $1,996,200 for the following purposes:
.
(A)
To increase grant rev enue for the release of the final 10% of the DOLA grant –
$135,000
(B)
To increase revenue and capital expense by $300,000 for addition al grant funds
for amended scope of USDA project (2014 estimate) – zero net effect
(C)
To increase estim ate of system developm ent fe es due to greater volume of new
taps – $100,000
(D)
To increase capital expenditures for the sewe r portion of the H Street project that
had not been broken out in the original budget – $6,500
(E)
To increase operating expenditures to repair damage from a lightning strike to the
plant – $24,000
(F)
To increase gas & electric expenditures at the treatment plant – $35,000
(G)
To increase costs for m anhole repairs and the $25,000 contractual paym ent from
the Town of Poncha Springs to pay the costs – $1,000 net
Section 5: That the 2014 revenue fo
r the S teamPlant E vent Center Fund is
increased from $290,800 to $328,800 and 2014 appropri ation for the Steam Plant Event Center
Fund is hereby increased from $422,200 to $460,200 for the following purposes:
(A)
To increase revenue for th e ballroom, food and other rentals and reduce revenue
for event sponsorships – $38,000 net
(B)
increase cost of sales, in part due to
higher than usual co sts associated with
hosting the Colorado Creative Industries conference – $30,000
(C)
To reclassify $4,000 from
bartenders as employees – $0 net
(D)
contracted se rvices to personnel due to hiring
To increase supplies and materials expenditures – $3,000
(E)
To reclassify $4,000 from contracted servic es to personnel services due to hiring
bartenders as employees rather than independent contractors – $0 net effect
Section 6 : That the rev ised sums ar e hereby appropriated from the revenues of
each fund for the calendar year 2014 to each fund for the purposes stated in the budget:
GENERAL FUND
Expenditures
Operating Expenditures
Capital Expenditures – Current Year
Capital Expenditures – Financing
Total fund expenditures
Interfund Transfer – SteamPlant
Interfund Transfer – Water System
Interfund Transfer – Sewer System
Total expenditures and fund transfers
Revenue
Operating Revenue
Capital Revenue
Total
revenue
Decrease in General Fund Reserves
WATER & WASTEWATER ENTERPRISE FUND
Expenditures Water
Total expenditures
Revenue
$ 5,185,500
2,909,900
161,900
8,252,300
131,400
54,100
100,900
8,543,700
5,277,300
2,831,500
8,068,800
$ (434,900)
$ 899,100
2,616,200
417,900
$ 3,937,800
Wastewater
$
983,800
468,400
544,000
$ 1,996,200
Operating Revenue
Capital Revenue
Total revenue
Transfer from General Fund
Decrease in Reserves
STEAMPLANT ENTERPRISE FUND
Expenditures:
Capital Expenditures
Total expenditures
Total Revenue
460,200
Increase (Decrease) in Reserves
$ 1,582,000
1,552,600
3,134,600
54,100
$ (749,100)
$ 1,274,000
704,200
1,978,200
100,900
$
(82,900)
$ 368,800
91,400
460,200
$ 328,800
131,400
$

Section 6: T hat the am ended 2014 budget is he reby approved and adopted and shall be
signed by the Mayor of the City of Salida, Colorado, and made a part of the public records of the
City of Salida, Colorado.
RESOLVED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular m eeting of the City Council
of the City of Salida on this 4th day of November 2014.
CITY
[SEAL]
ATTEST:
__________
Deputy City Clerk
By
OF SALIDA, COLORADO
______________________________
Mayor
________
__________
_____CITY COUNCIL
C
AGENDA ITEM_____
___________________
MEETIN
NG DATE:
No
ovember 4, 2014
AGEND
DA ITEM TIT
TLE:
20115 Budget Adoption and Public Hearring
Ap
ppropriating Funds
F
for 20015
PRESEN
NTED BY:
Jan
n Schmidt, Fiinance Direcctor
AGEND
DA SECTION
N:
Sch
heduled Item
ms
REQUESST:
To adoptt the 2015 budget
b
and to
o appropriatte sums of m
money to thee various fun
nds and spen
nding
agencies in
i the amoun
nts and for th
he purposes as set forth iin the 2015 bbudget.
BACKGR
ROUND RE
EVIEW:
City stafff and Councill have held a series of wo
ork sessions tto prepare annd discuss the budget.
State law requires thatt council is presented
p
witth an estimateed budget onn or before O
October 15th
h.
The City of Salida com
mplied with that
t requirem
ment by provviding counciil members w
with a propossed
budget on
n October 7tth. A “Noticee of Budget”” was publishhed in the Moountain Maill that announ
nced
the availaability of the budget, date of the next work
w
sessionn and date off the public h
hearing. Statee law
requires a public heariing for the ad
doption of th
he budget, att which time the city coun
ncil may con
nsider
the objections of the electors
e
and revise, alter, increase or ddecrease item
ms as it deem
ms necessary iin
view of th
he needs of the
t various offices
o
and deepartments aand in view oof the anticipaated income..
The prop
posed budgett is included as
a an exhibit to the resoluution to adoppt the budget. No changees
have been
n made sincee it was preseented on Octtober 7th.
Council may
m adopt th
he proposed 2015
2
budget as presentedd or pass an aamendment tto change certain
items beffore adoptingg it. If Counccil needs addiitional inform
mation or desires addition
nal time to
consider any public in
nput, the pub
blic hearing may
m be continnued until thhe next meetiing. Howeverr, the
budget sh
hould be app
proved beforee the end of the year.
Attached as exhibits to
t the budgett resolution is a summaryy of the budgget by fund, rrevenue type and
departmeent along with
h a list of thee capital item
ms and draft bbudget messaage.
Followingg the adoptio
on of the bud
dget, the Colorado Statuttes require thhat City Coun
ncil appropriaate
the sums of money sttaff is authoriized to expen
nd in that fis cal year.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of these resolutions.
ACTION:
Two motions are needed:
(1) A Council person should make a motion “to approve Resolution No. 2014-80 a resolution
of the City Council of the City of Salida, Colorado summarizing expenditures and revenues
for each fund, and adopting a budget for the City of Salida, Colorado, for the calendar year
beginning on the first day of January 2015 and ending on the last day of December 2015.”
(2) A Council person should make a motion “to approve Resolution No. 2014-81 a resolution
of the City Council of the City of Salida, Colorado appropriating sums of money to the
various funds and spending agencies in the amounts and for the purposes as set forth for the
2015 budget year.
RESOLUTION 2014-80
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SALIDA, COLORADO SUMMARIZING
EXPENDITURES AND REVENUES FOR EACH FUND, AND ADOPTING A
BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF SALIDA, COLORADO, FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR
BEGINNING ON THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY 2015, AND ENDING ON THE
LAST DAY OF DECEMBER 2015.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Salida and City Administrator, Dara
MacDonald, have appointed Jan Schmidt, Finance Director, to prepare and submit a proposed
budget to said governing body at the proper time; and
WHEREAS, upon due and proper notice, published in accordance with the law, said
proposed budget was open for inspection by the public at a designated place, a public hearing was
held on November 4, 2014 and interested taxpayers were given the opportunity to file or register any
objections to said proposed budget; and
WHEREAS, whatever increases may have been made in the expenditures, like increases
were added to the revenues so that the budget remains in balance, as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to adopt the proposed budget for the fiscal year 2015.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR
THE CITY OF SALIDA, COLORADO:
1.
The Salida City Council incorporates the foregoing recitals as its conclusions, facts,
determinations, and findings.
2.
The Budget as submitted and summarized by fund as following, and including the
Lease-Purchase Supplemental Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this
reference, is hereby approved and adopted for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2015 and ending
December 31, 2015:
GENERAL FUND
Expenditures
Subtotal
Revenue
Operating Revenue
Capital Revenue
Increase (Decrease) in General Fund Reserves
$ 5,354,700
3,530,500
161,900
$ 9,047,100
108,000
9,155,100
$ 5,429,000
3,206,100
8,635,100
$ (520,000)
Resolution Adopting 2015 Budget
Expenditures:
$ 349,400
19,600
369,000
Revenue
Operating Revenue
$ 261,000
108,000
369,000
$

Expenditures
Total
Revenue
CONSERVATION TRUST FUND
Expenditures
Revenue
Water
$ 838,900
1,461,300
406,900
$ 2,707,100
2,110,800
$ (596,300)
Wastewater
$ 868,100
1,043,400
544,000
$ 2,455,500
1,961,400
$ (494,100)
$ 50,000
50,400
$ 400
2.
The budget hereby approved and adopted shall be signed by the Mayor and Clerk
and made a part of the public records of the City.
RESOLVED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, this 4th day of November, 2014.
By:
[SEAL]
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
____________________________
Mayor
EXHIBIT A
LEASE-PURCHASE SUPPLEMENTAL SCHEDULE
I.
REAL PROPERTY LEASE-PURCHASE AGREEMENTS:
Description of Real Property Lease-Purchase: Community Services Complex,
Schedule I
Date of Lease-Purchase Agreement: December 1, 2008
(as amended on February 21, 2012)
Total amount to be expended for all Real Property
Lease-Purchase Agreements in Budget Year:
Year
Amount
2015
$ 72,708
Total maximum payment liability for all real property lease purchase agreements over the
entire terms of all such agreements, including all optional renewal terms:
$ 1,227,635
Description of Real Property Lease-Purchase: Community Services Complex,
Schedule II
Date of Lease-Purchase Agreement: February 1, 2009
(as amended on February 21, 2012)
Total amount to be expended for all Real Property
Lease-Purchase Agreements in Budget Year:
Year
Amount
2015
$ 89,124
Total maximum payment liability for all real property lease purchase agreements over the
entire terms of all such agreements, including all optional renewal terms:
$ 1,522,771
II.
ALL LEASE-PURCHASE AGREEMENTS NOT INVOLVING REAL
PROPERTY:
None
EXHIBIT B
2015 Budget Package
RESOLUTION 2014-81
RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE SUMS OF MONEY
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALIDA
APPROPRIATING SUMS OF MONEY TO THE VARIOUS FUNDS, AND SPENDNG
AGENCIES, IN THE AMOUNTS AND FOR THE PURPOSES AS SET FORTH
BELOW, FOR THE CITY OF SALIDA, COLORADO, FOR THE 2015 BUDGET YEAR.
WHEREAS, the Salida City Council has adopted the annual budget in accordance with the
Colorado Local Government Budget Law on November 4, 2014, and;
WHEREAS, the Salida City Council has made provision therein for revenues or uses of
reserves in an amount equal to or greater than the total proposed expenditures as set forth in said
budget, and;.
WHEREAS, it is not only required by law, but also necessary to appropriate the revenues
provided in the budget to, and for the purposes described below, so as not to impair the operations
of the City of Salida.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY
OF SALIDA, COLORADO:
That the following sums are hereby appropriated from the revenues of each fund for the calendar
year 2015 to each fund for the purposes stated:
GENERAL FUND
Expenditures
Subtotal
Revenue
Operating Revenue
Capital Revenue
Increase (Decrease) in General Fund Reserves
$ 5,354,700
3,530,500
161,900
$ 9,047,100
108,000
9,155,100
$ 5,429,000
3,206,100
8,635,100
$ (520,000)
Expenditures:
$ 349,400
19,600
369,000
Revenue
Operating Revenue
$ 261,000
108,000
369,000
$

Expenditures
Total
Revenue
Expenditures
Revenue
Water
$ 838,900
1,461,300
406,900
$ 2,707,100
2,110,800
$ (596,300)
Wastewater
$ 868,100
1,043,400
544,000
$ 2,455,500
1,961,400
$ (494,100)
$ 50,000
50,400
$ 400
RESOLVED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 4th day of November 2014.
CITY OF SALIDA
[SEAL]
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
By:____________________________
Mayor
DRAFT
Budget Message
I.
Introduction
As a normal part of the budget process, the City Council formally adopts a budget and
appropriates money to run the City of Salida (the City or Salida) next year. Again this year, total
expenditures are greater than usual due to large capital projects in the water and wastewater
enterprise and the general fund. Grants and contributions have either been secured or are being
applied for that would pay for 29% of the project costs. We are responding to some personnel
hiring and equity issues through a combination of cost of living, merit and market adjustments
but have held most operating cost increases to a minimum in this proposed budget. The area
where the city council exercises the most significant degree of discretion is in one-time spending
for capital purchases and special projects. Modifications to the operating budget may equate to
the reduction or elimination of services provided by the City.
Since the City repealed its property tax in 2008, no mill levy is submitted to the Board of County
Commissioners. Work sessions were held September 2, 15 and 30 and October 20. A public
hearing on the budget is being held on November 4 and the budget was adopted on November
xx, 2014.
This budget message provides city council and other readers with an overview of the regular
municipal government services provided by the City and the annual projects to be completed or
managed by the City in the coming year, along with information to better understand the
schedules and supplemental information that comprise the annual budget package. This
narrative tells the story behind the numbers by describing goals, priorities, underlying
assumptions and other factors considered in developing the budget. It is organized into the
following sections:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
Introduction
Organization and Services of the City
Executive Summary of the 2015 Budget
Budget Assumptions and Changes
Summary of all City Funds
Personnel Count and Expenditures
2015 Budgets by Fund
Overview of City-Wide Goals, Major Initiatives and Projects
Grant Revenue and Expenditures
In the budget schedules that follow, financial resources are shown along with the uses of such
funds. Additional supplemental schedules highlight other information of significance to the City.
In the “Summary of All City Funds,” the total revenue and expenditures by major groupings are
shown along with any uses of or additions to reserves. Projected fund balances are also shown
for each fund. Additional worksheets show more revenue and expenditure detail for each fund
and operating area. Should readers seek additional information not included in the budget
package, it may be requested from the Finance Director or through the Deputy City Clerk at City
Hall.
II.
Organization and Services of the City
Services provided by municipalities vary widely. Although citizens have many of the same
services available to them in any incorporated area, some may be served by a special district or
other governmental entity. Therefore, one town or city may not be directly comparable to
another. It is important that readers of the budget know what services the City provides in order
to understand the budget. The broad services provided by Salida’s employees include the
following:






Public safety –
o 24/7 police protection, vehicle, bicycle and foot patrol, crime prevention and law
enforcement; vehicle identification number inspections, school safety, special event
support, DUI awareness programs, drug task force, regional preparedness, E911 board
representation
o 24/7 professional fire response (structural and wildland), emergency medical services,
hazardous material response, technical rescue (ice, swift water, confined space, high
and low angles), installation of smoke detectors, inspections and plans reviews, code
enforcement, fire prevention and CPR classes, fireworks displays, staffing for fire
protection district, regional preparedness and various other education and civic activities
Public works – operation, maintenance and improvement of streets, walkways, parking lots,
parks, play features, public structures, underground distribution or collection lines, trees, and
other public infrastructure
Water and Wastewater – Treatment and distribution of municipal water service and
collection, treatment and safe discharge of wastewater (including wastewater services for
the Town on Poncha Springs)
Community development – land use and zoning, administrative review of development
plans, subdivision exemptions, building permits and sign permits, long range and current
planning, historic preservation, grant writing and reporting
Arts and recreation – swimming pool, lessons, fitness and recreation programs, activities
and special events for community members of all ages, liaison with outside organizations
(chamber of commerce, small business association, etc.); professional event center
Administrative services – liquor, marijuana and arborists licensing, billing and collection of
water and wastewater services, birth and death certificates, municipal court, grant writing
and reporting, intergovernmental facility management, payroll, accounts payable, accounts
receivable, budgeting, financial reporting, human resources, legal, cash management /
treasury, risk management, records management, public information, meeting coordination,
and other general government and administrative services
Salida has a population of approximately 5,300 residents and serves as a regional shopping
hub for surrounding unincorporated areas and small towns. Combined with the effect of tourism
and second home owners, Salida’s municipal government serves a population estimated at
more than twice the size of its residential base.
