Get documents about "FY 2013 Adopted OPERATING BUDGET - City of Annapolis
Shared by: pengxuebo
-
Stats
- views:
- 13
- posted:
- 12/30/2012
- language:
- English
- pages:
- 326
Document Sample
FY 2013 Adopted OPERATING BUDGET
Prepared by the Department of Finance
Bruce T. Miller, Finance Director
CITY OF ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND
Directory of Officials and Advisory Bodies
City Council
Joshua J. Cohen, Mayor
Ward Alderman
1 Richard E. Israel
2 Frederick M. Paone
3 Classie G. Hoyle
4 Sheila M. Finlayson
5 Mathew Silverman
6 Kenneth A. Kirby
7 Ian Pfeiffer
8 Ross H. Arnett, III
Management Team
Title Name
City Manager Michael D. Mallinoff, Esq., ICMA-CM
Director of Finance Bruce T. Miller
Director of Human Resources Paul M. Rensted
Director of Public Works David Jarrell, P.E.
Director of Planning and Zoning Jon L. Arason
Chief of Police Michael A. Pristoop
Fire Chief David L. Stokes, Sr.
Director of Neighborhood & Environmental
Maria Broadbent
Programs
Director of Transportation Richard Newell
Director of Recreation and Parks Brian Woodward
Directory of Officials and Advisory Bodies
Legislative Committee Assignments
Standing Committees
Economic Matters Committee Environmental Matters Committee
Frederick M. Paone, Chairman Frederick M. Paone, Chairman
Sheila M. Finlayson, Member Kenneth A. Kirby, Member
Ian Pfeiffer, Member Ian Pfeiffer, Member
Finance Committee Housing & Human Welfare Committee
Ross H. Arnett, III, Chairman Kenneth A. Kirby, Chairman
Sheila M. Finlayson, Member Classie G. Hoyle, Member
Richard E. Israel, Member Mathew Silverman, Member
Public Safety Committee Rules and City Government Committee
Sheila M. Finlayson, Chairman Richard E. Israel, Chairman
Frederick M. Paone, Member Classie G. Hoyle, Member
Mathew Silverman, Member Ross H. Arnett, III, Member
Transportation Committee
Ian Pfeiffer, Chairman
Kenneth A. Kirby, Member
Ross H. Arnett, III, Member
Directory of Officials and Advisory Bodies
Boards and Commissions
Board or Commission Chairman
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board Leonard Berman
Annapolis Conservancy Board Karen Jennings
Arts in Public Places Commission Tom Fridrich
Board of Appeals Christian F. Elkington
Board of Supervisors of Elections Michael Parmele
Building Board of Appeals Mark Hall
City Central Committee – Democrat Nick Berry
City Central Committee - Republican Bill Day
Civil Service Board Anthony Christhilf (acting)
Commission on Aging James “Hank” Heggins
Education Commission Vacant
Environmental Commission Theodore C. Weber
Ethics Commission James E. Dolezal
Financial Advisory Commission Fred Sussman
Historic Preservation Commission Sharon A. Kennedy
Historic Markers Commission Vacant
Housing & Community Development Committee Kenny Kirby
Human Relations Commission Michael J. Keller
Maritime Advisory Board Terry H. Lomax
Parking Advisory Commission C. Chance Walgran
Planning Commission Dr. Eleanor M. Harris, ED.D
Police & Fire Retirement Plan Commission Joseph Semo
Port Wardens Gene Edwin Godley
Public Safety Disability Retirement Board Adam Cohen
Recreation Advisory Board C. Taney Hamill
Risk Management Committee Paul M. Rensted
Transportation Board John Gianetti
GFOA Distinguished Budget Presentation Award
July 1, 2011
The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) presented a
Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to the City of Annapolis, Maryland for its annual budget for the
fiscal year beginning July 1, 2011. In order to receive this award, a governmental unit must publish a
budget document that meets program criteria as a policy document, as an operations guide, as a financial
plan, and as a communications device.
