HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Budget Study Session 2011-07-08TOWN BOARD
PRE -BUDGET STUDY SESSION
Friday, July 8, 2011
8:00 a.m. — 12:00 p.m.
Room 202/203
1. Budget Policy and Flow Chart
2. 2011 Year to Date Review
3. Economic Outlook/2012 Budget Comments
4. 2012 Budget/Policy Guidance
a. Capital Asset Management Plan Public Process
b. Community Reinvestment Fund
c. Fund Balances — Targets, Availability
d. General Fund — CRF Relationship
e. Community Services Grants
f. Financial Commitments to other Taxing Districts
g. Employee Compensation and Benefits
h. Utility Fund Transfer
5. Potential Revenue Sources
a. Sales Tax Increase
b. Storm Water and Street Utility
6. Budget Document
a. Changes
7. October Budget Meetings
8. Miscellaneous
JULY
Annual Planning/Budget Process Start
7/8
Strategy/Goal Setting Work Sessions
with Board & Staff Department Heads
(# of sessions as jointly determined)
5-year CIP Update
(Finance)
7
7/15: Finance Closes
Books on 1st Half of Year
Prioritize Goals & Capital Projects
(Board & Staff
Budget Flow Chart
July2011
7/29: Due Date for Current
Year Revisions
7
AUGUST
8/12: Due Date for Next
Year Revisions
8/19: Current/Next Year
Budgets Due to T.A.
SEPTEMBER
Budget Preparation by Department
Finance & Staff Department Heads
8/29 - 9/2: Budget Reviews
with Dept. Heads
9/9: Final Revisions Due
from Dept. Heads
9/16: Final Revisions Due
to T.A.
OCTOBER
10/3: Budget adoption notice
10/7: Joint Board & Staff
Budget Work Session
NOVEMBER 8
Budget Public Hearing #1
10/14: Joint Board & Staff
Budget Work Session
9/28: Budget revisions
due to Town Board
9/23: Publish budget sessions
notice in newspaper
10/21: Joint Board & Staff
Budget Work Session
-►
10/28: Joint Board & Staff
Budget Work Session
11/22: Budget Public Hearing #2
Budget & Goals Approved by Board
DECEMBER
Supplemental Appropriation to
Current Budget (if applicable)
+
FEBRUARY
1Rollover of Applicable Expenditures
to New Budget Year
Financial Tracking Process will be a separate flow chart
BUDGET PROCESS
The Town of Estes Park produces a one-year budget annually.
CALENDAR
July
The budget process begins in July when the Finance Department closes the books on June, thus
making available the first six months of the calendar year to those who have budgetary
responsibility for projecting revenues and expenditures.
Concurrently with distributing the financial reports to appropriate parties, the Finance
Department updates its 5-year economic forecast. The purpose of the forecast is to 1) project
activities in the General Fund for the next 5 years (including the effect on fund balance), and to
2) project what monies will be available for the Community Reinvestment Fund (a capital
projects fund).
On July 8th, a Strategy/Goal Setting Work Session(s) is convened with Town Board and
appropriate Staff. Town Board prioritizes its goals with associated improvement projects for the
upcoming budget year. Staff then takes the resulting goals/projects and assimilates them into
the budget.
The budget process itself is twofold. Staff is responsible for updating/revising the current year's
budget (due to Finance Office by July 29) and for projecting the next year's budget.
August
Requests for the next year's budget are due to the Finance Department by the end of the
second week of August.
The Finance Department presents the revised current year, and next year's budget, to the Town
Administrator 7-10 days after receiving the budget products from participating departments
(see preceding paragraph).
The Town Administrator spends approximately a week familiarizing herself with the budget
product in preparation for budget discussions with appropriate staff members in September 1.
September
Individual meetings are held with appropriate staff members (attended by the Town
Administrator and her designee(s)) during the first week of September. At the meetings,
appropriate staff explains/advocates their budget requests to the Town Administrator. As a
result of the above meetings, budgetary changes are often enacted. Staff has until the end of
1
the following week to make these changes and return amended budget documents to the
Finance Department for processing.
The Finance Department returns the amended budget documents to the Town Administrator
for final approval within the next few days. Around this time, a notice is placed in the
newspaper notifying the public that there are public budget sessions during the month of
October.
The proposed budget documents are delivered to the Town Board no later than the last Friday
of the month.
October
The first four Friday mornings of October are traditionally dedicated to public meetings
regarding the proposed Town Budget. Appropriate staff presents their respective budgets to
the Town Board, explaining details and fielding questions to whatever depth is deemed
necessary by the Town Board. Budgetary information is delivered to the Board approximately
one week ahead of scheduled sessions.
Staff uses available time in October to make any necessary amendments to the budget so that a
final product is ready for presentation to the public at the November meetings.
November
The "final" budget is presented at the first Town Board session in November. Assuming no
further changes, the budget is approved at the second Town Board meeting in November.
During the approval process, Town Board actually approves several documents, including the
Highway Users Trust Fund report, the Resolution to adopt the Mill Levy, the Resolution to
appropriate sums of money to finance the budget, and the Resolution to appropriate the
expenditures themselves.
Concurrently, the town board will also approve its goals for the following year.
December
As the year draws to a close, it usually becomes clear as to whether or not appropriations need
to be made to the current year's budget. Appropriations are often done when an unexpected
expenditure is made during the year that will cause the budget to exceed the previous year's
appropriation. The affected funds are itemized for approval/disapproval.
February
As the year draws to a close, it also usually becomes clear that certain invoices need to be
rolled over" into the following year's budget. "Rolled over" invoices are suggested by
2
appropriate staff, and are ultimately approved/disapproved by the Town Administrator. The
approved 'rollovers" come out of the current fiscal year's budget and are place into the
following year's budget. The rollover invoices are approved/disapproved by Town Board in a
February meeting.
3
W
F-
0
>-
W
0
W o
O cc g•I
ra X
co 2
"c3
• >.
et 4 .4
x o)
N
D >- 0
w
x o)
N
N
A
; ;
41*
--,
; 00 N N , Lo N , N LD N 00 Li") co • in N. IA N
,1o�m�oDo N 0 <-1 <-1 0 al N 131 N
cr' ;NNNNNM N 00 01 V) 0 N 0 01
• ,
• 00ONDr4rflmUl 00 cri L.0 0 N 00
N N N ; N N N CO t.0
, ••••-• N N
; ! ,
• •
: 0.1 <-1 0 ; ct N r-i N • cr 0
00 . :crul01.1it]N.szt N' 03;N tN'd....13rn 0 q,r,•0
m fly m , r•I r•-• 03 • N ' 03 , 0 N
e-1.• tr'l 0 00 00 L/1' ‘;:t m•
H'rn :M;N N
N : ,-;••1 re)
1,4; ' ; • • ,
C71 03
N
Ln
o
00 N
ID ' In
el WI
tri
03 'N
rn
<-1 'Cre-CN:0.0 CD,CI'l N:e-1; 1`..NCI1'0 C0.131,cri,
LI) . (N1,0;f:/(fl'e-1 03'iThlf):‘13 !N't1)•111N 1.1);‘13;O:nr
0 :0 0.01J%03 COiN LC) N 'NJN:q:Cren N:LD0,01
N Cs1 op;o0;c•Vin m:0 cn;q: irv4m;c•im.t0:(Nru".):(L);Tt
oo ‘-i ; co ; " (.0 1**, CA. -I , . N.1 ,-I ri i L11 : 01'N: Q 00; 0
tD• • ,-1 ;r1 e-I'N' 'e-1. ,00;e0;r1H-4 !(.0,13': ,N
. .