Salida is organized as a statutory city under the constitution of the State of Colorado. The City
operates under a council-mayor form of government with six council members, a mayor,
treasurer and clerk serving in elected positions. Government accounts are organized on the
basis of funds or account groups, each of which is considered to be a separate accounting
entity. The City has two general government and two business-type (or “enterprise”) funds.
Government Funds
General Fund
Conservation Trust Fund
Business-Type or Enterprise Funds
Water and Wastewater Activity Enterprise Fund
SteamPlant Event Center Enterprise Fund
Government funds rely primarily on tax revenue to provide public services, while business-type
funds charge fees to users of specific services, typically with a goal to be self-sustaining.
All funds use the accrual basis of accounting for financial statement reporting in accordance
with Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 34. The budget was
prepared using the modified accrual basis. The format closely follows disclosures published
annually in the audited financial statements to aid in comparisons of the budget to actual
financial results at the end of each year.
Readers of this budget are encouraged to contact the City’s Finance Director should they have
any questions or seek additional details regarding Salida’s financial position or its revenues and
expenditures.
III.
Executive Summary of the 2015 Budget
Retail sales and the growth in development activity continued to improve during 2014. These
factors provide positive overall economic conditions for the City. The 2015 budget continues the
execution of several projects that reflect years of planning as well as some new opportunities.
Capital expenditures vary from year to year and the timing of certain one-time costs and special
projects will result in changes from the 2014 projection. Although no significant organization
changes are anticipated in the proposed 2015 budget, a petition has been turned into the City
that, if approved by voters, would likely result in the reduction or discontinuation of some
general government services.
Highlights of the 2015 financial expectations for the City are as follows:

General Fund – Positive sales tax trends will enable the City to invest more in maintaining,
upgrading or replacing infrastructure and pay for increases in operating costs. In addition,
$450,000 of cash reserves will be used for 2015 capital spending. This is less than one-third
of the cash saved from 2010 to 2013. A total cash balance of at least $2.5 million,
approximately one-half of the annual operating budget, is projected at the end of 2015.

Water and Wastewater Enterprise Fund – Existing rate structures will remain in place with
2.9% cost inflation increases in fees. Development fee revenue is expected to remain
consistent with 2014, which improved significantly compared to the 2009 – 2012 time period.
Sources and uses of funding stabilized following the increase in water and wastewater rates
in 2011 and 2009, respectively. To complete a major upgrade of the water treatment plant,
available water system reserves from 2012 and 2013, a $1.5 million state grant, and some
of the wastewater system reserves will be used. The wastewater treatment facility upgrade
was substantially completed in 2013 with the use of reserves, grants, and a 40-year loan.
No further use of reserves or debt is anticipated in the foreseeable future.

SteamPlant Event Center – Operating revenue is expected to sustain a 75% cost recovery
level. A full year under the umbrella of the City’s newly formed arts and recreation
department is expected foster revenue opportunities and generate operating synergies with
other recreation programs.

Conservation Trust Fund – A playground equipment replacement effort continues in 2015
with plans to use the 2015 revenue distribution for Marvin Park.
This chart provides perspective on the
relative size of each fund based on total
2015 revenue. Water and wastewater
system revenue is a larger than usual
percentage due to the amounts remaining
from large grants for the respective plant
upgrades. A separate budget is prepared
for each fund and/or area of operations
and is discussed in more detail in the next
section of this narrative.
Overall, Salida’s current financial
condition is healthy due to the growth in
tax and development related revenue,
combined with rate increases and closely managed operating and capital expenditures. The
economic slowdown in 2008 to 2010 caused the City to constrain spending in many areas. Rigid
discipline over spending continues in all departments to ensure dollars are spent wisely and with
long-term benefits in mind. Greater investments are being made in some key areas as a result
of the City’s overall improvement in financial condition.
The City’s ability to meet future capital and operating needs has benefitted from a significantly
reduced level of debt service in the general fund starting in 2012. However, the water and
wastewater enterprise fund have substantial debt service obligations and, until recent rate
increases and improvements in development activity, an uncertain level of funding existed for
capital needs. However, sources and uses of funding have now stabilized. No major rate
increases and no new debt issuances are anticipated for the foreseeable future.
The most significant economic indicator for the City is sales tax. Following two years of declining
sales tax, the trend reversed during 2011. Through the month of August 2014, collections
increased 44 of the past 46 consecutive months. The chart below illustrates the recent revenue
growth along with the significance of the summer tourist season.
Voter imposed restrictions limit the use of the majority (between 63.3% and 68.7%) of the City
sales tax. Because of the combination of these restrictions on sales tax revenue, Salida spends
two or three times as much on capital projects and purchases as a percentage of its total
general fund budget.


Of the longer standing 2% city sales tax:
 35% is transferred to a “Capital Improvement” reserve account and is used to provide
streets and other capital improvements or to pay debt service on bonds or other
obligations of the City issued to provide for such capital improvements
 9% is transferred to a “Capital Expenditures” reserve account and used for the purchase
of machinery and equipment that is greater than $500 with a useful life in excess of one
year.
 1% is transferred to an “Economic Development” reserve account to be used economic
development within the city.
 Up to 8% is placed in a “Contingency” reserve in any calendar year when such fund is
less than 15% of the City's General Fund Operating Budget, it being the intent to
maintain a Contingency Fund which, in any year, is equal to 15% of the General Fund
Operating Budget. The Contingency Fund can be utilized by the City Council to cover
unbudgeted, unforeseen reductions in revenue collections or unusual expenditures
outside the scope of normal operations. The Contingency reserve is fully funded.
In 2008, voters approved a ballot question for an incremental 1% sales tax that is used for
funding construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of roads and other public
infrastructure of the City. According to accounting definitions, some of these types of
expenses are considered capital while others are operating expenditures. The City’s
property tax was repealed as part of this ballot question.
Voters approved an occupation tax on lodging in 2008 that is used for capital improvements and
operations expenses for parks, recreation and arts facilities in the City, including the Aquatic
Center and the SteamPlant Event Center.
The 2015 budget includes city sales tax revenue of nearly
$4.5 million, which projects a 5% increase in 2014 and a
further 2% increase in 2015. Salida also receives a portion of
the Chaffee County sales tax, which is projected to be just
over $1.4 million in 2015 applying the same growth
assumptions as for the City tax. Approximately half of the
county revenue originates in Salida.
With the positive sales tax trend and substantially reduced level of general fund debt, the City
has made significant progress toward streets and other general infrastructure needs as well as
vehicle replacements and one-time projects. Treatment plant upgrades and deficiencies in the
water and wastewater infrastructure are being addressed with funds generated through rate
increases, system development fees and water lease revenue. New treatment processes now
ensure wastewater is safely treated before flowing into the Arkansas River, which is enjoyed by
many fisherman and boaters and is important to numerous other downstream users. The
rehabilitation of the “front end” of the water system is now underway.
IV.
Budget Assumptions and Changes from the Previous Year
Certain predictions must be made regarding the coming year. These key assumptions and
changes require discussion and analysis during the budgeting process. The changes below
were highlighted throughout budget work sessions with the council.
Total Revenue
 Sales tax revenue – assumes 5% growth in in 2014 followed by another 2% in 2015; applies
to both the City of Salida and Chaffee County tax collections
 Other taxes – a new revenue source from the state-collected excise tax on retail marijuana
in factored in along with occupation tax on lodging and franchise taxes consistent with 2014
 Allocation of recently approved tax funding sources between capital and operating
expenditures within the general fund (according to accounting definitions):
 40 / 60 split of 2A funds for capital / operating expenditures (all for public infrastructure)
 75 / 25 split of 2B funds for capital / operating expenditures (all for arts and recreation)
 Nearly $1.7 million in grant revenue expected including funds from Department of Local
Affairs, Great Outdoors Colorado, USDA Rural Development, State Historic Fund and
Colorado Creative Industries
 Hot springs pool rates – changes are currently pending further review
 Park rental rates –no rate increases in 2015
 Rents – increase due to the new communications tower and Touber Building space
 Fire – increase in hourly rate for business inspection fees
 Police – increase in fine for exceeding time limitation for downtown parking from $10 to $20
 SteamPlant Event Center – no rate increases
 Water and sewer service fees – 2.9% increase in service rates goes into effect in first
quarter; approximately $1.50 to $2.00 per month for residential customers (depending on
volume of water used) and $25,000 and $26,000 in aggregate for water and wastewater
fund, respectively.
 Outside lab and dump services – most increased 3% with a few small dollar but larger
percentage increases for rounding of rates
 Development and resource fees – 34 new water and 40 new sewer taps; 2.9% increase in
rates
Total Expenditures
 Personnel - New full time position of civil engineer / project manager and two positions
changing from part to full time. 5% net increase in FTEs (hours worked). 3% COLA + 3%
merit (except for management) and market adjustments for police, fire and public works
staff. Salary ranges in pay plan generally increasing by 3% COLA except at top and bottom;
4.5% at Level 2 and 1.9% at Level 3
 Employee health insurance – 8% increase from 2014/2015 plan year or 4% budget effect
 Fuel costs – no change in prices for 2015
 Other operating costs
 Chaffee County Dispatch – $144,000 (nearly 3% of general fund operating budget)
 Property / casualty insurance – $185,000 (17% increase)
Inflation Reference
 The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the Denver-BoulderGreeley metropolitan area increased 2.9% from the first half of 2013 to the first half of 2014
V.
Summary of all City Funds
The City expects to generate $13.0 million in revenue and to utilize $1.6 million of the excess
revenues over expenditures generated in recent years currently held in reserves for capital
projects. In total, capital expenditures and operating expenditures will amount to $7.2 million
and $7.4 million. Over 49% of the total budget will be invested in public infrastructure
improvements and capital purchases in 2015.
The percentages by fund and/or area of operations are shown in the following chart.
Expenditures are specifically identified to the proper fund and department within each fund.
Certain costs are allocated between funds such as insurance premiums and wages paid to staff
who split their time between general government services and enterprise activities. Each fund
has separate revenue streams and may be affected by different economic factors. The general
fund, used to account for basic government services, is supported primarily by taxes and
intergovernmental revenue. Business-type activities are supported primarily by user fees.
The majority of the City’s total receipts and disbursements occur within the general fund. In a
year without significant one-time revenue sources, the general fund comprises approximately
70% of the city-wide budget. In 2015, the general fund accounts for only 66% of total revenue.
Grant revenue of $254,000 for the water treatment facility upgrade and $430,000 for a water line
extension to the wastewater treatment plant will skew 2015 proportions, although not to quite
the same degree as the $1.7 million for the wastewater treatment plant affected 2013.
Capital Budget Overview
The capital budget identifies all the revenue sources used to pay for fixed assets, which are
tangible or intangible items of value that will be used over an extended period of time. It is the
City’s policy to capitalize all fixed assets costing more than $5,000 with an estimated useful life
of two or more years. For budget purposes, general fund capital expenditures also include items
costing $500 or more with a useful life in excess of one year. This second category of budgetary
capital spending is pursuant to the voter-approved use of sales tax revenue as further described
below.
The budget includes recurring capital spending and one-time purchases and projects. For
example, the City maintains a fleet of vehicles and each one is replaced at the end of its useful
life. Vehicle replacements are scheduled out on a recurring basis. Another example of recurring
capital expenses are road improvements intended to extend the life of existing streets, such as
slurry seals or other types of overlay treatments. Other capital expenditures are one-time in
nature, such as building a new road, purchasing a parcel of land or constructing a new building.
Within the general fund, money for capital purchases is generated primarily from sales tax as
approved by voters. Specific funding for capital expenditures is derived primarily from system
development fees in the water and wastewater enterprise fund and from lottery proceeds in the
Conservation Trust Fund. The City leverages its resources with grants for many projects. Grants
obtained by staff supplement this revenue source and have been substantial over the past
several years (over $10 million since 2009). Bonds or other financing obligations provide
additional funding when current resources are not sufficient.
All capital purchases and improvement projects are listed in a supplemental schedule.
Operating Budget Overview
Funding for operating expenditures is primarily from sales and other taxes in the general fund
and from fees for services in the enterprise funds.
The most significant resource to the City and majority of operating costs are employees.
Personnel expenses comprise 68% of the operating budget and 37% of the total City budget.
Contracted services, materials and supplies, utilities, insurance and other operating costs
account for the remainder of the City’s operating costs. The expenditures mix varies greatly by
department within the City’s operations and is summarized in a supplemental schedule.
VI. Personnel Count and Expenditures
Personnel costs include wages, taxes, retirement contributions, medical, dental, life and workers
compensation insurance premiums. Effective with the revised 2012 budget, workers’
compensation is categorized as “personnel” expenditures and is allocated out to each
department within the general fund. Workers compensation was previously budgeted under
“fixed costs” in the administration department for the general fund and under the plant
departments for the water and wastewater enterprise fund.
As a percentage of the total expenditures budget for each fund, personnel costs are as follows:
Percentage of Budgets
Fund
Operating
Total
General
71%
43%
SteamPlant
71%
67%
Water System
62%
23%
Sewer System
54%
25%
Total – All Funds
68%
37%
In addition to daily operational duties, many City employees spend a considerable amount of
time planning and managing capital projects. However, the City does not charge any staff costs
to the capital budget.
The table below summarizes the staffing level approved in the 2015 budget. The calculation of
full-time equivalents (FTE) budgeted in each department is based on a “regular” full-time
schedule of 2,080 hours per year (or 2,904 for firefighters). The parks and trails department is
staffed through the public works department where employees track the hours spent working on
various City activities. A portion of the costs for several public works and administrative staff
members are allocated to the water and wastewater enterprise fund. This allocation effectively
transfers a total of 6.0 FTEs from the general fund to the water and wastewater enterprise fund.
Part-time /
Full-time
Seasonal
Employees Employees
General Fund
Administration
Police
Fire Department
Public Works
Pool and Recreation
Parks and Trails
Subtotals
FTEs
Allocated
6.00
2.00
17.00
11.00
13.00
1.00
0.00
50.00
3.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
7.00
35.00
0.00
46.00
7.18
3.00
17.00
11.00
15.05
12.00
0.00
65.23
5.18
3.00
17.00
11.00
7.20
12.00
3.90
59.28
1.00
9.00
5.62
5.62
Water and Wastewater Enterprise
Water Admininstration
0.00
Water - Public Works
0.00
Water Plant
3.00
Subtotals
3.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
2.80
3.00
6.80
Wastewater Administration
Wastewater - Public Works
Wastewater Plant
Subtotals
0.00
0.00
4.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.00
4.00
1.00
1.15
4.00
6.15
58.00
55.00
77.85
77.85
Totals
VII.
Full-time
Equivalents
(FTEs)
2015 Budgets by Fund
In this section of the budget message, highlights of each fund are discussed. Where significant,
the analysis is broken into two sections – capital budget and operating budget.
General Fund Capital Budget
Just over 40% of the total general fund budget, or $3.7 million, will be spent for capital projects
or asset purchases. Spending will exceed the $3.2 million in projected revenue that is restricted
for capital. The City will use a portion of the net cash generated in recent years to address high
priority capital projects in 2015. Capital items in the 2015 budget are included on a separate
exhibit.
Of the total capital spending, 96% is for current capital purchases and 4% will be used to pay a
financing obligation. From 2006 to 2011, the percentage of the capital budget used to pay debt
averaged 39%, and was as high as 50% in 2011.
The lease purchase for the acquisition and renovation of the Touber Building is the only
financing obligation remaining in the general fund. As a result of the low level of financing
obligations, citizens are now seeing a direct and current benefit from the investment of capital
dollars.