This award is valid for a period of one year only. We believe our current budget continues to conform to
program requirements, and we are submitting it to GFOA to determine its eligibility for another award.
Acknowledgements
This document could not have been prepared without the cooperation, support, and leadership of the
Mayor, the City Council, the Finance Committee, and the department directors. The purpose of preparing
a budget is to put forth the annual financial plan of the City, to show what services it is providing to our
citizens and how much it will cost to do so. Numerous individuals spent many hours developing goals,
objectives and performance measures, and then correlating them with available resources. This is a
difficult task as there is always an increasing demand for City services in an era of decreasing revenues.
The individuals listed below have played an integral part in the preparation of this document.
Finance Department
Shirley S. Tripodi, Assistant Director
Linda M. Kline, Senior Accountant
Jason M. Hundley, Senior Accountant
Maria M. Muñiz, Administrative Office Associate
Table of Contents
ABOUT ANNAPOLIS
Community Profile........................................................................................................................................ 1
Demographic and Statistical Profile ............................................................................................................. 2
Regional Map ............................................................................................................................................... 5
City Government Organizational Chart ........................................................................................................ 6
BUDGET BACKGROUND
Development Process .................................................................................................................................. 7
Timeline ....................................................................................................................................................... 8
Guiding Factors............................................................................................................................................ 9
Strategic Plan............................................................................................................................................. 11
Budget Message and Instructions ............................................................................................................. 13
State of the City Address ........................................................................................................................... 17
Changes from Proposed to Adopted Budget ...................................................................................... 30
ADOPTED BUDGET
ALL FUNDS SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 36
Historical Figures ................................................................................................................................. 44
Historical and State Comparisons ....................................................................................................... 50
Fund Balances .................................................................................................................................... 15
General Fund ................................................................................................................................. 56
Water Fund .................................................................................................................................... 57
Sewer Fund .................................................................................................................................... 58
Refuse Fund ................................................................................................................................... 59
Stormwater Fund ............................................................................................................................ 60
Market Fund ................................................................................................................................... 61
Sidewalk Revolving Fund ............................................................................................................... 62
Transportation Fund ....................................................................................................................... 63
Parking Fund .................................................................................................................................. 64
Dock Fund ...................................................................................................................................... 65
GENERAL FUND
Revenues ................................................................................................................................................... 66
Expenditures .............................................................................................................................................. 71
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Water Revenues and Expenditures ........................................................................................................... 75
Sewer Revenues and Expenditures ........................................................................................................... 76
Refuse Revenues and Expenditures ......................................................................................................... 77
Stormwater Revenues and Expenditures .................................................................................................. 79
Market Revenues and Expenditures .......................................................................................................... 80
Sidewalk Revolving Revenues and Expenditures ..................................................................................... 81
Transportation Revenues and Expenditures.............................................................................................. 83
Parking Revenues and Expenditures ......................................................................................................... 85
Dock Revenues and Expenditures ............................................................................................................. 86
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND........................................................................................................................ 87
DEBT SERVICE FUND ............................................................................................................................... 88
POSITION SUMMARY................................................................................................................................ 94
Contractual Employee Conversions .................................................................................................... 95
Position Classifications and Grades .................................................................................................... 97
Position Compensation ...................................................................................................................... 103
i
Table of Contents
DEPARTMENTAL OPERATING BUDGETS
Department of the Mayor and Aldermen
Organization Chart ............................................................................................................................ 106
Description ........................................................................................................................................ 107
Staffing Summary .............................................................................................................................. 107
Mayor's Office and Team with Performance Measurements & Budget Summary............................ 109
Office of Law with Budget Summary ................................................................................................. 112
Public Information Office with Performance Measurements & Budget Summary............................. 115
Boards and Commissions with Performance Measurements & Budget Summary ........................... 118
Finance Department
Organization Chart ............................................................................................................................ 122
Description ........................................................................................................................................ 123
Staffing Summary .............................................................................................................................. 123
Accounting and Budgeting Division with Performance Measurements & Budget Summary ............ 125
Management Information Technology with Performance Measurements & Budget Summary ........ 130
Purchasing with Performance Measurements & Budget Summary .................................................. 139
Human Resources Department