VI.
‘:r ,.., r•-!000,0,0,0, 1..,001,y, crin'e-i,c3)t'n ,Ii
N i 01 On' rn' cr. u'l rn,-
4 , ,;m,m'm .7:1.0,en,r•C ,M
, • ;
itD o3r-ii0;c0;oa) M; 'T-HNH:t cro0•1',N;Clvh
0; t Lf1,1-1"4.Di 'N0010100N' ;0N'en ottIrCh'gtt'011-4
o ' in ' rn ; tn: itn;1-00;Lo; '1tycn;1401n1rs]cnInr
00 c,r)t.0,ov !alltnioa,Ln;N, •A',11.1300NA.O4'J-1111)
CCV -t13-DIIV.00'filiCNU iNI00A00DA•n'al]C01 i m
VD ' ', ' T-I ININV :CV) %•N' ‘.-r
•ni;
,
4,/>•
; t ; ! • , i ; ; 3 , , .,, ;
0, • A's.'<-1'N Vt'e-1"1,,q,0•0 'LLIAY),001-1,1.131fl'In:LIN
N: C.)tDtD CrOHNrCNIO,0' r•Vot'i'0ImIcn'N.Cnirf-1
I.D• ;rslIcn;N• T-1103'0;a1;0,t-sl: :N.0,1.0!OiN;0mlin
vi.-!
!ioom's-1 rcinA-,'N;Ln:tov ;01A.nroi00,irvr'4:0) ;e-I
al, 1.11'e-CN <-CM'Cral 0 1.131j*,01NCY).l.0.•l2) 12)
CY)' i 1..1 H-re-ri-1. cll 'll,j•I: ir-C 1.1)ANI!
(Ni
e-a
„lc))
12)
1 i
czy, •133
cot's!
*47.1
N
m
cfl
, .
• N
CZ/
,
• ▪ !cy,
;14)
o51
10)
.07 t;
r1) U) 01 01 0 ItI N al 00 o cl• oa m o3 to cn CI ni in
N 0) ct r, 0 CO CSI ID e-I lr) cn tt) N m in r. oo
o rvoNmr--oulr4o clr--r-- 0 ct I.0 N N CT
ri • Ifi' 4 oi' Lci ui' 06 r.i' oi' .4 ci' aft' 4 r:
00 an .4. 4 o) .-1 rLi ..-1 r•-• m Lrl Lo N CO 0 k0 0 l0
01 ri ct rn ct U1 e-I N 01 N N on ti) 01 N 03
O i ri •e-I N
e-i
. .
1J1-
4 .!, ; i; 1 ; i. :;. ; ; 4.: :`• ;: i !
O• 'e-1•1.1340 ..ct N:1,0'e-I CI' II): cre-t r-11.11N.1-1 r, N•0
Cr' ,Irle-LN',0" 111:1.0N'Cll 03' cn cr N't1"1,NU3 N'CIDO
el. 'ffl'N'N'T-1 0"ltIM 00. In•N; e-INC03,N ID (110
ui; •N 00 N N tO: vt : N N l.0 I.DOVITh003'..40010In
lD, ' In_ CO N cr ' Tr 01, V) : VI ' 01, al r•-• ar , ("4
m ;1-14 ; et , en' (fl v - N ; co' ko C•J ; In, ; N ot) vi: vt
, ; • , , • , .
0 , , 'r-1 ; • ' , r'i
r-i
Ln•
N 0'1
• M
LO 1
cn .
str
CO 00
N, m
ikt)
•
0 !•
1-1
•
..... 0 '
! 0'
. . 0 • ' 0
•
0
0 GI ' fn
CI ,
'N a Lo
z , in
m•0 ,.., 03
.••••••
IL. ,• '0 OS' .00V 4 ..., c '
_I a' c a- (71 F., , .2 - 0 _ .2 w
w,C11 CO 0 ; ,...,‘ ni t to, 0 cp to.
ct L.
-C; 0 0 E rrni F.:1 t
). cc•
2 u f.1.1 o > 0. 1- --- in 0 4-3 _1 8
ch
0 mill Z 'Z LA 0 0 t; co' E'32 O. E .t.' : to' .K1 0 , t 110 w L- co (I) 1-•
1-
6 'kJ ,
' ! > 'el'''D lc LTJ ir;o!co w 0 0- c1- LU V) 15- F- w
1- z
,
2011 TO DATE
co
a, a,
4 Lr-rsi
ts.Lfl
CV eV
C=) cD
' C71
C".1 00
e-I
00
tr)-
00
rfl
CD
0
CD
LID
rfl
gc4-
00
rfl
0-,
3
00
1./1
tn.
evl
erf
CNA
er)
en CA
"0- ,Lfl
t•-•1 •
Lr .r—
rn ip
00
'
•LS')
1-••••
' • CNI
CI
CNJ
(NI
a-1
er)
CNI
1.11 l'•••
• .4- C/1
rJ 00
00 • 01
•
.4"
M .1
"
CA
e
, n
!
... , ,
• " , , ,
, , " , • , , . . . , . . .
. .
. ,
111 • ,
, . .
. 0 , V/ ! CC • V/
• • LLI
CI. • ' • LLI • • • LLI
• CC • LIJ • • CC 0.1
2 : 2
0 ; ' raj • 0
: 1.) • , 0 • LI
2 2 Z
LU LLI ""- LIJ • LIJ
> 1."". > -
• LIJ ;W
; • CC LU • 2 • w 2
0
co
4•
CO
CL)
47-
CD C
CV CO
>
• ...,„r°
C▪ O
(NI
e--I
t-4
2 <
(...) co 0
(.4—
(0
• rs:fl
1.1:1 l0 CD
C) rfl 00 00
`zr 00 00 00
CT) 01 01 01
CA Lfl
• to .zr e-1
T-1 00 00 .4
00„fl . CO
• •
01 C71 00 %-1
ox) ooqt• oo oo-1
• 1/1 00 CV
h. in 1.0- m
Cr) Cp 01 L/1 CV
IN, r•-•
in. CV 01 Cr)
00 C11 Cr)
• LI1 00
• °q.
00 d- d
oort
u▪ ) osite" upLo" r•-ck
• rg
> co
(;)
eN1
CV C.)
<
0
co —
co 41
oto-4
• Ln CV CV
.4- in
a -I
C) CI, CD 01
'Cr CV CD C31
CT) CT) C) 01
00 r•I
eq
r.- %--i',. LDC1tp 1- MCI- tn
oo. in, 1"......r
01 ' 01 '.. 00 (11
up m esi
✓ si es! ' m ,. m
.. ,
r's ll:;) , CA r•••• CD ' ke. - CD 00 CV ' 0'1 00 : ,.._1`zr , c..)CV
in : .4- ol ' tn ' r•-• . ko r•E 10 en , r•-• . "zr , '.4- ' ai
to r•-• .4- ca ; ar %--I ! 00' ..i.",:r.: 445.1-n cs..r-i -
.., r.......- - -
uNi I-
, 00 LA 01 0 00 CV. 01 ' Lrl Cc1 CO C)
CV CV CV ' CC) ,' •tT 00 , CV ' r-t N. , in - .4- ' en r....01,
"1.