General Fund Operating Budget
A total of $5.4 million in operating revenue is budgeted for 2015. In accordance with voter
restrictions, 56% of the City’s 2% sales tax can be used for operating costs. The designation of
2A (additional 1% sales tax) revenue is for the construction, operation, maintenance and repair
of roads and other public infrastructure. A portion of those costs is classified as operating
expenditures for accounting purposes, including street repairs, striping, sweeping, plowing, and
other operating activities including planning and oversight of capital projects.
Of the $5.4 million in total
operating revenue, charges for
services are expected to be
$538,200 and will offset a
significant portion of the
swimming pool and recreation
expenditures as well as a small
portion of the City’s
administrative, public works
and public safety costs. The
gross general fund operating
expenditures are shown in the
following pie chart. (Any
revenue derived from services
provided by these departments
is not subtracted from the
expenditure categories, which
would present a net
expenditure amount.)
General fund operating expenditures are projected to increase 3% compared to the 2014
projection. Readers may wish to refer to pages xx and xx of this budget package for a summary
of costs by category and functional areas or departments.
The general fund includes $11,000 in funding for the City’s volunteer Tree Board, which is
included in the Parks department. The Tree Board is responsible for a written proposed work
plan that includes recommended practices and associated costs for the care, preservation,
trimming, planting, replanting, removal or disposition of street and park trees. The 2014 budget
included $20,000 in funding, which was significantly higher than historical levels and was raised
in order to address a backlog of trimming and removals to address hazardous situations.
External Metrics
We compared metrics from Salida’s general fund to government-fund statistics published in the
RubinBrown “2014 Public Sector Statistical Analysis” report so that readers can see how we
differ from other Colorado municipalities.
Salida Figures:
Colorado:
Actual
Actual Projected Budget
2013
2012
2013
2014
2015
Average
Tax revenue per capita
$850
$909
$931
$953
$924
Intergovernmental revenue as a percent
33.1%
24.2%
29.5%
32.1%
7.6%
Total operating expenditures per capita
$854
$927
$959 $1,010
$1,214
Total general government per capita
$163
$175
$190
$190
$260
Total public safety per capita
$415
$423
$463
$483
$374
Total interest expense per capita
$18
$11
$10
$9
$33
Debt service as a percent of revenue
2.3%
2.2%
2.1%
1.9%
6.5%
Capital outlay as a percent of expenditures 30.2%
30.3%
33.0%
39.0%
14.5%
Unrestricted fund balance to revenue
33.3%
36.4%
33.9%
30.2%
32.9%
Salida’s recent financial results and 2015 budget compare favorably to the averages in many
areas. For example:
 Salida’s tax revenue per capita exceeds the peer average despite now having a property
tax. Salida serves as a regional shopping hub for surrounding areas. Just over half of the
Chaffee County sales tax is generated within the City of Salida. For purposes of this
calculation, tax revenue includes only Salida’s municipal sales tax, along with the
occupation tax and franchise fees. Approximately one-quarter of the Chaffee County tax that
is distributed to Salida through an intergovernmental agreement and is included in
intergovernmental revenue.
 Total operating and general government costs are less than the peer average largely due to
comparative salaries of personnel and staffing levels. This could also serve as a measure of
the efficiency of the local government providing services.
 Salida spends 29% more on public safety per capital, primarily because it is one of the few
municipalities of its size to have a long-standing paid fire department serving its residents.
After factoring the intergovernmental revenue from the South Ark Fire District, which is
staffed by the Salida Fire Department, the cost per capita drops to $472.
 The much lower levels of interest expense per capita and debt service as a percentage of
revenue reflect the recent retirements of general fund debt and the council’s efforts to “pay
as you go” for the more routine capital improvements. This frees up resources to provide
current services and future capital investments for citizens.
 The comparison shows that Salida invests significantly more of its resources into capital
projects and purchases.
The general fund includes $11,000 in funding for the City’s volunteer Tree Board, which is
included in the Parks department. The Tree Board is responsible for a written proposed work
plan that includes recommended practices and associated costs for the care, preservation,
trimming, planting, replanting, removal or disposition of street and park trees. The 2014 budget
included $20,000 in funding, which was significantly higher than historical levels and was raised
in order to address a backlog of trimming and removals to address hazardous situations.
Water and Wastewater Enterprise Fund Capital Budget
System development fee revenue of $311,200 and $231,900 in the 2015 budget for the water
and sewer operations, respectively, assumes the issuance of 34 new water taps and 40 new
sewer taps.
Recently, the revenue generated from water and sewer system development and demand fees
has not been sufficient to pay for necessary upgrades or the debt service on past capital
projects. Quarterly service fees are being used to supplement revenue specifically identified for
capital needs. System development fees will increase by 2.9% as of the first of January. The
volume of new taps is predicted to remain higher than average since 2003 but still far behind the
recent peak years when some significant decisions were made to invest in assets to facilitate
future growth.
Trend data for recent sales of new taps is as follows:
Water
Sewer
2006
32
37
2007
66
69
2008
34
34
2009
17
13
2010
17
26
2011
6
8
2012
20
25
2013
24
28
2014
Projection
45
50
2015
Budget
34
40
As identified in the 2011 water system capital improvement plan, new filter media, underdrains
and troughs are needed at the City’s water treatment plant, which at over 50 years old, is one of
the oldest such facilities in Western Colorado. Due to reserves accumulated subsequent to the
2011 rate increase combined with a $1.5 million grant, this project will be completed without any
additional debt.
A full list of capital purchases and projects is included on a separate schedule.
Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund Operating Budget
A total of $1.5 million and $1.3 million in charges for services are projected in 2015 for the water
and sewer operations, respectively. The service fee revenue exceeds the amount necessary for
current operations and is needed in the capital budget. The 2015 budget includes rate increases
of 2.9% for both water and sewer services.
In recent years, the utilities code provided for 3% to 5% annual increases for water and sewer
service to cover inflation in the costs associated with providing service. In 2011, the City
determined operating revenues must be increased to cover the shortfall in development fees
historically used for capital needs and debt service. Costs for the wastewater plant upgrade had
already been anticipated in the 2008 sewer rate study and no incremental rate increase was
necessary. However, the 2011 water rate study resulted in a significant increase in water
service rates effective in July 2011. Increases from 2013 through 2015 have been contained to
percentages less than anticipated in the rate studies.
As a summary of the combined total
budget for the two operating areas
within the water and wastewater
enterprise fund, the next two charts
show the use of the total 2015
revenue, including amounts taken
from reserves.
Personnel costs are expected
to decrease for water
operations and increase for
sewer operations.
 The most significant
change in personnel costs
is being driven by how
much time public works
personnel will spend
working on maintenance
and improvement projects
for the water and sewer
systems.
 Medical insurance
premiums, a cost of living
adjustment and merit increases will increase personnel costs.
Contracted services for the water system are expected to decrease significantly in 2015
compared to 2014 and 2013.
 Although an elevated level of legal services is again included in 2015 in the Administration
budget due to issues related to the conversion of Tenassee Ditch water rights, the total 2015
budget for contracted services is less than recent years because it is anticipated that a
resolution is being reached for the water rights dispute.
Contracted services for the wastewater system are expected to decrease significantly in 2015
compared to 2014 because of the expanded scope of the annual sewer jetting contract.
SteamPlant Event Center Enterprise Fund Budget
In its seventh full year of operations as a municipal facility, the SteamPlant is expected to
generate nearly $211,000 in revenue and recover 75% of its operating costs.
Compared to the 2014 projection, personnel costs are expected to increase 7% due to more
events and, therefore, more hours worked by the event staff. In addition, the cost of living and
merit adjustments and an increase in medical costs will contribute to the increase.
The SteamPlant is expected to operate at a 75% cost recovery in 2015 compared to 80% in the
2014 projection, 77% in 2013 and 70% for 2012. The net loss to be subsidized by the general
fund is expected to be approximately $88,000, excluding funds for capital improvements.
The SteamPlant is helping draw numerous visitors to downtown Salida for destination weddings,
a variety of performing and visual arts events, small conferences, seminars and meetings. The
economic impact to local hotels, restaurants and retail stores is significant.
Conservation Trust Fund Budget
Revenue in the Conservation Trust Fund is from the state lottery proceeds, disbursed based on
population to municipalities, counties and other eligible entities. These funds may only be used
for parks, recreation, and open space purposes. Annual revenue has been approximately
$50,000 for many years. The proposed budget includes the use of current revenue to purchase
playground equipment for Marvin Park.
VIII.
Overview of City-Wide Goals, Major Initiatives and Projects
The annual City-wide goals, which were re-affirmed by the City Council, are the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Maintain and improve Salida's existing assets
Do it right and make it last
Increase pride in the community and confidence in local government
Invest in employees
Practice fiscal responsibility and manage debt responsibly while performing city services
effectively and efficiently
As the underlying basis for decisions made by City Council regarding the allocation of budget
dollars, it is important to keep in mind the key goals to be accomplished and priorities identified
in the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Ongoing priorities include continued improvement in streets and other public infrastructure, as
well as investments in tourist amenities that attract visitors to Salida and help to sustain local
businesses. Some of the major projects that will deliver upon these goals in 2015 or in the
coming years are described below:
1. Water Treatment (WTP) plant – The filter media and underdrains are both at the end of their
useful lives. CDPHE has required either significant upgrades or a new backwash system to
eliminate potential cross-contamination of the potable water entering the system. Salda’s
WTP was constructed in 1959 and utilizes a conventional treatment train. It is currently
unable to meet current water quality regulations and simultaneously produce the 4 MGD
design volume. We are able to serve the needs of the community during the winter months
with the treatment plant off-line; it must be online from mid-spring until early fall. It does not
appear possible to complete the entire project in one winter, so it has been broken it into two
phases. Completion of Phase I was in the spring of 2014 and Phase II by March of 2015.
2. Streets Improvements – In addition to the routine maintenance of streets, parks and facilities
that the Public Works department undertakes every day, the City plans to invest $1.3 million
for streets and walkway projects.
The Public Works Director maintains a five-year street plan that is updated annually to
reflect newly completed projects and any changes in priorities assigned to pending
improvement projects.
By the end of 2015 the City will have spent nearly $7 million on streets in seven years
without incurring new general fund debt and with $1.6 million of that money coming from
grants. An additional 1% sales tax revenue starting in 2009 has made a significant
difference for the City’s streets and other infrastructure needs. As measured in total miles,
69% of the city’s streets have been resurfaced over this period of time. In the previous five
years (2004‐2008) the City invested only $1.1 million in streets.
3. Sidewalks – Numerous sections of sidewalks have been heaved up by large parkway trees
or are otherwise in poor repair due to age and other types of wear and tear. A goal identified
in the Comprehensive Plan is to improve the condition of the sidewalks, and work was
begun in 2013. It will be a very costly project to fully address the issue; however, substantial
progress will continue in 2015 and subsequent years.
4. Workforce Housing – The City of Salida is requesting a Statement of Qualifications and
Interest from experienced developers or development teams who have the capacity and
expertise to develop workforce housing in Salida, CO. Specifically, the City would like to
engage developers experienced in successfully developing projects with the low income
housing tax credit program, especially with expertise in rural communities or in Colorado.
The City is targeting new ownership and rental housing for households earning between 40
and 120 percent of the AMI. There are immediate gaps in housing availability throughout
this income spectrum. With this in mind, the City anticipates that qualified developers will
provide a mix of tax-credit and market rate affordable options.
Once selected, and the developer has an option agreement, the qualified development team
will be asked to provide a formal market study to support the final number of units proposed
5. Economic Development Activities – The City provides funding and staff time for a variety of
economic activities, including oversight of the regional airport, participation in the Chaffee
County Economic Development Corporation (CCEDC) and other organizations. The
CCEDC’s goal is to facilitate the creation of living wage jobs and sustainable economic
development within the county. It is dedicated to enhancing local business and industry
opportunities by serving as a resource for businesses and individuals that are interested in
locating or expanding their enterprise in the county. With improvement achieved for internet
service bandwidth services for our area, including the City’s construction of a new
communications tower in 2013, the City is partnering with the CCEDC on workforce
development. The City continues to support Harriet Alexander Airport, in part, through sales
tax funds designated for economic development.
6. Creative District – In 2012 the City Council established a Creative District, which received
certification by the State of Colorado, according to the guidelines of House Bill 11-1031. The
City was awarded grant funding and technical assistance from the Colorado Office of
Economic Development to develop branding, marketing and funding strategies. The state’s
expectation is that each district will achieve measurable local impacts in terms of the
retention and attraction of creative enterprises and jobs, improved retail, dining and gallery
sales and continued downtown revitalization. With the Creative District distinction, the City
will work toward its vision of a self‐sustaining historic downtown core that is supported by
and energizes creative entrepreneurs, independent retail and residential development; that
promotes adaptive reuse of historic buildings; and provides a focal point for celebrating and
strengthening the community’s creative identity. The groundwork for this vision was
completed during 2013 using these grant funds and additional funds were awarded through
2015.
7. Natural Resource Center (NRC) – The concept for this project has been in development for
over ten years and was widely supported by the local community prior to its actual
execution. The NRC was intended to be a multi-agency center that would greatly improve
and consolidate visitor information services, reduce operating costs, benefit the local
economy, expand each agency’s operational capacity, promote outdoor education, provide
a public meeting and education facility, and foster interagency cooperation. It will also
provide an exemplary national model for collocating federal and state agencies. A facility for
the US Forest Service was completed and occupied in the first half of 2013.
Plans for the NRC are taking place on property known as the Vandaveer Ranch through the
Salida Natural Resource Development Corporation, a not-for-profit 63-20 corporation
created at the direction of the Salida City Council for this specific purpose. This entity now
has an expanded board to oversee further development. Additional facilities are in the
planning phases.
8. Trails & Recreation Amenities – The City will continue to invest
in recreation and arts, aided with 2B funds. Maintenance and
discrete improvements will be made at the Hot Springs Aquatic
Center and at the SteamPlant Event Center, and new
playground equipment will be purchased for another of the
City’s parks. Following completion of a special study funded in
2014, funds are budgeted to improve the appearance and
usefulness of the Scout Hut. Discussions for a major upgrade to
the Hot Springs Aquatic Center and Centennial Park are still
being considered for the longer range.
9. Hot Springs Property on Poncha Springs Pass – Since the
termination of the Boy Scouts lease, this 145-acre property in
Poncha Springs has been vacant. In recent years the City
Council has become interested in the possibility of utilizing the
geothermal source for electrical power generation. In 2010 the City received a $50,000 grant
from the Governor’s Energy Office for a Thermal Gradient Study which included assembling
existing geologic and geophysical data, conducting surface geologic mapping, the
development of a GIS database and drilling five thermal gradient holes. The purpose of the
work, completed in 2011, was to determine if a high thermal gradient anomoly exists at the
Poncha Hot Springs deposits. High thermal gradient anomolies were revealed through this
testing. These results are indicative of a potentially high temperature reservoir at depth. The
results of magnetotelluric surveying determined, based on the resistivity imaging and
companion temperature data, source areas that appeared suitable and appropriate for
commercial geothermal electrical power exploitation. The City will continue to work with the
surrounding property owners to assess the possibility of developing the hydrological
resource for energy generation.
IX.
Grant Revenue and Expenditures
Grants are a significant source of revenue to the City for the planning and execution of many
major capital projects. The following table below summarizes recent grants received including
those anticipated for the 2015 budget.