Organization Chart ............................................................................................................................ 143
Description with Performance Measurements .................................................................................. 144
Staffing Summary .............................................................................................................................. 150
Budget Summary............................................................................................................................... 150
Department of Planning and Zoning ......................................................................................................... 108
Organization Chart ............................................................................................................................ 151
Description with Performance Measurements .................................................................................. 152
Staffing Summary .............................................................................................................................. 161
Budget Summary............................................................................................................................... 162
Police Department
Organization Chart ............................................................................................................................ 163
Description with Performance Measurements .................................................................................. 164
Staffing Summary .............................................................................................................................. 180
Budget Summary............................................................................................................................... 181
Fire Department
Organization Chart ............................................................................................................................ 182
Description with Performance Measurements .................................................................................. 183
Staffing Summary .............................................................................................................................. 193
Budget Summary............................................................................................................................... 194
Office of Emergency Preparedness and Risk Management
Description with Performance Measurements ............................................................................. 195
Department of Neighborhood and Environmental Programs
Organization Chart ............................................................................................................................ 202
Description with Performance Measurements .................................................................................. 203
Staffing Summary .............................................................................................................................. 214
Budget Summary............................................................................................................................... 215
Department of Public Works
Organization Chart ............................................................................................................................ 216
Description ........................................................................................................................................ 217
Staffing Summary .............................................................................................................................. 221
Budget Summary (All Divisions) ........................................................................................................ 224
Administration with Budget Summary ............................................................................................... 226
Bureau of Engineering and Construction with Budget Summary ...................................................... 227
Streets with Budget Summary and Performance Measurements ..................................................... 228
Snow and Ice Removal with Budget Summary ................................................................................. 231
Traffic Control and Maintenance with Budget Summary................................................................... 232
Fleet Maintenance Center with Budget Summary and Performance Measurements ....................... 233
Facilities with Budget Summary and Performance Measurements .................................................. 235
ii
Table of Contents
Water Supply and Treatment Facility with Budget Summary............................................................ 238
Water Distribution with Budget Summary ......................................................................................... 239
Annapolis Water Reclamation Facility with Budget Summary .......................................................... 240
Wastewater Collection with Budget Summary .................................................................................. 241
Stormwater Management with Budget Summary ............................................................................. 242
Solid Waste with Budget Summary and Performance Measurements ............................................. 243
Curbside Recycling with Budget Summary ....................................................................................... 249
Market House with Budget Summary................................................................................................ 250
Sidewalk with Budget Summary........................................................................................................ 251
Recreation and Parks Department
Organization Chart ............................................................................................................................ 253
Description with Performance Measurements .................................................................................. 254
Staffing Summary .............................................................................................................................. 262
Budget Summary............................................................................................................................... 263
Harbormaster with Performance Measurements .............................................................................. 264
Staffing Summary and Budget Summary..................................................................................... 266
Department of Transportation
Organization Chart ............................................................................................................................ 267
Description with Performance Measurements .................................................................................. 268
Staffing Summary .............................................................................................................................. 270
Budget Summary (All Divisions) ........................................................................................................ 271
Administration with Budget Summary ............................................................................................... 272
Vehicle Operations with Budget Summary........................................................................................ 275
Transportation Fleet Maintenance with Budget Summary ................................................................ 276
Parking with Budget Summary .......................................................................................................... 277
APPENDIX
Finance Committee Report .......................................................................................................................A -1
Financial Advisory Commission Report ............................................................................................A - 25
FY 2013 Operating Budget Ordinance.......................................................................................................B-1
Glossary .................................................................................................................................................... C-1
iii
About Annapolis
Community Profile:
Annapolis is an incorporated municipal corporation of the State of Maryland (the "State"), possessing
substantial home rule powers under the State constitution. First settled in 1649 by Puritans fleeing
Virginia, the City was chartered in 1708 and served as the capital of the United States when the Congress
met there in 1783-1784. The City serves both as the capital of the State and as the county seat for Anne
Arundel County and acquired home rule in 1954. Annapolis is situated on the Western shore of the
Chesapeake Bay, at the mouth of the Severn River, east of and midway between Baltimore and
Washington, D.C. The City has been the home of St. John's College (founded as King William's School)
since 1696 and the United States Naval Academy since 1845.