CL) cu
>••': " , E
•7;, : • 0 ,
n). 0 : 1E , w CCS
- 2 Ze-, 0)0<,
ro
co
C OUTLOOK
0
0
w
From Cutwater Asset Management
13
a)
LL
tn
a)
4-0
a)
A
J
ment Jumped to 9%
O
E
0
.N
V
0
V
4-§j
L
bA
O
n
(00
l0
Ln
O
(WEU: JUNE 10,2011)
00
O
N
u,
O
E
•
4-1
N
N
0)
4-+
0)
E
O
4)
(1)
a)"
co
V
0
LL
(WEU: JUNE 17, 2011)
2
O
Lli
d)
4-0
N
U
L)
4-
CO
4▪ -0
N
N
N
ft3
4-
N
N
OTC
(WEU: JUNE 24,2011)
4-
O
7.3
i0
cf0
0
00
M
home sales fell
•1
Ln
w
units). 31% of
At current
recovery.
w
Z
J
0
w
l-i
0
N
0
m
w
Z
V)
0
0
F-
0
oC
LL
0
4-
c0
O
4-
.CU
a)
L
4
co
a)
c
CO
4A
. �i
a) 73
C -92
O >%
CO •L
CO
73
0
73
f0
N
CO
i co
cu
a)
4
c0
d--+
(1)
CU
70
vi
N
4-0
CU
0
CO
a)
73
CO
.E..r
a)
w
L
Q
a)
0
LL
0
0
MARKET COMMENTS:
a)
E
N
.O
c0
73
0)
0
c
a)
E
a)
a)
E
0)
O
m
CO
LL
0
O
4-
N
a)
73
a)
a)
C9
O
O
d-'
0
a
0)
.N
4-1
0)
f0
cu
4--1
0
N
0
73
CIO
CO
U
f0
s
0
f0
ate--+
4-0
Cutwater "Takeaway"?
o 0 •—
N
a�
4 -0 0
C N 13
CO O a) co
E 0 0
a) 00 co 0
E c6
c - c
•— .—
o co 0
Q c.)
c a
V
'••' O
c6
c N = `}' -C
la -I-+ 0
0
C in
0
O C .
ago E aU
0 '- E co
1 _ V 0 cn
C
O O +2 _ ra
4
co 0
4-) U i
N
co
1 a) c/)
o c
❑ ❑ ❑
BUDGET GUIDANCE
T-I
N
N
2012 BUDGET H
•
rsj
%-1
0
4J
(1)
LL
rsj
r-I
0
General Fund
Special Revenue Funds
Community Reinvestment, Conservation Trust, Open Space, Community Services
nternal Service Funds
Fleet, Information Technology, Vehicle Replacement
V)
V) -0
LL
LL
(1)
•_
z a)
4-,
DLi CI L1J
• • m • •
Light & Power, Water
2012 BUDGET
CC3
cu
vrgd
V1
cu
cc3
U
N
0
c�
O
4)
ai
•
V /
V
z
0
POLICY GU
0
4-1
au
co
cu
co
4-0
(13
bO
co
V
Community Reinvestment Fund (CRF)
4-a
•
U_
•
N
V) 4-1' X
•O 2 (15
COL
a)co
u_ L. n
O �
Cc CDo -D
V (/)
4-1
o E
au V o ❑
C7 V
4
[p
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
From: Town Administrator Halbumt
Date: June 30, 2011
RE: Pre -budget session
TOWN OF ESTES P
ADMINISTRATION
This pre -budget work session is designed to facilitate communication between the town
board and staff as we enter into budget season. As staff begins to formulate the 2012
budget, a dialogue is important to make sure we stay on track and continue to deliver a
product that meets the town board's needs. Finance Officer McFarland has provided
information on a lot of the discussion items. In addition, we look forward to the following
discussions:
4.a. Capital Asset Management Plan Public Process:
Staff will review plans and seek further direction for the CAMP public input
4. b. Community Reinvestment Fund:
Staff will review potential commitments that may be placed upon the CRF.
1. SOPA infrastructure ($1.2 M)
2. Triggers new stall barns ($2 M)
3. SOPA annual subsidy ($217K per year)
4. Potential Grant matching dollars ($900,000)
5. Additional Costs Bond Park Phases 1 & I11
6. Elkhom Adventure Area infrastructure ($1 M)
4.e. Community Service Grants
Does the town board want to retain the same approximate level of funding to the
community? The grant dollar amounts and the Mayor's contingency have been reduced
each year as the budget has been cut to maintain status quo/remain flat.
4.f. Financial Commitments to other Taxing Districts
Does the town board want to maintain the same level tax subsidy to other taxing
entities? The Fire District receives 7% of sales tax and the LMD received $89,000 in
2011.
4.q. Employee Compensation and Benefits
I believe employee raises are important in the 2012 budget after two years without
increases to base salaries included. We plan to budget relatively flat, so inevitably,
other areas must be reduced to provide raises.
5. Potential Revenue Sources
Each year we discuss potential revenue sources for the town. Without new revenue
sources, it's difficult to do anything more than what we do today without cutting and
reprioritizing goals. Sales tax revenue can be increased by a vote of the people. We
have also discussed a storm water and street utility in the past.
6. Budget Document
Please let us know any changes you would like to see to the budget document in 2012.
7. October Budqet Meetings
Please let us know any changes you would like to see to the October budget meetings.
It has been suggested since we have reduced the number of funds, we may be able to
complete the process in 3 meetings this year. It has also been suggested that the
board may want to review the budget at a higher level and not review everything by line
item.
Thank you for spending time with us to review these important issues. In the words of
Lee Iacocca:
"Here's what management is about: Pick good people and set the right priorities."
uJ
ca.
Liu
co
z
u_
LLI
! Cr)
s CL.
CC
LIU
i CC
•=C
c
LI
LU
CC
LLJ
V')
—J
OC
,
W
CC
LLI
•CX
Oa CC
C.D CD
=I a-
Lan
C•I
-CS
..,...;-; 4.
LU
Cair)
. .
„ • 1 ; „
EA' E43
CU
•
I ,
t 3
, .. .
•
C.4 CZ)
C•Z:' 3 3." f c0L
"--I
t .
'1=5 r....a-1 ' CNILrl LE. i
''' 3.4.• , 2.11 .: *U : ',
: CI .. c-,
,e-1 I a --I
.u.).7; 7
. ,..._ ..._.
in
,, ..... ...:
.
3
, ; CU
•
. ,
3 .
. .
, .
f:C411
: , 3 . . ,
, , • r
„ , 1
1 „
,
.33 ,
,
,
n . o
, ..
La Ca , . , co
,
, -tn.,' -Ln 3
,
• co s
.
.
„
,
,
.70,.. . La'-4
111
e-I 3 CV ,
. ,
, .
CO
r , .
4....1 , •CCI•
. .
is.
,,..! ....ali ,0
6.-"Cij
,,. .4-,
=. E
-,:., : a.
.'. C1.9 - CZ
- CO
, '3r CL>C
. , . LLI Lt. .5.. ,
ir),00
re)
JZICO (0
, ()
,
co
1
a.