Project
Total
2015
Project
Grantor
Budget
Grant
Amount
Status
General Fund
 Salida River Trail
GOCO $ 677,700 $ 489,600 $ 489,600 Secured
 Fishing is Fun
DOW
25,000
25,000
25,000 Secured
 1911 Kissel Fire Truck
SHF
80,000
60,000
60,000 Pending
 Scout Hut Renovation
DOLA
400,000
200,000
200,000 Pending
 Outdoor Soaking Pools
GOCO
288,600
200,000
200,000 Pending
 Creative District
CCI
10,000
5,000
5,000 Secured
 Best and Brightest Intern
DOLA
70,000
35,000
4,400 Secured
Water and Wastewater Enterprise Fund
 Water Treatment Plant
DOLA
 Wastewater Treatment Plant
USDA
3,008,100
17,637,000
1,477,000
2,616,000
253,600
430,000
Secured
Secured
Just as grant revenue is an important source of one-time funds for City projects, the City
recognizes the importance of its financial support to non-governmental organizations for special
projects that supplement municipal government operations and enhance the quality of life in our
community. For those organizations and/or individual projects, the City endeavors to have
limited funding available to help promote the values and goals of the community. Generally,
funding is directed toward one-time projects rather than general operations of another entity.
City staff members feel it is important to highlight areas where we support the community by
providing financial or staff resources beyond the scope of basic municipal services. Different
views exist with respect to the role of government beyond core necessities. However, as
Salida’s 2008 Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Space Master Plan states,
There is a growing trend in the United States for public leaders to recognize that parks,
recreation, trails, open space and related “Quality of Life” amenities are not secondary
services provided by governmental agencies, but that they are integral to creating
communities where people want to live. These services should be seen as investments
in the long-term vitality and economic sustainability of any vibrant and attractive
community.
The City receives many requests from members of the public and local organizations to fund
various projects. For the 2015 budget, the City received the following requests and will provide
funding as shown below.
Requesting Organization
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Salida Business Alliance
New Caring and Sharing
The Chaffee Shuttle
Full Circle Restorative Justice
Stage Left Theater
Salida ArtWalk
Articipate
Habitat for Humanity
Salida High School
Chaffee County Verterans Services
Land Trust of the Upper Arkansas
GARNA
GARNA
GARNA
Tenderfoot Transmitting dba KHEN
Colorado Fourteeners Initiative
Absolute Bikes
Greater Salida Recreation Corp
HRRMC Foundation
SPOT
Salida Council for the Arts
Salida Circus Outreach Foundation
Salida Community Center
Salida Mountain Trails
Boys and Girls Club
Valley to Valley Senior Care Center
To be determined
Project Name
Amount
of
Total
City's
Request Project Cost Portion
$ 1,000
10,000
40,000
25%
5,000
250,000
2%
5,000
20,000
25%
4,000
5,000
80%
5,000
5,000
100%
5,000
37,970
13%
1,500
1,000
5,000
20%
1,500
15,000
10%
5,000
37,500
13%
600
600
100%
200
750
27%
550
550
100%
2,500
30,000
8%
1,000
135,000
1%
1,250
4,000
31%
6,500
6,500
100%
5,000
571,190
1%
5,000
380,000
1%
100%
4,000
4,000
5,000
11,250
44%
2,999
3,999
75%
5,000
205,000
2%
5,000
86,450
6%
5,000
14,000
36%
July 4th Celebration
Parking Lot Improvements
The Chaffee Shuttle (operations)
AAOPPS & Peer Mediation in Schools
Shakespeare in the Park
Artwalk (marketing & entertainment payroll)
Arts Education Programs in Salida
Crestone Ave - refund sewer and water tapping fees
After Prom Party
Replace area van for medical tranportation
Salida Trail Restoration
Salida Trail Restoration Project Signs
City facility fee waiver
Sewer fee at community garden (not used)
Symphonic Salida!
Sawatch Range 14ers Trail Stewardship
Ride Right, Cycle Safe
New roof
Center for Breast Health
Valley View School Rehabilitation
Follow the Arts to Salida
Summer Circus Camp 2015
Food Distribution Program
Cottonwood Trail Project
Project Learn
Van support
City facility fee waivers
Totals $ 93,599 $ 1,868,759
5%
Fund? (Yes / No)
Request Information
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Amount
of Award
Recommended
$ 1,000
3,500
1,000
800
1,000
800
500
500
800
3,500
600
500
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
500
1,000
1,500
4,500
3,000
$ 30,000
We believe it is important to objectively evaluate the requests using the approved “Projects
Priority Criteria” document and, when evaluating these requests, we must ask the right
questions to understand the problem or need to determine whether or not the proposed solution
addresses the objective in the most efficient manner.
Excluded from this list of community support are amounts
the City pays to insure the Salida Museum, Chamber of
Commerce, and Senior Center facilities and the value of
rent-free or below market lease agreements with these
organizations serving residents and visitors.
Should readers seek additional information not included in
the budget package, it may be requested from the Finance
Director or through the Deputy City Clerk at City Hall.
Also, readers may access more financial information by
visiting the City’s website. See
http://cityofsalida.com/library/financial-documents/
for annual audits, monthly sales tax reports, quarterly
financial reports and other data.
SUMMARY OF ALL CITY FUNDS
2015 Proposed Budget
Water & Wastewater Enterprise
General Fund
Revenue
City Sales Tax (for operations)
City Sales Tax (for capital)
Other City Tax & Franchise Fees
Charges for General Services
County Sales Tax
Grants
Other Intergovernmental
Recreation & Event Charges
System Fees & Related Charges
Other
Total Revenue
$
$
Expenditures
General & Administrative
Public Safety
Public Infrastructure
Plant Operations, Other
Arts and Recreation
Current Projects & Purchases
Financing - Interest
Financing - Principle
Total Expenditures
2,561,900
1,906,700
553,400
102,000
1,428,000
983,900
386,900
435,600
276,700
8,635,100
Water
$
$
1,541,100
311,200
258,500
2,110,800
Wastewater
$
$
1,292,500
231,900
437,000
1,961,400
SteamPlant
Event Center
Conservation
Trust Fund
$
$
$
233,500
27,500
261,000
$
50,000
200
50,200
Total City
$
$
2014 Current
Budget
2,561,900
1,906,700
553,400
2,935,600
1,428,000
983,900
436,900
669,100
543,100
999,900
13,018,500
$ 2,440,200
1,816,000
510,000
2,870,500
1,367,700
1,542,400
387,400
617,500
358,900
193,600
12,104,200
791,500
217,500
2,559,500
1,017,000
134,400
634,800
5,354,700
150,900
234,200
453,800
838,900
91,700
157,300
619,100
868,100
349,400
349,400
-
1,034,100
217,500
2,559,500
1,408,500
1,207,300
984,200
7,411,100
1,025,000
250,300
2,437,900
1,572,800
1,016,400
907,000
7,209,400
3,530,500
49,000
112,900
3,692,400
1,461,300
94,700
312,200
1,868,200
1,043,400
291,800
252,200
1,587,400
19,600
19,600
50,000
50,000
6,104,800
435,500
677,300
7,217,600
5,515,900
456,900
666,900
6,639,700
9,047,100
2,707,100
2,455,500
369,000
50,000
13,849,100
(1,610,200)
$ (1,744,900)
$
(412,000)
$
(596,300)
$
(494,100)
$
(108,000)
$
200
Interfund Transfers
Fees in lieu of open space reserves
Net Additions to (Uses of)
Capital or General Reserves
$
$
(108,000)
70,000
$
$
500,000
-
$
$
(500,000)
-
$
$
108,000
-
$
$
-
$
(450,000)
$
(96,300)
$
(994,100)
$
-
$
200
$
(1,540,200)
Estimated Cash Reserves
Balance at 12/31/12 (Actual)
Balance at 12/31/13 (Actual)
Balance at 12/31/14 (Projected)
Balance at 12/31/15 (Projected)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
21,825
30,900
9,399
9,399
$
$
$
$
257,353
308,900
110,953
111,153
$
$
$
$
6,221,013
7,152,300
5,712,135
4,171,935
2,588,124
2,895,400
2,495,400
2,045,400
$
$
$
$
631,071
1,310,400
507,728
411,428
$
$
$
$
2,722,640
2,606,700
2,588,655
1,594,555
$
14,628,700
Budget Year Net Surplus (Deficit)
70,000
$
$
Difference
$
9,100
0.9%
(32,800) -13.1%
121,600
5.0%
(164,300) -10.4%
190,900
18.8%
77,200
8.5%
201,700
2.8%
588,900
(21,400)
10,400
577,900
$
-
$ (1,744,900)
121,700
5.0%
90,700
5.0%
43,400
8.5%
65,100
2.3%
60,300
4.4%
(558,500) -36.2%
49,500
12.8%
51,600
8.4%
184,200
51.3%
806,300 416.5%
914,300
7.6%
10.7%
-4.7%
1.6%
8.7%
779,600
5.6%
134,700
-7.7%
70,000
$
204,700
-11.7%
$ (10,128,350) -63.4%
$
931,287
15.0%
$ (1,440,165) -20.1%
$ (1,540,200) -27.0%
2015
Proposed
Budget
GENERAL FUND
Revenues
Taxes:
City Sales Tax
Lodging Occupation Tax
Franchise Taxes and Fees
$
Charges for Services:
Planning and Zoning Fees
Public Works Charges
Fire Plans & Inspections, Response Fees
Vital Statistics, VIN Inspections & Other
Fines and Forfeits:
Court Fines
Parking Fines
Licenses and Permits:
Liquor Licenses and Permits
Other Licenses and Permits
Intergovernmental:
County Sales Tax
Cigarette Taxes
Other State Taxes
Highway Users Taxes
Motor Vehicle Registrations
County Road & Bridge
Federal Grants
State Grants
South Ark. Fire District
Charges for Recreation & Event Services:
Hot Springs Pool Fees
Soaking Pool Fees
Recreation Fees
Park Rental Fees
Miscellaneous:
Interest Revenue
Rents and Leases
Insurance Proceeds
Donations & Other
TOTAL REVENUE
$
Expenditures
Administration & General Government
Police
Fire
Public Works
Recreation & Aquatic Center
Parks & Trails
Other
Administration & General Government
Police
Fire
Public Works
Recreation & Aquatic Center
Parks & Trails
Other
Financing Obligations
Financing - Interest
Financing - Principle
4,468,600
240,000
313,400
5,022,000
2014
Projection
$
4,172,735
242,902
370,021
4,785,657
$
3,951,484
176,543
291,694
4,419,721
$
87,600
3,400
91,000
102.0%
100.0%
101.1%
101.8%
26,000
32,000
15,000
23,000
96,000
22,393
17,931
61,681
23,929
125,934
23,246
17,918
55,472
20,114
116,750
6,000
6,000
100.0%
118.8%
100.0%
100.0%
106.3%
55,000
20,000
75,000
55,000
12,000
67,000
51,655
10,237
61,891
55,062
10,525
65,587
8,000
8,000
100.0%
166.7%
111.9%
14,000
6,000
20,000
13,000
6,000
19,000
13,968
8,620
22,588
11,750
5,100
16,850
1,000
1,000
107.7%
100.0%
105.3%
1,428,000
22,000
63,000
199,900
25,000
7,000
983,900
70,000
2,798,800
1,400,000
22,000
37,000
198,400
25,000
7,000
695,500
116,000
70,000
2,570,900
1,354,142
20,818
11,727
204,336
24,950
7,023
39,022
62,642
70,000
1,794,659
1,294,766
21,791
15,169
205,595
24,507
6,870
346,595
524,726
70,000
2,510,019
340,600
20,000
59,000
16,000
435,600
314,200
17,500
32,000
14,500
378,200
315,431
17,867
29,812
13,026
376,136
10,000
31,200
140,500
181,700
10,000
26,000
10,700
46,700
3,474
24,052
178,629
57,679
263,834
8,635,100
$
8,108,800
$
7,430,699
$
28,000
26,000
1,500
(695,500)
867,900
227,900
102.0%
100.0%
170.3%
100.8%
100.0%
100.0%
292,507
17,165
32,925
17,975
360,572
26,400
2,500
27,000
1,500
57,400
108.4%
114.3%
184.4%
110.3%
115.2%
6,037
18,411
49,911
9,801
84,160
5,200
100.0%
120.0%
129,800
135,000
1313.1%
389.1%
526,300
106.5%
7,573,659
$
848.2%
100.0%
108.9%
791,500
217,500
1,604,000
955,500
742,200
634,800
274,800
134,400
5,354,700
791,600
257,800
1,538,200
926,400
596,800
576,200
290,300
208,200
5,185,500
719,470
203,267
1,404,379
824,568
622,001
587,191
255,482
264,895
4,881,253
676,656
169,107
1,314,925
840,616
564,611
549,062
219,216
108,745
4,442,938
(100)
(40,300)
65,800
29,100
145,400
58,600
(15,500)
(73,800)
169,200
100.0%
84.4%
104.3%
103.1%
124.4%
110.2%
94.7%
64.6%
103.3%
116,500
80,600
102,500
1,290,000
910,000
1,030,900
3,530,500
33,600
4,500
108,100
275,600
1,861,700
392,400
101,000
133,000
2,909,900
111,371
3,150
114,371
550,263
930,789
89,653
270,898
123,572
2,194,067
49,188
4,202
99,239
107,115
1,094,022
70,239
547,004
27,696
1,998,705
82,900
(4,500)
(27,500)
(173,100)
(571,700)
517,600
929,900
(133,000)
620,600
346.7%
0.0%
74.6%
37.2%
69.3%
231.9%
1020.7%
0.0%
121.3%
49,000
112,900
161,900
52,800
109,100
161,900
56,372
105,460
161,832
95,910
76,778
172,688
(3,800)
3,800
-
92.8%
103.5%
100.0%
$
SURPLUS / (DEFICIT)
$
(412,000)
$
Fund Balance - Beginning of Year
Interfund Transfers
Fund Balance - End of Period
$
$
$
3,472,699
(108,000)
2,952,699
$
948
32.4%
1,010
190
483
9
39.0%
1.9%
$
$
$
$
$
Variance from 2014
Projection
2012 Actual
26,000
38,000
15,000
23,000
102,000
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
KEY OPERATING METRICS
City tax revenue per capita
Intergovernmental revenue as a percentage
Total operating expenditures per capita
Total general government per capita
Total public safety per capita
Interest expense per capita
Capital outlay - percent of total expenditures
Financing obligations as a percent of revenue
4,381,000
240,000
310,000
4,931,000
2013 Actual
9,047,100
$
$
7,237,152
$
6,614,331
$
789,800
109.6%
(148,500)
$
193,547
$
959,328
$
(263,500)
277.4%
$
$
$
3,907,599
(286,400)
3,472,699
$
$
$
3,907,599
(84,400)
4,016,746
$
$
$
3,048,271
(100,000)
3,907,599
$
$
$
(434,900)
178,400
(520,000)
88.9%
37.7%
85.0%
$
937
31.7%
985
199
468
10
35.2%
2.0%
$
909
24.2%
927
175
423
11
30.3%
2.2%
$
850
33.1%
854
163
415
18
30.2%
2.3%
$
11
0.7%
25
(9)
15
(1)
3.8%
-0.1%
101.2%
102.2%
102.6%
95.5%
103.2%
92.2%
110.7%
93.9%
$
$
$
$
8,257,300
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
WATER AND WASTEWATER ENTERPRISE FUND
2015
Proposed
Budget
WATER OPERATIONS
Revenues
Service and Usage Charges
Water Lease Revenue
System Development & Meter Fees
Other Revenue
TOTAL REVENUE
$
Water System Administration
Public Works - Water
Water Plant Operations
Water System Administration