The City covers an area of approximately eight square miles (including waterways). Population in 1950
was 10,047, but growth as well as annexation caused that figure to double by 1960 and more than triple
by 1980. According to the 2010 Census, the population is approximately 38,814, exclusive of the Naval
Academy population of approximately 5,500. The Naval Academy constitutes a Federal enclave within
the City, but is not within the corporate limits of Annapolis.
The appearance of the City is dominated by the handsome buildings of the Naval Academy and the
historic State House of Maryland. In addition, there are a number of contemporary State and County
office buildings which have been designed in keeping with the prevailing Georgian architecture of the
community. Because of the number of residential structures of significant historic and architectural value
for which Annapolis is famous, private and public groups have joined together to retain or to recapture the
historic atmosphere of the community in keeping with modern urban requirements. An application to the
Department of Interior to enlarge the then existing Historic District as designated on the National Register
of Historic Places was approved in 1984. The most recent Annapolis Comprehensive Plan (2009) was
adopted by City Council in October 2009.
Annapolis is served by three major highways, U.S. Routes 50/301, Maryland Route 2 and Interstate 97
which connect with the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, immediately northeast of the City. The District of
Columbia is 27 miles to the west and the City of Baltimore is 27 miles to the north.
The City is governed by a Mayor and a City Council. The City is authorized to issue debt, subject to
certain indebtedness limitations, for the purpose of financing its capital projects and to incur certain other
indebtedness.
The executive offices of the City are located at City Hall, 160 Duke of Gloucester Street, Annapolis,
Maryland 21401.
The legislative body of the City is the City Council, consisting of the Mayor as the presiding officer and
eight Aldermen who together comprise the City Council. One Alderman is elected from each of the eight
wards into which the City is divided and must be a resident of the ward. The Mayor is elected at large.
The Aldermen and the Mayor serve four-year terms, commencing in December of the year following the
presidential election. The City Council has seven standing legislative committees: Economic Matters,
Environmental Matters, Finance, Housing and Human Welfare, Public Safety, Rules and City
Government, and Transportation. The Mayor and Aldermen have one vote each. A simple majority is
sufficient to pass legislation.
The City has independent jurisdiction over streets, street lighting, refuse collection and disposal, police,
parks, harbor, off-street parking, public transportation, fire suppression and emergency services, planning
and zoning, public health, water production and distribution, and sewage collection. Primary and
secondary education is provided by the Board of Education of Anne Arundel County.