Lfl
0
41'
0
:N
cn
; 0
.0uJ
0
1C)
c
0
424
0. 0 ' CO
' U1 CV
Iss 0 Cs1
i.nm N Cs1
0LflbLfl
0 , 00 ID 01
Cs1 es1
NN
m 1-4 : co ; T-4
0i.m;Is) 0)
0 ; est 01 L
1.0 01 0:71 et
4.0 01
N 11 01 N
1-1
; Cs4 0 N t.0
; rst U1 ' 00 0
et In
VI CO ;00
1Lfle40l
01 (NI
4.1)-
Lfl
U'l , 01
u3 ; 03 s•-1 01
: U1 en
es1 C11
0 00 fs/
est , CO
: 00
1/4
rNDD
U1. 0 : CA - 00
CO ; e-I CO
03 ,
N CA W ; 00
lflN
Cs4 00
00 0 ' Cs1
0100,U)
N :In N.-4
! N ;
U'l ! U1 ' 0
CO et
An-L
' 00
1 CO CO
(NLflf4
/4; s-Z, Cri
Cs/ ; If) h
, N
eF; N 0i*
0
0
1st'
N
N
03
ssi
Lfl
tC)
CO
00
01
rsl
N
Lfl
t.0
Lfl
N
tr)
cn
tED
00
N
t.f1
0
01s:
0
c-I
00
0
113
44'
Cs1
tr1
00
trLfl
N
00
0
N
1-4
Ln
00
er
00
4N1
tNI
Ul
°
0
(O
CO
VI >.
4, 0) 3
C 0 >
•
CU
cu 3
ccrno
133$ °) ,-,C°
C .c
„,0 et)
c „"'
; co co
0 0 0
CO , Z LL)
. ,
0 0 VI ' : Tr ' t.ft h
'et Li-)N : t.0 01 t.0
in 00 o
C'SI
en 03
, o ; 0
0 W et
I's
r-I
0
1)
0 0
. . ,
a -I VI' 41' a -I , '.0
in th in if? ilt''
0 00 et , tf1
tr) ‘01 in 0 W CV
r.*:. s-1 , Ct.; I's'•, In, 1....
1.11 In rsl " et 00
0 in Lf1 h a -I
0 r.4 00 N ta
r•i' tr) m in. ° -
1,/} IfS,
Nes.'
In N 00
t.0 CO 1-
.
.41... Rt oo
0 tf1
. ,
Cn et tn ; 0
CV
•Ln i u3
"1. ("1.. in. tr;
'et en ,
s s: , ,
0 0. ; . et , ;' 0 ; i tO ,
1.11 try , Up , ; nr ; ; en
U1: ' ' " 0 ; ; t.0
111 t,D , ! ; tf3.. , " •, ',„ s :
o m ; t, , a-4 . i ' r-I
e-I '
Lf1 t.0 ; ! ! 00: : ; W.
s s , .tn.
CI) . r4 ' . , , :' LO
0 tn.; tn.' : . i in, : , 411.;
0 it, iiUi ‘,it i; ul i ii V'
4NI ' Li. in ' N, ,. < , to ; '.0, ° s
cn ! le. ; et! 0; " a.• , tn
; Z ; 00); 4n , R ,
: = 0 ' 0,
, er
i lAr 00 CSI Z 00 ' i 00
2 ,, '.00 ; ; w , 1.4 ; - t.0 , U1
i
°°
:LnootoC
;:t
; ::::" ICti ‘1...: rl., i. 3 i r‘ CC ; ''' 0/.: ; rn
; Cfl L at : 0 ; ciUi ! l•-; If1 : ! : !
0! : t.). iko; :i;2, , Chi ' ; , 0.
Ln esi ; ,- cc ! tn ! : W ! ; N. ; " ' , 01'
Z ' csj csi! ' ILA 1A- ; .71 '', '; (if) t.
D i tn. tn.-, 2 ; „ , , , ; i.n.,
„, i
,.:.,....,, IE. 2 , „ ,; 0:
c a. .'
' 00
`4„ "''1 00 ' 0 0,a.i N.
c%1 , ,--. i *,: 01; ; ; ; up
en ; , !%-1-. ; ' "1r'
00 , : " ! 0
tit'',
. . . , .
0 ? , t
<
VY.
. ,
0) .
, .
. C
cu
. ,
. .
4.) 0 L : . 0) ' ; 0) - a)
C
,„ ‘): 0; 0. 0.......
•:,- : ° C RS ' . C C C
0 ' ti, - , RS RS , CO
ril : - (0 - - -
CO CO - (0 (0 ! RS
CO ' 00 ' 03
, -0 C "0 , , "CS , , 13
00. .
' ' C
' 3 =
4, .
' LL00 LL
T3 ! ; ' 30 C . , 00 00 ' , 0.0
. c - c
33 , - .- 0 - , , ;,- ' .-
0 ' ; ' 1:3 C - TS ' , -0 ; 1:3
00 , ,
' C‘LU 'C ' C , C
,
'. LU - . . , LU ' LLJ UJ
2012: $800k to $250k
2013: $800k to $225k
m 2014: $800k to $200k
2015: $800k to $200k
N
o Total GF-CRF transfer reduction: $2.325m
0
m
L1.1
-J
LL
L1.1
0
LLI
z
CO
0
z
u_
0
UJ
5
uJ
GENERAL FUND BY 2015
0 0 00
U1 csi en CT
h en, CD NI
en f•F
Lt1 h
h 00 Up CA
. -1
01 CV
Cfl
-(/)-
et h
‘-4 00
CT) Lt1
in" uo
oo C11 01 et•
0 en m
C1 CV
ifl•
,
C•4 1.0
•th `Itt CNI
r"4
CO en ;
e•-.1
CNI
to tr) cr) c)
1 i, l0 ' 00 r-I ir 01
, , '•: r.41- ,• r-...1rn tni en
.', In ;', ; ;=. CA i, et •:, NI •i: al
caw i: (NI '• '', N. CV ''. 00 CA
crir, ,-.1.1 ail' Ni.
w i ,, !, in •,-- e•-• i
440•4•04
, .
•,„ in ;; ta/1,... , _, ? : • •,. ...., •
13tI Cg 2 00. 1.0o0 . IC.0
-""00 V
>-L0cc
.or.l1
,
„ I g 1.11 ; 1,.. :: CV 00
00 i 0
ce w i e-i CV) CY) L0
04 Z. •1 CV 1-11 Is, L-1
'.0. 1...1 ; t-stietCsICI1
VI i' W
LA LA h 0
s ...= ..., .., ,
LLI , et CV 00 et
in- e-I
LI- , et en I otv et al
•i OZ ; ';'
, eh co 00 inai.
Ln
rsi h I Lei 1 (-NJ 0
, , %-li ,L-I; 0. .i.-. in
•
1 en (Nu; Ln h 0
,
(;;; 1 14
%-1
el- ; 0
. ; + ; !•
CT)
00
N-1
Lfl
01
1-
41
Lt
LC)
LC)
1-•-•
0
-4.
. r•-•
Lfl
un
cf.).
;
0
1-
0
rn
Lfl
=
= 00
ens
-tr)-
„?
Cs1
CV
,
0
r••••
L.r0
, cri•
C‘J
if00
ett
CNI
LC)
00
-I
, CV
C•sl
1
II
•0)
c.)