Public Works - Water
Water Plant
Capital Financing Expenditures
Debt Service - Interest
Debt Service - Principal
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES - BUDGET BASIS
FUND TRANSFERS
GAAP BASIS ADJUSTMENTS
Capital Asset Acquisitions
Depreciation Expense
NET INCOME - GAAP BASIS
CASH RESERVES - Beginning of Year
CASH RESERVES - End of Period
1,457,353
162,500
213,381
118,169
1,951,403
$
1,496,374
172,445
4,351
1,673,170
168,079
127,145
456,636
751,860
(37,300)
(20,600)
(2,300)
(60,200)
80.2%
91.9%
99.5%
93.3%
541,300
920,000
1,461,300
459,000
2,161,800
2,620,800
242,153
196,043
438,196
8,305
53,660
164,192
226,157
82,300
(1,241,800)
(1,159,500)
117.9%
42.6%
55.8%
94,700
312,200
406,900
106,100
311,800
417,900
117,876
286,302
404,178
128,887
282,246
411,133
(11,400)
400
(11,000)
89.3%
100.1%
97.4%
2,707,100
3,937,800
1,622,707
1,389,150
(1,230,700)
68.7%
$
$
$
438,196
(406,398)
286,302
646,796
225,457
(357,665)
282,246
434,058
$
$
507,178
410,878
$
$
1,310,378
507,178
$
$
2,750
430.0
34
54.0%
19.3%
2015
Proposed
Budget
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
102.4%
0.0%
93.0%
21.1%
67.3%
159,694
212,432
408,207
780,333
2,620,800
(450,000)
311,800
1,733,500
Capital Financing Expenditures
Debt Service - Interest
36,600
(67,500)
(23,500)
(969,400)
(1,023,800)
188,200
254,800
456,100
899,100
1,461,300
(500,000)
312,200
1,177,200
$
$
150,900
234,200
453,800
838,900
284,020
-
Sewer System Administration
Public Works - Sewer
Sewer Plant
Number of Customers
New Taps
$
328,696
-
Sewer System Administration
Public Works - Sewer
Sewer Plant Operations
1,504,500
67,500
334,700
1,227,900
3,134,600
Variance from 2014
Projection
2012 Actual
(803,200)
54,100
WASTEWATER OPERATIONS
FUND TRANSFERS
Capital Asset Acquisitions
Loss on Disposal of Capital Assets
$
2013 Actual
(596,300)
500,000
Number of Customers
Water Usage (millions of gallons)
New Taps
Revenues
Service and Usage Charges
Outside Septage Receiving
Lab Analysis Services
System Development Fees
Other Revenue
TOTAL REVENUE
1,541,100
311,200
258,500
2,110,800
2014
Projection
1,207,500
53,000
32,000
231,900
437,000
1,961,400
2,730
360.0
40
66.6%
13.3%
2014
Projection
$
1,185,000
53,000
32,000
244,200
464,000
1,978,200
1,008,908
1,310,378
$
$
$
2,723
423.0
24
27.0%
20.7%
2013 Actual
$
1,135,526
56,322
31,697
146,733
1,726,688
3,096,966
929,848
1,008,908
206,900
(1,159,500)
(50,000)
400
$
(556,300)
$
$
2,706
428.1
20
16.3%
24.6%
1,215,712
46,042
29,953
138,472
14,462
1,444,641
91,700
157,300
619,100
868,100
88,700
279,800
615,300
983,800
106,624
107,899
579,582
794,105
79,587
129,040
540,306
748,933
548,400
495,000
1,043,400
158,400
310,000
468,400
1,512,345
1,512,345
8,386
228,405
7,992,992
8,229,783
291,800
252,200
544,000
298,000
246,000
544,000
230,730
132,692
363,422
2,455,500
1,996,200
2,669,872
55.8%
111.1%
100.1%
67.9%
(803,200)
(96,300)
38.7%
81.0%
20
70
(6)
-12.6%
5.9%
100.7%
119.4%
85.0%
81.1%
144.6%
Variance from 2014
Projection
2012 Actual
$
74.2%
$
-
22,500
(12,300)
(27,000)
(16,800)
101.9%
100.0%
100.0%
95.0%
94.2%
99.2%
3,000
(122,500)
3,800
(115,700)
103.4%
56.2%
100.6%
88.2%
390,000
185,000
575,000
346.2%
159.7%
222.8%
(6,200)
6,200
-
97.9%
102.5%
100.0%
8,978,716
459,300
123.0%
(494,100)
(500,000)
(18,000)
100,900
427,094
(7,534,075)
-
(476,100)
-
2745.0%
$
468,400
(750,000)
246,000
47,300
$
1,512,345
(729,085)
132,692
1,343,047
$
8,229,783
(260,671)
(273,661)
161,376
$
575,000
6,200
(495,800)
222.8%
$
1,043,400
(750,000)
252,200
(448,500)
100.0%
102.5%
-948.2%
$
$
2,588,655
1,594,555
$
$
$
$
3,070,840
2,606,655
$ 12,911,112
$ 3,070,840
$
$
(18,000)
(994,100)
99.3%
61.6%
45
(5)
19.0%
0.2%
101.5%
88.9%
181.1%
100.9%
3,125
40
42.5%
27.7%
2,606,655
2,588,655
3,080
45
23.5%
27.5%
3,060
28
56.6%
11.7%
3,000
25
91.7%
0.0%
STEAMPLANT EVENT CENTER FUND
2015
Proposed
Budget
Revenues
Room Rentals
Ticket Sales / Event Sponsorships
Caterer Fee
Food Sales
Beverage Sales
Friends Support
Other
TOTAL REVENUES
$
Expenditures
Cost of Revenue
Personnel
Contracted Services
Supplies & Materials
Utilities
Other Operating Expenditures
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
GENERAL FUND TRANSFER
NET AFTER TRANSFER
$
Capital Asset Aquisitions
128,500
22,000
10,000
8,000
65,000
3,000
24,500
261,000
2014
Projection
$
141,300
23,000
8,000
20,000
73,000
42,000
21,500
328,800
2013 Actual
$
123,488
28,207
6,614
7,574
72,097
7,134
11,774
256,888
Variance from 2014
Projection
2012 Actual
$
100,285
9,232
5,997
7,453
59,717
18,323
13,330
214,337
$
(12,800)
(1,000)
2,000
(12,000)
(8,000)
(39,000)
3,000
(67,800)
90.9%
95.7%
125.0%
40.0%
89.0%
7.1%
114.0%
79.4%
28,500
246,900
3,600
10,500
32,100
27,800
19,600
369,000
70,000
231,300
4,000
13,000
32,500
18,000
91,400
460,200
48,761
216,611
6,803
11,011
30,285
22,293
2,296
338,060
31,766
197,355
12,074
13,317
29,923
19,955
1,729
306,119
(41,500)
15,600
(400)
(2,500)
(400)
9,800
(71,800)
(91,200)
40.7%
106.7%
90.0%
80.8%
98.8%
154.4%
21.4%
80.2%
(108,000)
(131,400)
(81,172)
(91,782)
82.2%
108,000
131,400
84,400
100,000
23,400
(23,400)
-
$
19,600
(60,000)
-
$
91,400
(60,000)
3,228
$
(63,761)
8,218
$
(65,100)
82.2%
-
(71,800)
-
21.4%
100.0%
$
(40,400)
$
31,400
$
(60,533)
$
(56,882)
$
(71,800)
-128.7%
$
$
9,399
9,399
$
$
9,399
9,399
$
$
9,399
30,926
$
$
1,121
9,399
$
$
-
100.0%
100.0%
(13,400)
-5%
-68%
-83%
$0
100.0%
100.0%
117.9%
93.8%
0.0%
0.0%
Number of Events
Event Hours
Operating Deficit
Operating Cost Recovery
Profit margin - beverage
Profit margin - food
Deferred revenue balance
550
2,000
(88,400)
75%
550
2,000
($75,000)
80%
68%
83%
$
$
506
1,429
(78,876)
77%
72%
38%
16,688
520
1,531
(90,053)
70%
66%
30%
$8,260
2015
Proposed
Budget
Revenues
Lottery Distribution from the State
Interest
TOTAL REVENUES
$
Expenditures
Recreation Asset Improvements
Land Acquisitions
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
50,000
200
50,200
2014
Projection
$
50,000
50,000
50,000
400
50,400
2013 Actual
$
50,000
200,000
250,000
56,939
360
57,300
Variance from 2014
Projection
2012 Actual
$
5,750
5,750
52,380
515
52,895
$
-
(200)
(200)
100.0%
50.0%
99.6%
(200,000)
(200,000)
100.0%
0.0%
20.0%
$
200
$
(199,600)
$
51,550
$
52,895
$
199,800
Fund Balance - Beginning of Year
Fund Balance - End of Period
$
$
111,153
111,353
$
$
310,753
111,153
$
$
257,353
308,903
$
$
204,458
257,353
$
$
(199,600)
200
-0.1%
35.8%
100.2%
2015 Capital Budget
Dept
Description
Government Funds - General and CTF:
Admin
Implement remote access to server
Admin
Touber Building improvements
Admin
City-wide wireless expansion
Admin
Video streaming for public meetings
Admin
A/V mixer & character generator & microphones
Police
PC Replacements (2)
Police
Body armor
Police
Two vehicles - patrol & code enforcement
Police
Pac Set Radios (portables)
Fire
Fire Station improvements and furnishings
Fire
PC Replacements (2)
Fire
Install backup power
Fire
Replace fluorescent lamps and ballasts
Fire
Kissell Restoration
Public Works
Truck route signs
Public Works
PC Replacement
Public Works
Recycling recepticles for city facilities
Public Works
Stamped concrete crosswalks
Public Works
Sidewalks
Public Works
Streets Paving Project - H Street construction
Public Works
Streets: Slurry Seal projects
Public Works
2016 project engineering
Public Works
Streets: Address drainage issues
Public Works
Streets: Rebuild projects
Public Works
Building energy efficiency projects
Public Works
Grader tires (routine replacement)
Public Works
Pressure washer
Public Works
School street light
Parks&Trails
Picnic tables (12)
Parks&Trails
Trail behind Touber Building to Sand Lake
Parks&Trails
Trail amenity
Parks&Trails
Scout Hut renovation
Parks&Trails
Mower - 60" deck
Parks&Trails
Timers for gates at Dog Park (2 @ $5k each)
Parks&Trails
Alpine Park - diagonal walkway
Parks&Trails
Playground upgrades for Marvin Park (CTF)
Parks&Trails
Boatramp restrooms lift station
Recreation
Lights in pool area
Recreation
Sand replacement for both filters
Recreation
PC Replacement
Recreation
Outdoor pools
Recreation
Restrooms on east side for tennis court
Recreation
Exterior painting
Recreation
Locker rooms
Recreation
Grate replacement around lap pool & warm pool
Recreation
Indoor slide
Recreation
Replace chlorinators
Recreation
Pump replacement
Recreation
Upgrade phone system
Recreation
Tennis courts
SteamPlant
PC Replacements (2)
SteamPlant
Carpet for annex
SteamPlant
Carpet for ballroom
SteamPlant
Remodel women's restroom in lobby
Water and Wastewater Enterprise
PW-Water
New water line on H Street from 8th to 16th
PW-Water
Replace failed valves (12)
PW-Water
Safety gear for employees working in confined spaces
PW-Water
Replace fire hydrants (4)
PW-Water
Tremble update
Water Plant
Treatment plant upgrade - Phase II
Water Plant
Windows
Water Plant
Motors & pumps
Water Plant
Replace little blue pickup truck
Water Plant
Backwash pond improvements
Water Plant
Design of disinfection compliance monitoring improvements
PW-Sewer
PW-Sewer
PW-Sewer
PW-Sewer
Sewer Plant
Sewer Plant
Sewer Plant
Sewer Plant
Line replacement
Sewer line east of Longfellow
Safety gear for employees working in confined spaces
Tremble update
Plant upgrade: water line extension
Replacement tools & pumps
Lawn mower
Pickup truck
Totals
Project or Asset Offsetting Grants &
Cost
Contributions
Net Cost for City
4,500
89,000
6,500
6,500
10,000
2,600
2,800
69,000
6,200
11,300
2,600
6,600
2,000
80,000
4,000
1,300
5,000
24,000
130,000
780,000
65,700
50,000
20,000
191,000
1,000
10,000
5,000
3,000
12,300
559,600
25,000
400,000
9,000
12,000
6,500
50,000
6,500
4,000
2,700
1,300
288,600
25,000
15,000
420,000
6,200
8,400
6,300
6,000
6,500
120,000
3,580,500
2,600
6,000
6,000
5,000
19,600
490,800
12,000
7,500
20,000
5,000
865,000
6,000
10,000
25,000
5,000
15,000
1,461,300
500,000
35,900
7,500
5,000
430,000
10,000
15,000
40,000
1,043,400
6,104,800
72,500
489,600
25,000
200,000
3,000
200,000
4,000
120,000
1,114,100
-
4,500
89,000
6,500
6,500
10,000
2,600
2,800
69,000
6,200
11,300
2,600
6,600
2,000
7,500
4,000
1,300
5,000
24,000
130,000
780,000
65,700
50,000
20,000
191,000
1,000
10,000
5,000
3,000
12,300
70,000
200,000
9,000
9,000
6,500
50,000
6,500
4,000
2,700
1,300
88,600
21,000
15,000
420,000
6,200
8,400
6,300
6,000
6,500
2,466,400
2,600
6,000
6,000
5,000
19,600
430,000
490,800
12,000
7,500
20,000
5,000
611,450
6,000
10,000
25,000
5,000
15,000
1,207,750
500,000
35,900
7,500
5,000
10,000
15,000
40,000
613,400
1,797,650
4,307,150
253,550
253,550
430,000
FINANCING OBLIGATIONS ROLLFORWARD
2014 Payments
Fund
Year
Description / Purpose
Issued
General Fund:
2008 Acquisition of Touber Building
2008 Renovation of Touber Building
Water Fund:
2001 Engineering High Zone 1MG Water
Tank
2007 High Zone Water Tank, Transmission
Lines and Refinancing $1.48 million
1996 bonds
2011 New roof and liner for Galleries Water
Tank; Replace aging distribution lines;
Tenderfoot Water Tank improvements
Sewer Fund:
2013 Major Upgrade of the Wastewater
Treatment Facility *
2013 Treatment Facililty Upgrade - Second
USDA Financing Schedule
Interest Payments
Rate
Due
3.4%
3.4%
Monthly
Monthly
Original
Amount
12/31/13
Balance
Principle
Interest
2015 Payments
12/31/14
Balance
Principle
Interest
2016 Payments
12/31/15
Balance
Principle
Interest
12/31/16
Balance
$
875,000
1,100,000
$
713,677
886,908
$ 49,205
59,897
$ 23,503
29,227
$
664,472
827,011
$ 50,904
61,965
$ 21,804
27,159
$
613,568
765,046
$ 52,663
64,105
$ 20,046
27,159
$
Subtotals by Fund $
1,975,000
$
1,600,585
$ 109,102
$ 52,730
$
1,491,484
$ 112,870
$ 48,962
$ 1,378,614
$ 116,768
$ 47,205
$ 1,261,846
175,000
$
90,760
$
$
$
81,255
$
$
$
71,275
$ 10,479
$
$
1,945,000
300,000
79,562
449,625
27,250
-
5.0%
Sept
3.75% 4.25%
Dec
0.0%
May, Nov
$
9,504
3,940,000
2,495,000
275,000
545,000
504,125
27,250
4,538
101,563
-
9,980
4,063
2,220,000
275,000
90,563
476,875
27,250
-
3,564
560,905
700,941
60,796
1,645,000
422,375
Subtotals by Fund $
4,660,000
$
3,089,885
$ 311,754
$ 106,100
$
2,778,130
$ 312,230
$ 94,625
$ 2,465,900
$ 337,729
$ 83,126
$ 2,128,171
2.5%
Mar, Sep
6,000,000
$
5,934,423
$ 121,939
$ 147,747
$
5,812,484
$ 125,006
$ 144,679
$ 5,687,478
$ 126,665
$ 139,894
$ 5,560,812
2.5%
Mar, Sep
6,036,278
124,032
150,283
5,912,246
127,152
147,163
5,785,094
131,836
131,836
5,653,258
$
6,103,000
Subtotals by Fund $ 12,103,000
$
11,970,700
$ 245,971
$ 298,029
$
11,724,730
$ 252,158
$ 291,842
$ 11,472,571
$ 258,502
$ 271,730
$ 11,214,070
TOTALS $ 18,738,000
$
16,661,170
$ 666,827
$ 456,860
$
15,994,343
$ 677,258
$ 435,429
$ 15,317,086
$ 712,999
$ 402,061
$ 14,604,087
* NOTE: Balances assume an accelerated payment schedule for the USDA loan
Budget Worksheet
Group Summary
City of Salida, CO
For Fiscal: 2015 Period Ending: 12/31/2015
Defined Budgets
2013
Total Budget
2013
Total Activity
2014
Total Budget
2014
Total Activity
2015
Total Budget
2015
YTD Activity
Fund: 10 - GENERAL FUND
Revenue
Department: 00 - General Revenue
40 - Tax Revenue
41 - Fees for General Services
44 - Intergovernmental Revenue
45 - Fees for Recreation & Event Services
48 - Capital Revenue
49 - Miscellaneous Revenue
50 - Direct Cost of Revenue
Department: 00 - General Revenue Total:
4,652,600.00
5,000.00
1,753,700.00
0.00
228,300.00
41,700.00
0.00
6,681,300.00
4,785,657.43
5,674.75
1,724,679.45
0.00
209,027.33
36,244.05
0.00
6,761,283.01
4,931,000.00
5,000.00
2,500,900.00
0.00
700.00
36,000.00
0.00
7,473,600.00
3,254,521.56