1
About Annapolis
Demographic and Statistical Profile:
Community Profile Age Composition (% in 2010), continued
Date of Incorporation: 1708 50 - 54 years 6.2
Form of government: Mayor and Council 55 - 59 years 6.5
60 - 64 years 6.0
Demographics: 65 - 69 years 4.3
70 - 74 years 2.8
Area in square miles 75 - 79 years 2.2
80 - 84 years 1.8
2012 Land & Water: 8.3 Land only 7.1 85 years & over 1.9
2011 Land & Water: 8.3 Land only 7.1
2010 Land & Water: 8.3 Land only 7.1
2009 Land & Water: 8.3 Land only 7.1 Economics (Per U.S. Census Bureau’s 2006-
2010 American Communities Survey)
Climate
Household Income
Average summer temperature (±5̊) 71.9
Average winter temperature (±5̊) 46.2 Median Household Income $70,229
Average annual precipitation (inches) 40.8 Median Personal Income $41,124
Average annual snowfall (inches) 20.5 % City population below poverty lev. 10.7%
% City families below poverty lev. 8.0%
Population Median Housing Value
(owner-occupied) $425,100
2012 38,814
2011 38,604
2010 38,394 Households and Housing Units
2009 37,300
2008 36,400 Households 16,133
2007 36,300 Non Family Households 7,469
2006 37,300 Homeownership rate 54.5%
2005 36,750 Living in same house 1+ years 83.0%
2004 36,210
2003 36,180 Employment
2002 36,100
% in labor force 70.4%
Median Age % in labor force: Civilian 69.7%
% in labor force: Armed Forces 0.70%
2010 per U.S. Census 36.0 % not in labor force 29.6%
% unemployed (civilian labor force) 5.4%
Age Composition (% in 2010)
Employment by Industry (%)
Under 5 years 7.5
5 - 9 years 5.7 Agriculture, forestry, fishing,
10 - 14 years 4.7 hunting, and mining 0.1
15 - 19 years 5.1 Construction 7.1
20 - 24 years 7.7 Manufacturing 2.9
25 - 29 years 9.9 Wholesale Trade 2.8
30 - 34 years 8.0 Retail Trade 9.3
35 - 39 years 6.7 Transportation & Warehousing
40 - 44 years 6.5 and Utilities 3.1
45 - 49 years 6.6 Information 2.8
2
About Annapolis
Employment by Industry (%), continued Service Statistics:
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 5.5 Fire Protection (2012)
Education, Health and Social Services 20.7
Arts, Entertainment, Rec. & Hospitality 9.9 Stations 3
Professional, Scientific, Management Career firefighters 126
Administrative & Waste Mgmt 16.8 Civilian personnel 6
Public Administrative 12.0
Other Services 6.9 Police Protection (2012)
Taxes Stations 1
Uniformed police officers 116
2012 Property Tax Assessed Val. Civilian personnel 29
$6,951,720,444 Police vehicles 110
Local Retail Sales Tax Rate 6%
Personal Income Tax Rate Public Works (2012)
(income $3,001 - $150,000) 4.75%
Corporate Excise and Income Tax 8.25% Water
Water mains in miles 139
Building Permits (per Annapolis Department of Water treatment plants 1
Neighborhood & Environmental Services) Storage tanks 5
Water consumption (annually) 1,235MG
Commercial Number of accounts 12,554
Year Permits Value
2012 144 $28,625,643 Sewer
Sewer lines (in miles) 127
2011 205 $40,216,133 Storm drains (in miles) 55
2010 129 $34,970,551
Sewer treatment plant 1
2009 270 $43,522,221 (50% ownership with Anne Arundel County)
2008 296 $42,830,126 Sewer pumping stations 25
2007 308 $25,494,044 Sewage treated (annually) 1,839MG
2006 334 $30,133,958 Number of accounts 11,435
2005 361 $101,125,015
2004 390 $87,819,105 Utility Rates (2012)
2003 355 $30,470,365
2002 306 $13,727,071 Water & Sewer (City Residents)
Residential Water - Fixed Sewer – Fixed
Meter Size Charge ($) Charge ($)
Year Permits Value
1 in. or less 9.89 11.05
2012 778 $22,713,417
1 ½ inches 49.43 55.26
2011 840 $18,076,871
2 inches 79.09 88.42
2010 787 $15,719,019 3 inches 158.19 176.83
2009 892 $23,354,588 4 inches 247.17 276.3
2008 1,195 $28,296,974 6 inches 494.33 552.61
2007 1,030 $34,309,629
Water – per 1000 gallons used – single family
2006 1,329 $59,901,509 residential
2005 1,025 $76,137,639
2004 1,160 $39,180,383 1 to 7,000 gallons $3.12
2003 1,113 $42,498,578 7001 to 20,000 gallons $6.25
2002 920 $42,532,887 Over 20,000 gallons $9.37
3
About Annapolis
Utility Rates (2012), continued Major Events
Water & Sewer (City Residents), continued Maryland State Legislature
in Session January - April
Water – per 1000 gallons used – multi-family & U.S. Naval Academy
non-residential Commissioning May
U.S. Naval Academy
Parents’ Weekend September
All usages $4.65 Independence Day Fireworks July
U.S. Sailboat Show October
Sewer – per 1000 gallons used – all users U.S. Powerboat Show October
Spring Boat Show & University April
Christmas Lights Parade December
All usages $4.86
First Night Annapolis
Residential Refuse Collection (New Year’s Eve) December