LC) Is'.
irIJLfl
,
CC) CV
N.)00
tr)
m et
0Lfl
r'n if) c..1
rn .ct co
LflC
CNI
00
LflLfl
on et cril
ari
tt) 00
01 0
0 IA. 11).
M 0 Ln
(NI 1.1- in N.
rn
Z 0ci
00 CNI
2 uo
c ' ,
. ,
ell :
: CO • :
0 73coc
• e-I i
WM.
0
' ,
.
CV 'M ;
„ ; , ro •
,
, ._
,.
' +4 ' 0) ''.......
h ; 0 i i 401 = >•• "0 , ;.i.g
c..) ; II) :: 0 • • 0); , .
>
wi. ,,,
: .......
cu
. .
• ,
. IIV 5Z-V ...CL) 61, fl.
C1:100 CLIC CLIcC CIA *4=° i '
,
. : L.-
. :
, , C n.> °-' CCI '• -C ; = .: -I-,
. ,
. ,
=
•
!i, •-g i cc w 1— 4^:
, ,..
o5
_,
5 av c::, oi 05 w5 5 cio
w:
0
2
<
0
tn
CLI
C
(1)
c
C
. ,
no ;
• ;
'10 ;
c
':. ofi:
C
"0 C
LLI
• LLI
0
uJ
uJ
uJ
cC
z
LLI
0
Stormwater and Streets Utility
BUDGET FORMAT
❑ Changes?
Z
0
U
w
w
w
N
w
cC
0
Introduction
(Auditor's Reports 1929-1945) Records indicate the Town of Estes Park started its first utility in
1929, the Water Department and its second in 1945, the Light and Power Department. Since 1945 the
Town of Estes Park utility departments have transferred funds to the Town's general fund. These
transfers are reported as rent, franchise fees, payments in lieu of taxes and just plain fund to fund
transfers and were established by the Town Boards in office during those periods researched. (Auditor's
Report 1938) The Town's Auditor did recommend seeking a legal opinion regarding the transference of
enterprise funds to the Town's general fund. There is nothing within the financial records indicating
what legal recommendations, if any, were received. However, the practice of transferring enterprise
dollars to the general fund continues to this day. One can only assume, if provided in 1938, the
attorney's recommendation found no legal standing to disallow the practice of fund to fund transfers.
Though no actual minutes, reports, or other official documentation exists to explain the
adoption of transferring enterprise funds to the general fund the Town of Estes Park has publicly
reported this practice since 1945. Transfers are clearly reported and established as a business practice
by the Town Board as referenced within the Town auditor's reports. Outlined within auditor reports
dating back to 1929, rents and other expenses directly related to operation of Town owned utilities
included paying for salaries, land rental, franchise fees, payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT) and other
transfers as required by the general fund at the discretion of the Town Board.
It is these practices established in 1945 that we are reviewing. Research revealed this practice
of transferring enterprise funds to the general fund is industry wide for municipally owned utilities and
has been for quite some time. The issue that the Town of Estes Park transfers enterprise funds to the
general fund was raised at the 2011 February 8th Town Board meeting and the January 25th 2011 Town
Board meeting during public comment.
Staff prepared this report to discuss the practice of utility fund transfers and recent public
comments. To better understand this practice and how it effects other Colorado communities, 28
Colorado municipalities who manage enterprise fund utility services were contacted to answer six
questions. This informal survey of the 29 communities was conducted by email, telephone contact or by
review of their financial reports. Those results revealed 79% of the communities do transfer funds, the
average amount of the transfer is 7.5%, 41% charge additional fees, i.e. PILOT's, rents, operating fees,
17% have written policies regarding transfers and 93% report transfers or fees charged go to the general
fund for basic government services (See attachment A).
Hidden Tax vs. Transfer
Research revealed municipally owned utilities at a national level do in fact transfer utility
revenues to their general fund as part of business. The issue of transfers being viewed as hidden taxes is
a question posed to communities throughout the U.S. Identifying the number of publicly owned utilities
vs. investor owned utilities and how transfers to general funds are controlled at the national level is
prohibitive due to the scope and breadth of such an undertaking. However, research did show transfers
or fees come in varying forms, they are reported as "PILOT's" payment in lieu of taxes, or rents, or
operating expenses or they are direct transfers minus other fees or a combination of both. In some
instances these transfers are treated as a dividend or return on investment.
Due to the complexity of this issue some communities have found themselves facing litigation,
the most recent example is the May 31, 2011 decision rendered by the Missouri Supreme Court. During
an en banc session the court ruled in favor of the City of Herman, Mo. stating their 10% utility transfer to
their general fund is not a hidden tax but appropriate fees for service. In this case the court applied
what is referred to as the "five -factor test" established from another Missouri case Keller v. Marion
County Ambulance District, 820 S.W. 2nd 301 (Mo. banc 1991). The court ruled the City of Herman's
utility charges are a fee rather than a hidden tax and did not violate the state's Hancock Amendment,
Missouri Constitution article X, sec. 22(a).
(Free Library 2011) Many financial government experts consider enterprise fund transfers to a
municipality's general fund nothing more than the cost of doing business. Direct billings for staff time,
renting municipally owned facilities, paying for equipment, paying in lieu of taxes, etc...are examples of
reimbursable costs. Most notable though is the absence of dividends or return on investments for
publicly owned utilities. Unlike IOU's (Investor Owned Utilities) publicly owned utilities do not build
investment dividends into their rate structure for the benefit of the stock holder. Instead, local
communities realize increased levels of service without increased taxes and nor do they pay a property
tax.
(Free Library 2011) It should be noted, entities that transfer funds or states that do not control
transfers, should do so. Experts strongly recommend municipalities incorporate fund transfer policies to
insure municipalities do not falsely inflate their utility rates. By doing so they reduce their exposure to
public criticism and unnecessary scrutiny by the general public.
Non -Scientific Survey Results
Currently there are twenty-nine municipally owned electric utilities (including Estes Park) in the
state of Colorado. Several of these municipalities provide other utility services i.e. water, sewer, storm
water etc...Some of these communities own and operate other enterprise activities as well, such as
airports, golf courses, recreation facilities and waste management services. Some of the communities
surveyed report they transfer funds to their general fund from these enterprise departments as well.
Because the Town of Estes Park's electric department transfers funds to the Town's general
fund Colorado municipalities who own and operate an electric department were chosen to be surveyed.
The questions posed to the municipalities intended to provide an understanding of what other
communities in Colorado are doing in regards to managing their utilities and if they transferred funds
directly or charged their utility department fees for doing business. Other questions posed intended to
identify the amount of the transfer relative to utility revenues, what other fees are charged by the
municipality to the enterprise utility, do they have written policies controlling transfers and how are the
transfers used. The survey results are presented in attachment "A" and depicted below:
Question #1— Do you transfer money from your utilities to the general fund?
2
Results — 79% (23 of 29) do direct transfers from their utility enterprise funds to the general fund. Of
those six who did not transfer five of them operated at a loss therefore could not transfer into the
general fund while of those five, three do transfers to the general fund if their utility revenues allow.
Question #2 — What is the percentage?