5,373.20
1,350,072.36
0.00
1,511.50
33,093.33
0.00
4,644,571.95
5,022,000.00
5,000.00
2,728,800.00
0.00
135,500.00
41,200.00
0.00
7,932,500.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Department: 15 - Administration & Elected Officials
43 - Licenses and Permits
Department: 15 - Administration & Elected Officials Total:
18,000.00
21,400.00
39,400.00
15,514.50
22,588.00
38,102.50
18,000.00
19,000.00
37,000.00
15,881.60
22,017.50
37,899.10
18,000.00
20,000.00
38,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Department: 16 - Community Development
Department: 16 - Community Development Total:
30,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
30,000.00
22,393.14
0.00
0.00
18,000.00
40,393.14
26,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
26,000.00
13,878.00
0.00
0.00
6,000.00
19,878.00
26,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
26,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Department: 21 - Police Total:
0.00
67,000.00
0.00
0.00
67,000.00
2,740.00
61,891.23
0.00
363.00
64,994.23
0.00
67,000.00
0.00
0.00
67,000.00
2,611.55
44,667.30
0.00
0.00
47,278.85
0.00
75,000.00
0.00
0.00
75,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Department: 22 - Fire Total:
40,000.00
70,000.00
0.00
5,000.00
115,000.00
61,680.56
70,000.00
0.00
200.00
131,880.56
15,000.00
70,000.00
5,000.00
5,000.00
95,000.00
7,537.04
35,000.00
0.00
4,476.06
47,013.10
15,000.00
70,000.00
0.00
5,000.00
90,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Categor…
Department: 21 - Police
42 - Fines & Forfeitures
Department: 22 - Fire
10/30/2014 3:31:19 PM
Page 1 of 11
Budget Worksheet
Defined Budgets
2013
Total Budget
2013
Total Activity
2014
Total Budget
2014
Total Activity
2015
Total Budget
2015
YTD Activity
Department: 30 - Public Works Total:
32,000.00
32,000.00
17,930.59
17,930.59
32,000.00
32,000.00
20,725.15
20,725.15
38,000.00
38,000.00
0.00
0.00
Department: 51 - Pool & Recreation
Department: 51 - Pool & Recreation Total:
372,300.00
0.00
372,300.00
376,135.29
0.00
376,135.29
378,200.00
0.00
378,200.00
334,158.44
750.00
334,908.44
435,600.00
0.00
435,600.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Department: 56 - Other Total:
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Categor…
Department: 30 - Public Works
Department: 56 - Other
Revenue Total:
7,337,000.00
7,430,719.32
8,108,800.00
5,152,274.59
8,635,100.00
0.00
Expense
51 - Personnel
52 - Contracted Services
53 - Supplies & Materials
54 - Utilities
55 - Other Operating Costs
56 - Financing Obligations
58 - Depreciation, Amortization & Loss on Disposal
59 - Budgetary Capital Expenditures ($500 - $4,999)
60 - Capital Purchases & Improvements ($5,000 +)
362,600.00
196,500.00
10,500.00
23,300.00
174,300.00
161,900.00
0.00
48,300.00
68,500.00
1,045,900.00
350,214.16
173,751.85
6,512.41
23,284.16
165,707.71
161,832.00
0.00
53,989.85
57,381.05
992,673.19
389,900.00
215,700.00
7,500.00
25,400.00
153,100.00
161,900.00
0.00
3,600.00
30,000.00
987,100.00
313,484.64
169,509.26
6,060.17
15,904.46
114,541.97
94,403.00
0.00
5,671.40
0.00
719,574.90
399,400.00
179,000.00
7,500.00
24,900.00
180,700.00
161,900.00
0.00
5,500.00
111,000.00
1,069,900.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Department: 16 - Community Development
51 - Personnel
54 - Utilities
Department: 16 - Community Development Total:
159,700.00
41,400.00
1,100.00
100.00
12,300.00
0.00
3,500.00
0.00
218,100.00
158,160.18
36,198.71
990.32
0.00
7,917.75
0.00
3,150.00
0.00
206,416.96
174,500.00
61,400.00
2,100.00
100.00
19,700.00
0.00
4,500.00
0.00
262,300.00
134,055.55
10,220.71
515.08
0.00
16,784.32
0.00
4,737.76
0.00
166,313.42
184,200.00
16,400.00
2,100.00
100.00
14,700.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
217,500.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,224,200.00
97,700.00
63,000.00
25,900.00
27,200.00
0.00
1,201,070.60
94,923.82
53,479.46
26,449.38
28,456.24
0.00
1,225,800.00
189,100.00
63,100.00
26,700.00
33,500.00
0.00
898,639.29
141,375.91
37,700.19
22,105.84
32,908.98
0.00
1,288,200.00
196,000.00
59,800.00
28,800.00
31,200.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Department: 21 - Police
51 - Personnel
54 - Utilities
10/30/2014 3:31:19 PM
Page 2 of 11
Budget Worksheet
Defined Budgets
Categor…
2013
Total Budget
2013
Total Activity
2014
Total Budget
2014
Total Activity
2015
Total Budget
2015
YTD Activity
Department: 21 - Police Total:
38,800.00
76,100.00
1,552,900.00
40,733.91
73,637.01
1,518,750.42
9,300.00
98,800.00
1,646,300.00
5,827.40
84,987.75
1,223,545.36
5,400.00
75,200.00
1,684,600.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Department: 22 - Fire
51 - Personnel
54 - Utilities
Department: 22 - Fire Total:
787,300.00
17,500.00
31,800.00
3,800.00
35,300.00
0.00
26,000.00
538,700.00
1,440,400.00
765,050.57
11,309.75
24,382.51
4,289.76
19,534.46
0.00
17,791.31
532,472.28
1,374,830.64
790,200.00
62,400.00
32,100.00
3,800.00
37,900.00
0.00
15,100.00
260,500.00
1,202,000.00
627,381.25
23,068.54
18,511.19
3,709.60
24,184.34
0.00
9,007.94
152,507.60
858,370.46
843,700.00
37,400.00
32,700.00
3,800.00
37,900.00
0.00
13,900.00
88,600.00
1,058,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
51 - Personnel
54 - Utilities
351,600.00
16,700.00
68,900.00
113,000.00
36,800.00
0.00
14,000.00
957,800.00
1,558,800.00
362,486.11
16,976.51
78,723.02
126,806.41
37,008.58
0.00
14,216.89
916,572.46
1,552,789.98
338,300.00
21,400.00
64,100.00
116,500.00
56,500.00
0.00
23,400.00
1,838,300.00
2,458,500.00
286,597.43
16,420.80
48,362.62
99,461.15
42,343.59
0.00
13,353.54
848,875.06
1,355,414.19
472,300.00
16,800.00
54,100.00
131,000.00
68,000.00
0.00
7,300.00
1,282,700.00
2,032,200.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Department: 51 - Pool & Recreation
51 - Personnel
54 - Utilities
Department: 51 - Pool & Recreation Total:
10,000.00
385,800.00
42,400.00
38,200.00
85,000.00
67,400.00
0.00
7,000.00
169,000.00
804,800.00
9,661.59
368,254.29
39,439.61
33,004.42
80,292.23
56,538.99
0.00
32,239.93
57,413.00
676,844.06
10,000.00
383,300.00
23,400.00
34,400.00
79,500.00
45,600.00
0.00
6,400.00
386,000.00
968,600.00
9,702.08
291,849.91
20,172.91
21,233.91
54,255.17
32,143.64
0.00
-3,677.38
255,189.72
680,869.96
10,000.00
423,500.00
22,500.00
37,300.00
71,900.00
69,600.00
0.00
8,000.00
902,000.00
1,544,800.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Department: 54 - Parks, Open Space & Trails
51 - Personnel
54 - Utilities
157,000.00
5,200.00
10,400.00
72,200.00
39,600.00
136,878.72
2,012.86
16,566.18
67,040.59
32,984.14
154,500.00
12,300.00
24,500.00
69,500.00
29,500.00
122,186.97
4,592.70
23,658.86
60,011.13
13,917.15
183,500.00
2,300.00
19,000.00
49,500.00
20,500.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10/30/2014 3:31:19 PM
Page 3 of 11
Budget Worksheet
Defined Budgets
2013
Total Budget
2013
Total Activity
2014
Total Budget
2014
Total Activity
2015
Total Budget
2015
YTD Activity
Department: 54 - Parks, Open Space & Trails Total:
0.00
0.00
301,800.00
586,200.00
0.00
29,763.64
241,134.04
526,380.17
0.00
3,000.00
98,000.00
391,300.00
0.00
2,829.81
20,645.53
247,842.15
0.00
12,300.00
1,018,600.00
1,305,700.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Department: 56 - Other
54 - Utilities
70 - Transfers In / Out
Department: 56 - Other Total:
132,400.00
0.00
10,900.00
146,300.00
0.00
0.00
180,000.00
0.00
469,600.00
114,055.14
39.62
11,242.94
139,556.71
0.00
7,794.32
115,778.20
84,400.00
472,866.93
57,400.00
0.00
10,000.00
140,800.00
0.00
13,000.00
120,000.00
0.00
341,200.00
29,535.00
0.00
6,468.76
120,891.97
0.00
1,900.00
35,400.92
0.00
194,196.65
40,400.00
0.00
12,000.00
82,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
134,400.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Department: 99 - Master Chart of Accts (non posting/inactive)
Department: 99 - Master Chart of Accts (non posting/inactive) Total:
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Expense Total:
7,676,700.00
7,321,552.35
8,257,300.00
5,446,127.09
9,047,100.00
0.00
Fund: 10 - GENERAL FUND Surplus (Deficit):
-339,700.00
109,166.97
-148,500.00
-293,852.50
-412,000.00
0.00
Categor…
10/30/2014 3:31:19 PM
Page 4 of 11
Budget Worksheet
Defined Budgets
2013
Total Budget
2013
Total Activity
2014
Total Budget
2014
Total Activity
2015
Total Budget
2015
YTD Activity
Fund: 20 - WATER FUND
Revenue
1,618,500.00
10,000.00
223,000.00
7,000.00
1,858,500.00
1,634,698.94
89,899.32
218,538.33
8,266.62
1,951,403.21
1,572,000.00
1,222,900.00
334,700.00
5,000.00
3,134,600.00
1,236,917.71
259,978.98
372,123.90
8,178.62
1,877,199.21
1,541,100.00
253,500.00
311,200.00
5,000.00
2,110,800.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Categor…
Revenue Total:
1,858,500.00
1,951,403.21
3,134,600.00
1,877,199.21
2,110,800.00
0.00
Expense
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
51 - Personnel
67,900.00
124,500.00
4,000.00
3,200.00
0.00
0.00
199,600.00
64,187.38
91,086.34
1,324.24
3,096.51
3,371.08
0.00
163,065.55
72,300.00
110,100.00
2,000.00
3,800.00
0.00
0.00
188,200.00
56,633.79
90,531.58
396.72
3,094.51
0.00
0.00
150,656.60
74,000.00
70,400.00
2,000.00
4,500.00
0.00
0.00
150,900.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
51 - Personnel
54 - Utilities
148,900.00
10,500.00
13,600.00
0.00
24,000.00
378,200.00
0.00
142,000.00
717,200.00
167,831.59
10,515.61
8,605.18
194.15
25,285.45
117,875.54
248,438.39
0.00
578,745.91
216,100.00
0.00
16,500.00
0.00
22,200.00
390,600.00
0.00
459,000.00
1,104,400.00
129,003.09
93.33
8,838.46
0.00
22,353.72
55,319.22
0.00
267,853.01
483,460.83
195,500.00
0.00
16,500.00
0.00
22,200.00
379,600.00
0.00
535,300.00
1,149,100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Department: 34 - Water Plant
51 - Personnel
54 - Utilities
239,400.00
92,000.00
55,400.00
39,000.00
84,400.00
27,300.00
0.00
0.00
242,463.68
27,944.84
29,903.93
34,773.96
73,120.45
0.00
154,588.78
0.00
247,100.00
38,200.00
48,200.00
37,000.00
85,600.00
27,300.00
0.00
0.00
198,114.76
10,223.14
30,130.13
34,423.04
77,735.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
250,700.00
28,200.00
53,200.00
37,400.00
84,300.00
27,300.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10/30/2014 3:31:19 PM
Page 5 of 11
Budget Worksheet
Defined Budgets
Categor…
2013
Total Budget
2013
Total Activity
2014
Total Budget
2014
Total Activity
2015
Total Budget
2015
YTD Activity
Department: 34 - Water Plant Total:
676,000.00
1,213,500.00
0.00
562,795.64
2,161,800.00
2,645,200.00
990,719.98
1,341,346.11
926,000.00
1,407,100.00
0.00
0.00
Expense Total:
2,130,300.00
1,304,607.10
3,937,800.00
1,975,463.54
2,707,100.00
0.00
Fund: 20 - WATER FUND Surplus (Deficit):
-271,800.00
646,796.11
-803,200.00
-98,264.33
-596,300.00
0.00
10/30/2014 3:31:19 PM
Page 6 of 11
Budget Worksheet
Defined Budgets
2013
Total Budget
2013
Total Activity
2014
Total Budget
2014
Total Activity
2015
Total Budget
2015
YTD Activity
Fund: 21 - WASTEWATER FUND
Revenue
1,244,000.00
2,751,000.00
140,000.00
16,000.00
4,151,000.00
1,232,159.92
1,715,356.31
146,733.00
2,717.16
3,096,966.39
1,270,000.00
435,000.00
244,200.00
29,000.00
1,978,200.00
936,163.76
135,000.00
267,366.04
32,663.66
1,371,193.46
1,292,500.00
420,000.00
231,900.00
7,000.00
1,951,400.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Categor…
Revenue Total:
4,151,000.00
3,096,966.39
1,978,200.00
1,371,193.46
1,951,400.00
0.00
Expense
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
51 - Personnel
67,900.00
33,000.00
1,500.00
3,200.00
0.00
0.00
105,600.00
73,653.76
28,627.47
1,061.17
3,281.90
838.62
0.00
107,462.92
72,300.00
10,600.00
2,000.00
3,800.00
0.00
0.00
88,700.00
57,855.37
5,439.00
396.72
3,297.09
0.00
0.00
66,988.18
74,000.00
11,200.00
2,000.00
4,500.00
0.00
0.00
91,700.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
51 - Personnel
54 - Utilities
55,900.00
6,000.00
6,100.00
0.00
61,100.00
0.00
0.00
200,000.00
329,100.00
52,328.19
1,196.17
8,010.80
0.00
46,363.82
0.00
68,003.31
0.00
175,902.29
73,200.00
6,000.00
9,600.00
0.00
191,000.00
0.00
0.00
158,400.00
438,200.00
49,137.14
4,558.03
2,765.37
0.00
112,926.88
0.00
0.00
38,118.80
207,506.22
81,300.00
10,500.00
9,500.00
0.00
56,000.00
0.00
0.00
548,400.00
705,700.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Department: 35 - Wastewater Plant
51 - Personnel
54 - Utilities
304,500.00
7,000.00
37,800.00
114,400.00
71,900.00
271,500.00
0.00
0.00
307,122.51
9,300.29
62,945.84
115,843.25
84,369.24
230,730.00
660,243.49
0.00
312,200.00
11,400.00
40,600.00
139,700.00
111,400.00
544,000.00
0.00
0.00
252,448.66
10,173.65
36,830.65
115,478.94
126,432.29
298,829.32
0.00
0.00
314,400.00
15,800.00
49,600.00
142,700.00
96,600.00
544,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10/30/2014 3:31:19 PM
Page 7 of 11
Budget Worksheet
Defined Budgets
Categor…
2013
Total Budget
2013
Total Activity
2014
Total Budget
2014
Total Activity
2015
Total Budget
2015
YTD Activity
Department: 35 - Wastewater Plant Total:
2,776,000.00
3,583,100.00
0.00
1,470,554.62
310,000.00
1,469,300.00
164,284.62
1,004,478.13
485,000.00
1,648,100.00
0.00
0.00
Expense Total:
4,017,800.00
1,753,919.83
1,996,200.00
1,278,972.53
2,445,500.00
0.00
Fund: 21 - WASTEWATER FUND Surplus (Deficit):
133,200.00
1,343,046.56
-18,000.00
92,220.93
-494,100.00
0.00
10/30/2014 3:31:19 PM
Page 8 of 11
Budget Worksheet
Defined Budgets