Flat rate $426 annually
Stormwater Utility
Charge per
Customer Type Quarter
Residential, per unit $10
Commerical, industrial, exempt with
impervious coverage:
Up to 5,000 sq. ft $37.50
5,001 – 10,000 sq. ft $75.00
Above 10,000 sq. ft $125.00
Recreation - City owned (2012)
Playgrounds and parks in acres 200
Baseball fields 4
Football fields 1
Basketball courts 6
Tennis courts 14
Playgrounds 9
Pools 1
Public Boat Ramps 3
Skate Parks 1
4
About Annapolis
Regional Map:
5
About Annapolis
Government Organizational Chart
6
Budget Development Process, Timeline and Guiding Factors
Process
Budget Adoption:
The City Code requires that the Mayor submit a proposed budget (for all funds except the Internal Service
Fund, the Pension Trust Fund and the Special Revenue Fund) to the City Council no later than the
st
second Monday in March of each year for the fiscal year commencing the following July 1 . The Finance
Committee makes recommendations on the budget to the full City Council. The City Council conducts
th
public hearings on the budget. No later than June 30 , the budget is legally enacted through passage of
a budget ordinance which establishes spending authority by fund for the operations of the City. The level
on which expenditures may not legally exceed appropriations is the fund level and budget revisions at the
fund level require City Council approval.
Budget Revisions:
Procedure for Changes: It is necessary to have a document which sets forth each request for a change
to the budget. A Budget Revision Form serves this purpose. This form specifies which budgets, by
account, are being changed and by how much. It also provides an explanation of and a justification for
the transaction or circumstances that have necessitated the budget change(s). Also required on the form
are the signature of the department director making the request and the signature of the Finance Director
affirming the sufficiency of funds supporting the change.
Approval for Changes: Because it is the City Council that establishes the original operating budget, it is
the City Council that must approve changes at the fund level. Members of the Council are appointed to
the Finance Committee to do the business of hearing requests for budget changes, evaluating them, and
making recommendations to the Council with regard to them.
Budget Basis:
The budgets of general government type funds are prepared on a modified accrual basis. Under this
basis, revenues are recorded when susceptible to accrual, i.e., both measurable and available. Available
means collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to be used to pay liabilities of the
current period. Expenditures are recorded when the liability is incurred, if measurable, except for debt
service which is recognized when due.
The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) is prepared on the basis of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP). In most cases this conforms with the way the budget is prepared, with the
following exceptions. In the General Fund, the budget basis differs from GAAP in that the budget basis
reflects encumbrances as the equivalent of expenditures. GAAP reflects encumbrances only as
reservations of fund balance. Also, under the budget basis, interfund transfers are considered the
equivalent of revenues and expenditures of the affected funds. In addition, new capital leases are
recorded as expenditures and other financing sources only on a GAAP basis. The Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report shows fund expenditures and revenues on both a GAAP basis and budget basis
for comparison purposes.
The enterprise funds (Water, Sewer, Off Street Parking, Dock, Market, Transportation, Stormwater
Management, and Refuse) are budgeted on a full accrual basis. This means that revenues are
recognized when they are earned, i.e. water use fees are recognized as revenue when bills are produced,
and expenditures are recognized when the liability is incurred.
7
Budget Development Process, Timeline and Guiding Factors
Timeline
December 2011:
• Budget Message and Instructions sent to department directors.
January 2012:
• Proposed budgets and enhancement requests due from each department.
February 2012:
• City Manager meets with each department director regarding budget proposals and requests.
• City Manager submits the City Manager Proposed Budget to Mayor.
• Mayor meets with department directors regarding budget proposals and requests.
March 2012:
• Proposed Budget prepared for presentation to City Council.