Results — The amounts vary dependent on the health of the organization's general fund. The average
percentage amount of the transfers for the respondent communities is 7.5%. Of the communities who
approve transfers and of those communities who could afford a transfer the highest percentage is
Haxtun at 26.5% and the lowest is Colorado Springs at .4%.
Question #3 — How is your transfer amount determined?
Results — Not all respondents could answer this question, they didn't know or because the amount is
determined based the need of the general fund during their budget process. The answers provided are
below:
Center Determined by the board and hasn't changed but not working
Colorado Springs It is payment in lieu of taxes
Delta Specific amounts from trash and electric (not provided)
Fleming The auditor requests $15K each year in some years $20K
Fredrick Divides department funded by utilities as part of analysis to cover expenses
Fountain 5% was determined adequate amount to cover use of streets and public rights of way
Glenwood Springs CIP receives an amount and general fund receive $3 Million in transfers
Granada Use QuickBooks to analyze transfer amounts
Haxtun Enough to cover general fund budget shortfalls each year
Holly Board determines the amount each year based on general fund budget needs
Holyoke Auditor requires 25% profit for each utility before setting transfer
Julesburg It is budgeted each year depending on the general fund needs
Las Animas Is based on .005 kwh
Loveland Council sets amount each year but it has been 6% for last twenty years
Lyons CPA sets amounts to balance budget
Wray Direct transfers to each general fund department budgets as needed
Yuma Flat rate each year
Question #4 — What is the money used for?
Results — All respondents stated transfers are for general fund uses for general government services.
Nothing specifically earmarked.
Question #5 — Do you charge the utility for other items in addition to the transfer such as rent, salaries,
etc...
3
Results — 41% state they do charge additional fees to the utility for rent, staff costs, etc...payment in lieu
of taxes.
Question #6 — Do you have written policies for transfers?
Results —17% have written policies, ordinances or charters that control transfers.
Attachments:
A — Contains results of questions 1, 2, 4 and 5. Question three was structured in such a manner
respondents were compelled to provide narrative responses those responses are contained within the
body of this report under survey results.
B — Is a spreadsheet identifying the community, the types of enterprise departments managed by the
municipality, what their enterprise revenues are, what the amount of transfers are, the percent of the
transfer relative to the revenue and what the tax levies collected are for the municipality surveyed.
Summary
The majority of Colorado municipalities who own their own electric utility do transfer enterprise
dollars to their general funds as part of their business model. These transfers are not earmarked for
specific purposes instead they are used to maintain basic government services to which their
communities have grown accustomed. Research revealed the Colorado communities surveyed in fact
transfer general fund dollars to the utility enterprise fund if necessary, just as the Town of Estes Park has
done in the past. Nothing in the research exposed these communities inflate their rates to create excess
revenues for their general fund but have demonstrated these transfers are an expense to the utility and
as such part of doing business. This practice is consistent with the Town of Estes Park's business model.
Research shows the "hidden tax" issue is a national concern for publicly owned utilities to the
point it has raised the public's concern regarding government's practice of fund transfers, as pointed out
by the recent decision issued by the Missouri Supreme Court in Arbor Investment v. City of Herman. The
City of Herman case identified several key points two which are relevant to fund transfers, 1) the
transfer is not a tax and 2) the transfer of funds did not violate their constitutional standards. This case
seems most relevant to the issue of a "hidden tax" as asserted by our community members and is the
most relevant information revealed during research.
In response to the issue of fund transfers from a utility to a municipality's general fund some
communities have taken various steps intended to remain above board to meet the standard of open
and accessible government. They have implemented policies that outline how transfers will occur and
for what purpose, they have established within their charters (for home rule communities) how
transfers will occur or they have established ordinances through the legislative process regarding fund
transfers. Those communities who have initiated some step of formality regarding transfers with built-in
control mechanisms appear to fair better under public scrutiny or legal review.
4
References
American Public Power Association. Handbook for new public power policymakers, (1989). APPA
Washington, D.C.
American Public Power Association. 10 Common False Charges, (n.d.). Retrieved January 11, 2001, from
www.publicpower.orR/aboutpublic/index.cfm?ltemNumber=2661.
Arapis, Theodore A.B.D. & Jung, Changhoon Ph. D., (2009). "Transfers In, Transfers Out: The Impact of
Enterprise Fund Transfers on the Fund Balance and Spending Behavior of Georgia Cities,"
Retrieved January 11, 2011.
Arbor Investment Co., LLC, et al., appellants vs. The City of Herman, respondent, (2010). Curtis, Heinz,
Garrett & O'Keefe, attorneys for respondent. A substitute brief of respondent City of Herman, in
the Supreme Court of Missouri.
Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies Office of Policy and Research, (1997). Colorado Office of
Consumer Council and The Utility Consumers Board: 1997 Sunset Review. Retrieved February
28, 2011.
Colorado Revised Statutes, Michie's Legal Resources. Cite C.R.S. 31-15-707 Municipal Utilities. Retrieved
February 28, 2011.
Conyers, AI, M., Chief Financial Officer Electric Cities North Carolina Municipal Power Agencies.
Economic stress and transfers (powerpoint presentation). Retrieved January 11, 2011, from
www.publicpower.org.
Cox, William J., Jr., lnterfund transfers: a credit perspective (1999). Retrieved January 11, 2011.
Grigsby, William W. & Parker, Darrell (2000). Rate of return for municipal enterprise funds: the case of
Rock Hill, S.C. WWW. thefreelibrary.com, retrieved January 11, 2011.
Holmes, Frank C.P.A., (1946-1955). Auditors report Town of Estes Park Light and Power Department.
March 27, 1946.
Holmes, Frank C.P.A. & Gates, Howard C.P.A. (1956-1958). Auditors report Town of Estes Park Light and
Power Department. February 10, 1958.
Holmes and Nefzger, C.P.A.'s (1959). Auditors report Town of Estes Park Light and Power Department.
February 18, 1959.
Holmes, Edward C.P.A. (1960-1967). Auditors report Town of Estes Park Light and Power Department.
Public Power -American Public Power Association. Q&A for Communities Considering the Public Power
Option, (n.d.). Retrieved January 11, 2011, www.publicpower.org.
5
Public Power -American Public Power Association. Transfer Pressure. (May 2009). Retrieved January 11,
2011, www.publicpower.org/newsletters/ppmagazinedetailarchive.cfm?ItemNumber=24435.
Osborne, David & Gaebler, Ted, (1993). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is
transforming the public sector. Penguin Group, New York, New York.
Schryver, Ursula, (2007 January -February). For Governing Boards: Know and Trumpet the Value of Your
Utility. Public Power -American Public Power Association. Retrieved January 11, 2011.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Independent Statistics and Analysis. "Electric Power Industry
Overview." (2007). Retrieved January 11, 2011. Contact Information Rebecca Peterson (202)
586-4509.
Wilson, Joe, Esq. A Brief History of Municipal Electricity in Colorado -Early Origins of Electricity in
Colorado. Colorado Association of Municipal Utilities. Retrieved January 11, 2011.
The Free Library, Rate of return for municipal enterprise funds: the case of Rock hill, SC (n.d.). Retrieved
January 11, 2011, www.thfreelibrary.com/rateofreturn/rockhillsouthcarolina.