2013
Total Budget
2013
Total Activity
2014
Total Budget
2014
Total Activity
2015
Total Budget
2015
YTD Activity
228,100.00
1,000.00
229,100.00
255,771.83
1,116.60
256,888.43
326,800.00
2,000.00
328,800.00
210,969.22
0.00
210,969.22
259,000.00
2,000.00
261,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Department: 40 - Event Center Total:
0.00
0.00
84,400.00
84,400.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Revenue Total:
229,100.00
341,288.43
328,800.00
210,969.22
261,000.00
0.00
Expense
42,500.00
42,500.00
48,760.65
48,760.65
70,000.00
70,000.00
58,806.81
58,806.81
28,500.00
28,500.00
0.00
0.00
Department: 40 - Event Center
51 - Personnel
54 - Utilities
Department: 40 - Event Center Total:
204,000.00
6,000.00
10,600.00
29,000.00
19,000.00
0.00
2,400.00
0.00
271,000.00
216,611.32
6,803.28
11,011.35
30,284.94
22,292.50
63,761.22
2,295.71
0.00
353,060.32
231,300.00
4,000.00
13,000.00
32,500.00
18,000.00
0.00
11,800.00
79,600.00
390,200.00
184,191.67
2,931.84
9,680.13
26,504.46
17,648.48
0.00
2,684.75
0.00
243,641.33
246,900.00
3,600.00
10,500.00
32,100.00
27,800.00
0.00
2,600.00
17,000.00
340,500.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Expense Total:
313,500.00
401,820.97
460,200.00
302,448.14
369,000.00
0.00
Fund: 26 - STEAMPLANT EVENT CENTER FUND Surplus (Deficit):
-84,400.00
-60,532.54
-131,400.00
-91,478.92
-108,000.00
0.00
Categor…
Fund: 26 - STEAMPLANT EVENT CENTER FUND
Revenue
Department: 40 - Event Center
70 - Transfers In / Out
10/30/2014 3:31:19 PM
Page 9 of 11
Budget Worksheet
Defined Budgets
2013
Total Budget
2013
Total Activity
2014
Total Budget
2014
Total Activity
2015
Total Budget
2015
YTD Activity
Fund: 30 - CONSERVATION TRUST FUND
Revenue
50,000.00
100.00
50,100.00
56,939.30
360.46
57,299.76
50,000.00
400.00
50,400.00
39,122.16
131.07
39,253.23
50,000.00
200.00
50,200.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Revenue Total:
50,100.00
57,299.76
50,400.00
39,253.23
50,200.00
0.00
Expense
Department: 54 - Parks, Open Space & Trails
Department: 54 - Parks, Open Space & Trails Total:
0.00
0.00
0.00
200,000.00
200,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5,750.00
5,750.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
250,000.00
250,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
193,070.24
193,070.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
50,000.00
50,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Categor…
Expense Total:
200,000.00
5,750.00
250,000.00
193,070.24
50,000.00
0.00
Fund: 30 - CONSERVATION TRUST FUND Surplus (Deficit):
-149,900.00
51,549.76
-199,600.00
-153,817.01
200.00
0.00
Report Surplus (Deficit):
-712,600.00
2,090,026.86
-1,300,700.00
-545,191.83
-1,610,200.00
0.00
10/30/2014 3:31:19 PM
Page 10 of 11
Budget Worksheet
Fund Summary
Defined Budgets
Fund
10 - GENERAL FUND
20 - WATER FUND
21 - WASTEWATER FUND
26 - STEAMPLANT EVENT CENTER FUND
30 - CONSERVATION TRUST FUND
Report Surplus (Deficit):
10/30/2014 3:31:19 PM
2013
Total Budget
2013
Total Activity
2014
Total Budget
2014
Total Activity
2015
Total Budget
2015
YTD Activity
-339,700.00
-271,800.00
133,200.00
-84,400.00
-149,900.00
-712,600.00
109,166.97
646,796.11
1,343,046.56
-60,532.54
51,549.76
2,090,026.86
-148,500.00
-803,200.00
-18,000.00
-131,400.00
-199,600.00
-1,300,700.00
-293,852.50
-98,264.33
92,220.93
-91,478.92
-153,817.01
-545,191.83
-412,000.00
-596,300.00
-494,100.00
-108,000.00
200.00
-1,610,200.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Page 11 of 11
CIT
TY COUNC
CIL AGEN
NDA ITEM
MEETIN
NG DATE:
No
ovember 4, 2014
AGEND
DA ITEM TITLE:
Citty Administraator Report
PRESEN
NTED BY:
Daara MacDonaald, City Adm
ministrator
Urban Deer
D
The Coun
ncil had recently directed
d staff to purssue the recom
mmendation of the Urban
n Deer Taskk
Force forr sterilization
n or birth con
ntrol for Salid
da’s deer poppulation. Thhe Council heeard from Jim
m
Aragon of
o Colorado Parks
P
and Wiildlife that th
he Colorado P
Parks and W
Wildlife is not interested in
n
working with
w Salida to
o treat the deeer in this maanner.
Attached are the recommendation
ns from the Urban
U
Deer T
Task Force aand the resultts of the
Commun
nity Survey th
hat were both
h previously presented too the Councill. Also attach
hed is the
presentattion made byy former task force memb
ber Bob Privee on August 5th. Staff is llooking for
direction on what, if any,
a action th
he Council would
w
like thee staff to pursue on this m
matter.
Madison
n House Preesents – music festival, August 20155
The City has been app
proached by Madison Ho
ouse Presentss, the organizzers of a largge music festiival,
about bringing an eveent to Salida in
i August, 20015. They w
were referred to Salida by Governor
Hickenlooper who haas been in touuch with Mayyor Dickson on the matteer.
The organ
nizers were in
i Salida Octtober 7th for the first tim e and visitedd several prop
perties in theeir
process of
o site selectio
on. Needless to say they were very im
mpressed withh our comm
munity and feeel it
would bee a great fit fo
or their eventt. In particullar they woulld be interestted in possib
bly using a larrge
portion of
o the Vandavveer Ranch as
a a venue for the event inncluding parrking, campin
ng, facilities aand
the main music venuee.
They a ho
osting an info
ormational meeting
m
with the public onn Monday, N
November 3rdd to present ttheir
ideas to th
he communiity and answeer questions.
In total th
hey generallyy need about 160 acres for the festivall which attraccts approxim
mately 30,000
people fo
or a 2-3 day period
p
(Thurssday - Saturd
day). They arre self-contaiined in the seense that theyy
provide all
a of their ow
wn logistics, infrastructure
i
e, traffic conntrol, permittiing, funding and supportt
staff. Th
hey do utilize volunteers from
f
the com
mmunity but do not ask foor funding frrom the
communiity. In fact, they
t
work wiith the comm
munity to leavve behind soome beneficiaal improvemeent
whether that
t be an artt piece, infrastructure pro
oject or otherr improvemeent. Their evvents also foccus
on workin
ng with the local
l
commuunity as much
h as possible to utilize loccal services in
ncluding beerr,
food and support servvices.
Administrator
A
Reeport 11.04.14,, Page 1 of 3
Due to the large numbers of people in attendance, camping is a big part of the event and they would
basically create a small village for the festival complete with showers, bathrooms, general stores,
food vendors, medical services, etc. One of the goals of the event is to integrate with the town as
much as possible. As such they provide free transportation from the main venue to
downtown. They would also be interested in hosting music at Riverside Park or SteamPlant on
Thursday evening and Friday afternoon for example to showcase downtown and bring visitors to
the center of town to shop, eat and recreate.
The most important element for the organizers of the event is that the community wants them to be
there. While they recognize there are always detractors and hurdles, they feel strongly that it will
only be successful if the broader community is on-board.
The following video is an example of a similar festival they organized in Virginia. The video was
produced by the Virginia Tourism Office: http://youtu.be/u_vqg_hqimI. The organizers would
prefer not to publicly announce the headliner band at this time but can say that it will be a Mumford
& Sons or that type of genre band.
This is a one-time event. Madison House Presents typically organizes four of these events each year
in North America with the location changing each year. They will be providing us with references
from other communities so we can verify their experiences, both positive and negative.
The organizers are almost finished scouting sites and would like to make their decision to present to
the headlining/organizing band in early November.
At this time, Madison House Presents would like direction from the City Council on whether or not
this event is something we would like in Salida and whether or not the Council would be amenable
to the possible use of Vandaveer Ranch to accommodate all, or a portion of, the event. If the
Council expresses an interest in moving forward with the event there will be a number of formal
agreements and permits to be approved in the future.
Initiative Petition
In light of the initiative petition which has been submitted, I would suggest that the November 17th
work session be devoted to discussion of the proposed ordinance and implications if the Council
were to adopt or the voters were to approve. The Clerk is working on their examination of the
petitions and will issue a statement of sufficiency or insufficiency by November 20th. If the petitions
are found to be sufficient the question will be brought before the Council for consideration shortly
thereafter.
I would like to suggest that members of the Council take time to meet with myself, Jan Schmidt and
Treasurer Brown-Kovacic in advance of the November 17th work session to discuss possible areas to
cut in the operating budget should the petition be adopted by Council or approved by the voters.
Staff can help prepare members of Council for an informed discussion with the full Council on
November 17th.
Upcoming Meetings & Events:
November 7th – AHRA 25th Anniversary celebration, SteamPlant, the celebration begins at 10:30
with speeches to begin at noon
November 7th – BLM discussion, Scout Hut, 2:00 – 3:30
Administrator Report 11.04.14, Page 2 of 3
November 11th – Veteran’s Day, city offices closed
November 17th – Council work session, 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers
November 28th – Parade of Lights
December 6th – Employee holiday party
January 28th – Quarterly Intergovernmental meeting, Salida hosting, SteamPlant
Administrator Report 11.04.14, Page 3 of 3
10/30/2014
Salida Urban Deer Task Force
Recommendations
Members:
Jane Elmore Monica Hutson
Dale Hoffman Susan Williams
Bob Prive
Katy Grether
Jim Elmore Monika Griesenback
Consulting Guests:
Jim Aragon – Colorado Parks and Wildlife Dara McDonald – City Administrator
• Mission
– Response to Debate regarding Urban Deer Herd • Research Current Urban Deer Herd Situation
• Provide 3‐4 Recommendations
–Pro’s, Cons, Cost of Implementation
–Include the Option of “Do Nothing”
1
10/30/2014
• Meeting History
– Regular Meetings on Monday Evening
• Understanding of Deer Habits and Dynamics
• Understanding of Public Sentiment Urban Deer
• Understanding of Colorado Parks and Wildlife Policies (Special thanks to Jim Aragon)
Deer are Responsibility of Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Most Recommendations Would Need Colorado Parks and Wildlife Approval Before Proceeding.
– Recommendations
• Many Were Discussed
• Those not Brought Forward to City Council are covered in Recommendation Document
• Salida Urban Deer Herd
– Deer Herd That Does not Leave the Salida City Limits
• Size ‐ TBD
– All of Life’s Necessities are Provided in Town
• Abundant Food Supply
–Some are Being Fed – Illegal
• Shelter From Weather
• No Predators Within City Limits
–Other Colorado Cities are Seeing Predator Increase
2
10/30/2014
• Urban Deer Benefits
– Lovely to Look At
– Free Fertilizer
– Tourist Attraction
• Urban Deer Concerns
– Landscape Destruction Due to Deer Grazing
• Deer Herd Browse on Landscape Bushes and Plants
• Will Eat Plants on Patios and Decks
• Will Even Eat “Deer Resistant” Plants
– Concern Regarding Deer Droppings
• Increasing Urban Herd = Increased Deer Droppings
• Well‐being Concern for Homeowners and Children
– Homeowner Property, City Parks
– Safety Concerns Regarding Deer Health/Human Interactions
• Less Tolerant Behavior Towards Citizens of Salida During Mating Season “Rut” and Once Fawns are Born (Spring, Summer, Fall)
Recommendation #1
Public Education & Awareness
• Recommendations:
– Mountain Mail Column • Provided by a Volunteer or Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) – Develop Information Pamphlet • Sent to City Households, Posted Around Town
• Chamber of Commerce, Motels, Real Estate Offices.
– Increase Deer Signage on Trails and Areas of Heavy Herd Traffic.
• Issues Addressed:
– Deer Eating Shrubs and Flowers
– Deer Dropping Health Concerns
– Actual or Perceived Safety Issues
3
10/30/2014
Recommendation #1
• Pro’s
– Increase Human Awareness,
• Decrease Enticing Habitat • Change Human Behavior to Avoid Dangerous Confrontations
– No Negative Political Feedback
– Good Community Building
– Aligned with Colorado Parks and Wildlife Awareness/Education Efforts
• Con’s
– None
Recommendation #1
•
Cost
– Brochure: $1,000 – Direct Mailing $1,500
– Signage • Graphic Design and Content ‐ $2,500 per sign; • Outdoor Durable Free‐Standing Signs ‐ $160 per 18” x 24” Panel
• 24” x 36” Panel ‐ $240 • 5 One‐Panel Signs ‐ $13,300 ‐ $13,700.
4
10/30/2014
Recommendation 2
Support CPW Deer Management Strategy
• Recommendation:
– Colorado Parks and Wildlife Strategy • Increased Number of Hunting Permits – Outside City Limits of Buena Vista and Salida • Control the Number of Deer Migrating Into the Cities. • Program Appears to be Meeting Objectives
• High Level of Cooperation Between CPW and Private Land Owners.
Recommendation 2
Support CPW Deer Management Strategy
• Pros:
– CPW Already has a Program in Place to Curb Deer Migration into the City.