6
U)U)U)(0U)'U)U)
4_LLLLLLLLLLLLLL
C0000000
d
d
N
d
Transfer Percenta
o General Fund
a)
000t0,00
Z Z Z cuZ Z Z
0
XX
0 0 0 o o 0
ut N
1.(ndO.0)?'Nti
(o04O 31-O
N
XXXXX`fCx
IV) CO V) (1) U) (1) U) (1) i/) U) U) (1)��� (� (I) (/) U) (,)
LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL a :LL LL LL LL LL
10C90000000CD0 Cyr .. 0CDCDCD0
4
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
XX XX X X X X
a)
0 0 0 o t o
ZZZZ.Z
X
0
0 0 0 8!" o o 0 o o Og o }o g
g
O I� N O co O r- 0O ()�C)
O N O° O O 1`: O ti O �- ' 0 0 4 4c`i O
XX XX XX XX X X
rn
Q
u)
0 CD
3 "0
C
O N
C7 0
w
c0 0 rn E al
to c O L C C
c .2, >., %' u) as< 7
cID O O E2 a) N (0
0III-,JJJ
X X X
)-
aa)
;WO E� A (v ) O
Attachment A
ENTERPRISE FUND TRANSFERS TO GENERAL FUND FOR COLORADO MUNICIPALITIES WITH PUBLIC UTILITES
)6c
09
z
Center UP got a tran
4
&
O il)
0. 2
_ 0
S 'Jo'
E
0
>,„ ca
a) To EL
2 1.5
.0 .o
sa
O 2 7o,
*V 0
c
o
(7,
0 0. 2
Z 0
0.
o
.ar
0)
co
o
C>
co
00
C)
CO
L)
N
6)
0
c)
0
.cr
0)
y-
a-
W C
113. g
0 C
ar
75-
cu o
ca
0
•ar
cO
Lc-)
ci
0
0
0
co 0
CL)
Ce U-
1.5 1g
O Uj
F-
co
cs)
•c-
Eft
co
(0
(0
r-
•ar
69.
CO
6
0)
co
6
0)
Ls)
co
0
67).
r•-•
0)
(0
(7)..
co
CO
O 0
co
c
a) • 0
II! re
O . 0
09 1- Yt LO cn N
Cf) CC;
N N ,t 0
LO CS) 0 0
N- C9 CD 0
CO cO 0 ci
y-
CO 0 N
LC) 0
0 so:
•(-
Oe•
0 0 0 N. 0
0) Ci C) 00 0
•cr
cL*'
'Cr 0 CO 0 N
COO 09000
c'jodcj
0
;Eg
0 1^- N
cO CO (00)
0 0
CO CO CO U)
(1) 0 0 0) 0 0 0
O 000000
CCCCCCC
O 0 0 0 0 0) 0
03 0 0 0 a) a) 0)
Transfemc*
0 C) 0 +0 0 6
LO (•sr 0) co co
• (c) cp co co a)
• co- (6
0 CD 0)0) N7 V'
C`i 6 69. V' 7`.-
N- 69.
0 0 CD 0
(00) f 69
CO
0)-
0) CO
69 6
C9 0 CO
N. 0 N
CO I,-
N
y- y-
67 69
c-000N-
CO 6 0 69. N-
M" 0 N
0 Lri
(0 t N-
01
0) CO LO
Er) la CO LO
0 0) CO- 05
6 03 6 N-
14 17). 6.7j. 673
0) 0 CD 0) 0 0 CD
O 000000
CCCCCCC
CD 0) 0.) CD 0 0
O CD a) 0 0 0 CV
U) CI) CO (1)
0) N 'I' 0)
CD 6 1.0 CO CD
N 09 C9 0 0)
6 CT 05 6 NZ
0) -a- .0 0 o c•N
.o• 0 0)LC)
YF 6 e3
69 69 69 69
0
C)
CD 0 0) 6
CO 6 CO CD
`cr.. 6- LO-
N
• c0 N
69 0) 0)
0 N
Cr) CO 0
r•-•• `0",
N CO 0)
6 1- (0
69. 69
69
ooco(00
0 0 a) co co
0 0 co 0. 6
ci 06 c•1
co -ct 00o co
1"...• VI CO, 0 'I'
09 N
r r N 0)0.)
6 6 69
0)0)
-a
a
a)
11)
0.
'5
0)
0)
c E
(f) o
(4) CO 1`..- N-- N
(ON. N CO CO
6) CD 0)
N: N.- 0)- 6 05
o NI-
LO c9 0) 6
L6
69. 0)0)
0) CO c-
y--
01 N- 6 0)
• C c- C9
C7) LO N
N N-
C9- Y-
CO N c-
69. 69 69 69.
11) 03
43 _2
o
0. 0
0,1 (t
o
6.
0, co co o
0
0
0 • U.
0)
4- 0
0
g• 's
V' (00) 0, CO N
CO CO 6 N 0 N
LO CD c- N.. 0 cr C9
YF u5 ui uS Nf
CO N (00) Y-
•ar co C3) 7. LO
(o- (6 •,•-•7 I
,- 69. 6 6 69. 0)
*Pr
c
<I>
,...
o
C P-
.0
0
1= !at, "
..
c a) coP‘f.)
a) CO co
CDCD CD 0- CO
0
0
<
0 cs,
Attachment
CO
CO
CO
ENTERPRISE FUND TRANSFERS TO GENERAL FUND FOR COLORADO MUNICIPALITIES WITH PUBLIC UTILITES
Notes
No line item for "transfers out'; however, in
expenses a line item for "non -operating fees"
totalling $1,711 for a percentage of 0.29%
Town admin said transfers are lower than
normal; FEMA funding for tornado
ropey ax evy
for Municipal
Operations
(current)
o
a
rn
M
N
G
O
0
u)
O
LO
(0
3.75200
10.46400
3.86800
22.63000
28.86600
21.82300
Total
Percentage of
total revenue
for transfers
0
NCD
�.
N
0
o
N
CD
see notes
o
CD0
(O
0
N
o
N.:
0
CD
CA
Cr4
Total Rev. all
Ent. Funds
$25,751,871
CV
CD
0
CD
W
E9
y-
CO
O
000
I``
r}
0
COCOO
CV
(0
64
CO
COO
CD
M
64
CV
N.
'14-
V
H}
$2,648,645
Percentage
of Revenue
5.35%
2.00%
31.33%'
5.07%
20.08%
7.88%
2.02%
6.95%
see notes
see notes
0 0
0 0 0 0 000
CD CD 00
0 0 0 0 0 0) 0 (0
O CD C1 O CD 6 N
25.49%
58.93%
0.00%
14.30%
8.67%
5.77%
0.00%
0.00%
15.66%
33.18%
21.18%
9.54%
Transfers Out
$316,860
$396,840
$493,995
$367,871
$758,113
$806,285
$2,700
$237,152
see notes
see notes
O O 0 0 0 0 0
te 69 6113 ( 69 0 0
Ili
M
64 69
0 0
0 0
M O
N r
EA 64
0
69
0
0
ft
0 0 0 0
0 0 69. eft
N- O
to 69
$316,000
$65,000
$50,000
$19,000
Revenue
NrN
CO CO
V'M
' N
CV N
CD OD
64 Y-
69
NO
N1.
CO7
(O(O
(+ 0
L$)N
69 64
rN d'
rN CO CO
rO OD CV
to CYJMN
N. M M r
N. N V'
O 64
64 69
69
$106,680
$474,800
000O MO CV07N.
tO N� CD CD N-f.
rMOOO 'Crh-
�N 00)N C6 M
N N O) CO O ER N.
CO O04 (O i
d' 69 b4 64 _
64 64 63
$921,788
$178,176
$134,715
$104,929
$830,649
$173,437
$25,252
$114,134
$2,017,436
$195,914
$236,055
$199,240
Enterprise or Proprietary
Fund
Water Fund
Electric Fund
Water Fund
Electric Fund
Water & Sewer
Electric System
Airport Operations
Landfill Operations
Water Fund
Electric Fund
Electric Department
,Water Department
Sewer Department
Refuse Department
Communication Department
Cranor hill Department
Recreation Department
Electric Fund
Water Fund
Sanitation Fund
Sewer Fund
Electric
Water
Sewer
Landfill/Trash
Electric
Water
Sewer
Refuse
City of Fountain
2009 CAFR
Town of Frederick
2008 Audit
City of Glenwood
Springs
2009 Audit
Town of Granada
2009 Audit
City of Gunnison
2009 Audit
Town of Haxtun
2009 Audit
Town of Holly
2009 Audit
City of Holyoke
2009 Audit
O (0
r
r
(r
r
O
r
Attachment 6
ENTERPRISE FUND TRANSFERS TO GENERAL FUND FOR COLORADO MUNICIPALITIES WITH PUBLIC UTILITES
Notes
Operating transfers in to two
enterprise funds
All enterprise funds experienced a net
loss in assets, due to expenses being
greater than incomes in every case.
Couldn't find any indication of
transfers, no line item for them.
Property Fax levy
for Municipal
Operations
(current)
40.96300
13.23900
39.00000
CD
CD
,r
CD
r-
Ct5
13.42000
9.56400
13.98900
otal
Percentage of
total revenue
for transfers
C*--,` •''
Vw
r-
.4•9
tO
CDi'D;
Og
0,
CO
CD
g-.'
(0
0
.8g
CO
(0CD
C5
.d•-s.
115
'81,'
CD
CD
Total Rev. all
Ent. Funds
$1,481,847
$23,412,899
(01"...
CT)
0)
CD
r-
LC)
64
CO
CO
C.
Co
''V
h.-
0)
T...
LO
(0
CD
OD
OD
CV
L15-
N.
64
LO
NT
0
0)
CD
QD
1,--
CO
64
0)
LO
C)
0)
OD
ei
04
Percentage
of Revenue
14.62%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
6.06%
21.35%
21.75%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
-65.53%
-29.83%
0.00%
8Q 8Z e e. e e
C) CD CD CO CD CD
CD CD CD CD CD CD
C5 C5 C5 -4: 6 6
,.-
e e '4.'" 8Q 'Q
N• r..., Zb CD Zb
CV CD CD r- CD
6 6 6 6 4
e e e 8Q 8Z 8Z
rt LO OD CV OD CO
6 6 6 ui ix) ui
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Transfers Out
c) c) 6 c)
CD 64 64 (4
CD
y5
0)
y-
0)
0$
0$
000'09Z$
0000011
16171:Ztn$
6 co c) c)
64 v- cn 64
OD CV
a5 c5
C4 OD
7
$0
$0
$0
$145,144
$0
$0
$93,111
$7,879
$4,181
$6,616
$325,182
$573,236
$402,050
$257,020
$2,239,025
$326,340
$199,039
CD CD CD CD
64646464
Revenue
$923,239
$234,795
$162,378
$161,435
$19,986,260
$1,873,855
$1,149,540
$234,638
$168,606
$3,524,366
$650,594
$436,841
$498,144
Lt, il) r•-. co rt
CD C4 OD 01 CD
CV CD V) CO r-
vi CV- 1.6 co
cy CO CO C4 OD CO
CO CV CD CD CO CO
69.
0) 0) 0) 0)
$44,507,482
$11,901,142
$7,416,039
$3,428,994
$8,010,298
$7,040,217
$6,994,755
$3,875,594
$40,575,277
$5,597,397
$3,525,805
$957,189
$913,987
$421,018
$98,403
Enterprise or Proprietary
Fund
Electric Fund
Water Fund
Sewer Fund
Sanitation Fund
Utility Fund
Water
Sanitation
Ambulance
Lamar Building Finance
Light & Power
Water Fund
Sewer Fund
Sanitation Fund
Electric Utility Fund
Water Utility
Sewer Utility
Property Management Fund
Sanitation
Aviation
Electric
Water
Sewer
Storm Drainage
Other Enterprise Funds
Water
Wastewater
Stormwater
Power
Electric Fund
Water Fund
Sanitation Fund
Property Fund
Town of Julesberg
2009 Audit
City of Lamar
2009 Audit
Las Animas
2009 Audit
City of La Junta
2008 Audit
City of Longmont
2009 CAFR
City of Loveland
2009 CAFR
Town of Lyons
2009 Audit
N-
1--
CO
CD
r-
0
CV
N-
CV
CA
CV
0)
CV
Attachment B
ENTERPRISE FUND TRANSFERS TO GENERAL FUND FOR COLORADO MUNICIPALITIES WITH PUBLIC UTILITES
Notes
Nothing called "transfers our; however there is
a line item under expenses called "overhead
management fees" which is a lump sum for the
3 highest revenue funds. If these are transfers
to general fund, the lump transfer is $77,964,
for a percentage of revenue of 5.9%.
Sewer got a transfer in
Electric fund of a transfer in
ropey ax evy
for Municipal
Operations
(current)
O
0
CO
CO
21.46000
17.57900
_20.80500
26.85600
0
Percentage of
total revenue
for transfers
see notes
4.39%
4.51%
0
�Y
N
o
N
Total Rev. all
Ent. Funds
0
N
0)
M
T.
$1,974,067
$16,775,271
$3,144,776
0
O
d'
0p
0
Percentage
of Revenue
4.27%
4.72%
4.98%
8.25%
5.20%
14.64%
-32.20%
16.89%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
-16.93%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Transfers Out
see notes
see notes
see notes
see notes
$66,168
$12,348
$8,100
$508,464
$358,788
$339,444
-$450,000
000000000
0 iA 063
O
0)
CO
0
0 Cfl ifl 00
O
CO
V
EH
Revenue
r- 0 O 0
N M CO CO
0 O 0 N
I+f�CV N
M O I`r O
0 CO N
$1,549, 755
$261,628
$162,684
$6,162,238
$6,896,396
$2,319,091
$1,397,546
$2,309,330
$333,464
$232,127
$269,855
$2,540,407
$270,715
$283,204
$359,857
$359,857
Enterprise or Proprietary
Fund
Electric Fund
Water Fund
Sewer Fund
Trash Fund
Electric Fund
Water Fund
Sewer Fund
IGas Enterprise Fund
Power Enterprise Fund
Water Enterprise Fund
Sewer Enterprise Fund
Electric Fund
Water Fund
Sewer Fund
Sanitation Fund
Electric Fund
Water Fund
Sewer Fund
Sanitation Fund
Ambulance Fund
Town of Oak Creek
2009 Audit
Town of Springfield
2009 Audit
City of Trinidad
2009 Audit
City of Wray
2009 Audit
City of Yuma
2009 Audit
N
N
co
N
N
N
Attachment B