– Potential Reduction of Deer Herd due to Urban Deer Wandering out into Hunting Zones
• Cons:
– None
• Cost to implement
– None
5
10/30/2014
Recommendation 3
Deer Count/Community Survey
• Recommendation:
– Collect Info Regarding Residents’ Opinion
• Whether or Not Bothered by Deer
– More Accurate Information Regarding Herd
• How Many and Where They Reside.
• Issue Addressed by Solution:
– Not Enough Input From Residents.
– Not Enough Knowledge About the Size of the City Deer Herd.
Recommendation 3
• Pros:
– Community Survey • Multiple Options for Gathering Information
– Mailed to Salida Households (2,931 when the City Surveyed Last Year)
– Online
– Obtained in Key Locales Around the City.
– Deer Count
• Colorado Parks and Wildlife in Salida Interested in Helping Coordinate • A Deer Count Could Involve Many Citizens (Similar to a Bird Count) and Raise Public Awareness.
• Determine if Deer Population is Located in only Certain Areas
– Information Could Help the City Determine Which, if any, Recommendations to Pursue.
– Potential College or High School Class/Individual Project
6
10/30/2014
Recommendation 3
• Cons:
– Expenditure of City funds to Conduct Survey and/or Count.
– Someone/Organization Would have to Coordinate the Deer Count.
– Possible Complaints about Expense for a Survey.
• Cost:
– Survey – Printing and Mailing Costs ‐ Approx $4,000. – Deer Count – Advertising Cost to Recruit Volunteers. • City Could Tally the Results and Publish. Recommendation 4
Birth Control for Urban Does
• Recommendation:
– Doe Captured, Tagged, and Inoculated with Birth Control Vaccine
• PZP ‐ Developed at Tufts University
– Safe for Deer, Predators and Human Consumption
– Effectively Used to Reduce White‐tailed Deer at Fire Island National Seashore in NY. • GonaCon ‐ Developed at the National Wildlife Research Center in Ft. Collins
– Safe for Deer, Predators and Human Consumption
– Also Prevents Mating Behavior. – Multi‐year, Single Injection Contraception. – Approved by the EPA
– Successfully Field Tested in Silver Springs, MD
– Bald Head Island, NC ‐ Six year Effectiveness Project
7
10/30/2014
Recommendation 4
Birth Control for Urban Does
• Pros:
– Humane and Effective Reduction of Urban Deer Population – Vaccinated Does Tend to Keep Other Deer out of Their “Territory." – Community Solution ‐ Not an Individual Solution.
– GonaCon Project Leader Interested in Doing a Pilot Study in Salida • Will Apply for Grant to Fund Project.
• Cons:
– Will Require Study, and Extensive Work to Develop and Implement – Must be Approved by the CPW and the State Wildlife Commission • Cost to implement
– GonaCon ‐ TBD
Possible Solutions Considered, But Not Recommended ‐ 1
• "Do Nothing."
– City Council Decision to Literally “Do Nothing”. • Pro's: – Easy to implement
– Possible short term solution until we have community consensus on other options. • Con's:
– Will do nothing to address what is believed to be a growing community problem.
– Lead to Implementation of Individual Benefit Solutions
– Waiting to implement solutions could worsen the problem – Public outcry that the city is unwilling or unable to find solutions. 8
10/30/2014
• In‐town Harvesting. – Summary:
• Professional or licensed sharp shooters (or bow hunters) • Contracted by the city to cull the urban herd.
– Pro's: • Short term, the herd would be reduced.
• Meat from harvested animals could be distributed. – Con's:
•
•
•
•
Inhumane Treatment of Animals.
Huge Public Outcry. Safety and Legal Issues Associated with use of Weapons in Town.
Studies in Other Places Indicate Lack of Success in Long‐Term Reduction of Herd Numbers. Possible Solutions Considered, But Not Recommended ‐ 3
• Dog Herding.
– Trained Dogs Used to Herd the Deer Out of Town.
• Pro's: – Possible short term herd reduction without killing.
• Con's: –
–
–
–
This method is designed for rural, not urban areas. Little indication that deer would not return soon. Difficulty in finding or training the dogs. It is illegal in the City to allow dogs to chase deer.
9
10/30/2014
• Eliminating the Dog Leash Law.
– Eliminate current leash laws, and let the dogs chase the deer away. • Pro's:
– Effective way of running the deer out of town, and thus, reducing the urban deer herd. • Con's:
– Safety issues and serious danger of injury to deer, dogs, and people. – Danger of having bands of dogs roaming the city. – Currently illegal (CPW)
• Sterilization
– Perform ovariectomy (remove ovaries) of does. • Requires darting (tranquilizing) does • performing brief surgery in a mobile unit. – Probably a multi‐year program before all does are treated.
•
• Pros:
– It’s permanent and only has to be performed once.
– Conducted over a 3 year period in at least 2 eastern communities with complete coverage of the doe population.
– Method is compatible with humane society goals – spaying.
•
10
10/30/2014
Possible Solutions Considered, But Not Recommended – (5b)
• Cons:
– Requires qualified vets/vet techs to perform surgeries – Not currently being done in Colorado
– Risk of death to the deer Due to intensive hands‐on process.
– Logistics are complicated – Requires lots of people helping.
– Would take community education to be acceptable.
– Would require State Wildlife Commission approval.
• Cost:
– In the Baltimore area, in the 3 year operation mentioned above, costs were $1,200‐ $1,300 per doe
• Dropped to $500/doe w/ More volunteers
• Trap and Transplant
– This method involves trapping deer in problem areas and moving them somewhere else.
• Pro’s:
– High availability of release sites outside of Salida.
– Colorado Parks and Wildlife already has a program in place to curb deer migration back into the City.
11
10/30/2014
Possible Solutions Considered, But Not Recommended – (6b)
• Con’s:
– High Mortality
• Approximately 4% of the deer die in transport.
• 25% of translocated deer die within the first two months • More than 85% of deer may not survive longer than one year.
• High return rate of deer into the City.
– “Reproduction rebound” occurs – the remaining deer have a higher birth rate.
• Cost:
– $400 per deer
Conclusion
• More information is needed – Information needs to be gathered
– Where are the deer – how big is the herd – travel corridors being used
• Need to continue to Educate Salida residents that deer are wild animals – Need to be respected as such
• Need to control the size of the Urban Deer Herd – Try to control damage being done to property
– Control the potential of serious incident between deer, residents of Salida and pets will increase.
– Salida has the possibility of participating in the USDA‐APHIS National Wildlife Research Center pilot study for GonaCon deer contraceptive
• Should not delay the opportunity to take advantage of the Department Of Agriculture’s offer to find grant money to fund the project.
12
10/30/2014
Salida Deer Opinion
Survey
Tuesday, July 15 2014
Powered by
Background
• Citizen concerns
• Urban Deer Task Force
• Follow-up
1
10/30/2014
Public Education & Awareness- #1 Task Force Recommendation
Living With Mule Deer
Deer Resistant Plants: http://www.ext.colostate.edu/ptlk/2302.html
Colorado Parks & Wildlife web page:
http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/CO-MuleDeerStory.aspx
Deer Survey page at CityOfSalida.com
Powered by
Salida Deer Population Count (Recommendation #3 of Urban Deer Task
Force)
January 14, 2014 - 140 Resident Deer
Powered by
2
10/30/2014
Salida Citizen Survey (Recommendation #3 of Urban Deer Task Force)
749
Total Responses
172 entered by hand, 577 completed online
Complete Responses: 749
Powered by
Q1: Do you see the deer population in town as a problem or concern?
Answered: 749
Skipped: 0
Powered by
3
10/30/2014
Q1: Do you see the deer population in town as a problem or concern?
Answered: 749
Skipped: 0
Powered by
Q2: If you answered Yes to the above question: How serious do you think
the deer problem is?
Answered: 621
Skipped: 128
Powered by
4
10/30/2014
Q2: If you answered Yes to the above question: How serious do you think
the deer problem is?
Answered: 621
Skipped: 128
Powered by
Q3: If you believe that the deer in town are a problem, please rank the below possible solutions on a scale of 15 (with 1 being your first choice, and 5 being your last choice)
*Please note that deer are the property of the State of Colorado; approval from Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Commission would be necessary for certain actions*:
Answered: 621
Skipped: 128
Powered by
5
10/30/2014
Q3: If you believe that the deer in town are a problem, please rank the below possible solutions on a scale of 15 (with 1 being your first choice, and 5 being your last choice)
*Please note that deer are the property of the State of Colorado; approval from Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Commission would be necessary for certain actions*:
Answered: 621
Skipped: 128
Powered by
Open Ended Responses: Strong opinions from both sides
Powered by
6
10/30/2014
Powered by
Powered by
7
10/30/2014
Powered by
Points made in open ended comment: Questions for Jim Aragon, CPW
Area Wildlife Manager
• Do Deer Spread disease to humans?
• Chronic Wasting Disease
• Ticks
• Other diseases?
• Can the deer be relocated to other areas easily?
• What are CPW’s current wildlife management strategies
for mule deer? (the #2 recommendation of the Deer Task
Force was to support the CPW’s deer management
strategy)
Powered by
8
10/30/2014
Town of Elizabeth’s Solution
Passed unanimously by the Town’s Board of Trustees on Tuesday, July 8,
2014: Public Harvest Program
Town of Elizabeth’s Public Harvest Program Description and Overview:
The deer management program will be implemented to regulate and control the deer population
within the Town of Elizabeth. This program is directed toward population management not removal or
extirpation of the deer population. The intent of this program is to reduce conflicts with deer, maintain
deer herd health, and provide a benefit to the needy via a supplemental food source through a safe
and effective deer harvest. This program has been developed in conjunction with numerous parties to
ensure the appropriate level of technical expertise has been provided.
Implementation of the deer management program (the program) will require involvement of Town
staff, community volunteers, and State Wildlife Agency personnel.
Powered by
Town of Elizabeth (continued)
• Participants will be required annually to demonstrate their
marksmanship proficiency prior to being selected to participate
• 3 areas in town selected
• ‘Leave no trace policy’
• The hunting will be done during the CPW mule deer season
• Given the above conditions, and biological assumptions the harvest
goal for the first year of Plan implementation is 15 antlerless deer.
Powered by
9
10/30/2014
Survey results
• Bow Hunting – 37.04% (#1 choice)
• Combining the more passive options (do nothing, support CPW
management strategies, and birth control for urban does) for the top
choice of respondents, the total is 57.19%
• Council direction?
Powered by
THANK YOU!
Thank you to Jim Aragon, Colorado Parks and Wildlife Area Manager, Area 13
and
the Urban Deer Task Force:
Jane Elmore
Monica Hutson
Dale Hoffman
Susan Williams
Bob Prive
Katy Grether
Jim Elmore
Monika Griesenback
For their help, research and prior efforts in finding a solution to this contentious issue
Powered by
10
10/30/2014
DEER SURVEY PROPOSED ACTIONS
Bob Prive
Salida, Co
8/5/14
Deer Survey Analysis
• Survey Results:
– View Deer Herd as Serious to Very Serious – 83.5%
– Do something – 83.5%
• Survey Comments Results
– Do Something – 61%
– Love the Deer/Move out ‐ 24%
– General Comments – 15%
• Examples: Dumb survey/Stop the bicycles/cars drive too fast in town ..
1
10/30/2014
Comment Analysis
• Concerns
– Health Issues
• Not buying CPW “no health problem/just wash your hands” answer
– Average Mule Deer eats 3.5 lbs/day * 140 Deer = 178,850 lbs/year
– Average Mule Deer drinks 1 Liter/day*140 Deer = 13,490 gal/year
» IE: Semi tanker truck holds 9,000 gal
• Who is looking out for the Children?????
– City Parks and Properties
– Property Damage
• Homeowners have just given up
• Concern over more properties going to no grass front yards
• Fencing just pushes the problem to the neighbor
Comment Solutions
• 6 Solution Discussed in Comment Category
– Harvest the Deer
– More Fences
– Birth Control
– Fines for those feeding the deer ‐ NEW
– Periodically Relax the Leash Laws ‐ NEW
– CPW Needs to be more active – Common comment
2
10/30/2014
Problem Analysis
• Too Many Deer in City of Salida
– City of Salida uses up .25% of 1% of Chaffee County Land Area
– Chaffee County = 1015 Sq Miles ‐ Salida = 2.587 Sq Miles – People of Salida want to be able to enjoy their property?
– Pay Taxes on their property
– Use their yards without stepping in poop
– Put out landscaping to make their property look nice
– People who Love the deer (Personal experience) • Have fences to keep them out
– Push the problem to the neighbor
– Gives Salida an unfriendly feel with individual “fortresses” Action
City Council Approve the Creation of a Committee
– Purpose: To move forward on the reduction of the Urban Deer Herd in City of Salida. •
Members:
–
–
–
–
Salida Citizens City Personnel CPW Personnel Technology Consultants
• Charter
–
–
–
–
Define Plan for Reducing the Size of the Deer Herd
Define Budget to Implement
Define Schedule
Implement Proof of Concept.
3
10/30/2014
Potential Solution
• Joint Effort – CPW – City of Salida – Land Owners
– Track the Deer Movement Patterns
• Tracking devices available • GPS Movement Recording
– Deer will tell CPW who is feeding them
– Disrupt the Movement Pattern
• Strategic Fencing around Salida
• Hazing Devices
– 2 Devices already in Salida
• Professional Herding Dogs
– Continue To Discourage Migration of Deer Back into Salida
• Hazing Devices
• Fencing
Research
• Tracking Devices
– Available for $100‐$200/unit
– Solar Powered
– Data Downloads to Computer
• Graphical Display of Movement Patterns
• Hazing Devices
– 2 Units Already Deployed in Salida
•
•
•
•
Development continues to fine tune
Demonstrated to remove 80% of Deer from Yard
Humane – does not harm the deer
Remove Deer From Neighbors’ Yard
– 2 Additional Units Available for Pilot Study
4
10/30/2014
Does the Mayor and City Council Approve the Creation of a Committee
– Purpose: To move forward on the reduction of the Urban Deer Herd in City of Salida. Support Information
5
10/30/2014
Survey Comments Analysis
Health & Love the Safety deer
problems
91
Property Damage Harvest Fences
48
24
21%
40
10%
8
17%
Deer Birth Fines for Problem Control feeders CPW Dogs
73
3%
31%
9
4
4%
16
2%
7%
General Comment
11
58
5%
"Do Something" Count of Total
<== Total Comment Count
382
233
Percentage of 233 (Do Something & Concerns) Comments
Percent of Total = 61%
Deer Deterrent
Prototype unit developed as part of a National Science Foundation (NSF)
Phase I Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) Grant
‐ Image‐base sensor calibrated to trigger only for deer
‐ Creates “demand performance” operation
‐ Same principal as house breaking a dog
‐ Deer will not habituate to the hazing
‐ Uses infrared light for continuous day/night operation
‐ Protection Range: 40’ X 72 Degrees
‐ The objective is to extend the range to 75’
‐ Hazing uses a combination of sound, motion and light
‐ Activates for 5 seconds for each trigger
‐ If deer still present, waits 1 second and activates
‐ Two different hazers, two more being prototyped
‐ Operates from 110v, requires extension cord for power
‐ Objective is solar/battery operation
‐ TKO Enterprises, Inc.
‐ Boulder County start‐up company
‐ Continuing to pursue commercialization of deterrent
6
10/30/2014
Potential Committee Members
•
Members:
– Salida Citizens
» Reach out to former Deer Herd Committee Members
» Advertise for new members
– City Personnel » Dara MacDonald, Emily Katsimpalis
– CPW Personnel –
» Jim Aragon
– Technology Consultants
» Deer Hazing Unit ‐ Neil McClure
» Tracking Devices ‐ TBD
7