• Mayor presents his Proposed Budget to the City Council during the annual State of the City
address.
March 2012 – May 2012:
• Finance Committee holds a series of over twenty meetings to discuss and gain information on the
Proposed Budget. Departmental staff attend meetings and answer questions upon request.
• Finance Committee and Council hold public hearings on the Proposed Budget.
• Financial Advisory Commission adds meetings to their schedule to discuss the Proposed Budget.
May 2012:
• Financial Advisory Commission submits a commentary report on the Proposed Budget to the
Finance Committee and City Council.
• Finance Committee presents their formal Budget Report, with recommendations, to the full City
Council.
June 2012:
• With input from the Mayor, Finance Committee and Financial Advisory Commission, the City
Council adopts the Operating Budget.
July 1, 2012:
• Fiscal year 2013 begins.
8
Budget Process, Timeline, and Guiding Factors
Guiding Factors:
Transition: New Intitiatives Influencing Fiscal Year 2013
During fiscal year 2012, the City embarked on three new initiatives which began the transition into priority-
based budgeting for Fiscal Year 2013 and beyond. Because the initiatives were ongoing during the
budget process, the Fiscal Year 2013 budget presents a transitional phase as changes take hold in the
City.
The main initiative the City began was the creation of a Strategic Plan. In partnership with the University
of Maryland’s Institute for Governmental Service and Research (IGSR), the strategic planning process
began in November 2011 and reached conclusion in September 2012. The process required input from
the Mayor and City Council, the City Manager, department directors and the City’s external stakeholders.
With input from all these groups, strategic issues were identified and actionable goals were created to
address these issues. The final City of Annapolis Strategic Plan document, to be compiled by the IGSR,
is pending completion but the updated vision, mission and goals of the City, as determined through the
strategic planning process, are detailed in the following pages. The final Stategic Plan document will be
available upon request and posted on the City Manager’s webpage once completed:
http://ci.annapolis.md.us/Government/Departments/Mayor/CityManager.aspx
During the Fiscal Year 2014 budget process, City-wide services and programs will be evaluated against
the goals of the Strategic Plan. In addition to assessing programs based on goal-relevancy, programs
and services will also be assessed by performance measurements.
Performance measurement is the second initiative the City began when City departments completed the
Center for Performance Measurement’s (CPM) 101 survey in October 2011. The CPM 101 survey
measured inputs and outputs across City departments, services and functions. The survey was
completed using fiscal year 2011 data and the final CPM 101 Annual Data Report was issued in August
2012. The final report is available upon request or it can be accessed online at:
http://www.ci.annapolis.md.us/Government/Reports/CPMReports2012.pdf
The final report, which benchmarked the City against other jurisdictions across the country, informed City
administration and staff about the strengths and weaknesses of City functioning. Certain performance
indicators as reported in the CPM Final Report are included in the departmental sections of this budget
document.
Of equal importance as the final CPM report is what was learned from the submission process itself. A
key benefit to completing the survey was pinpointing where the City has strong, established data-
gathering systems and where such infrastructure is lacking. The objective during fiscal year 2013 is to
maintain, improve or create measurement practices so that data can be put to work for the City. The goal
is not to collect numbers simply for measurement’s sake. Rather, the purpose is to clearly identify where
needs exist and to allocate resources, both staff and funds, accordingly. With this in mind, each
department submitted current and potential performance measurements that may serve to measure
progress toward departmental and, ultimately, City-wide goals. These established and proposed
performance measurements are listed and explained in each department’s section of this budget book.
9
Budget Process, Timeline, and Guiding Factors
While final results from the CPM 101 survey and the completion of the Strategic Plan were not
chronologically aligned with the FY 2013 budget process, the National Citizen Survey was better able to
inform FY 2013 budgetary decisions. The National Citizen Survey is the third initiative the City embarked
on during fiscal year 2012. The City worked with the National Research Center to customize a citizen
survey which was mailed to a random sampling of 1,200 City residents in late January through early
February, 2012. The final results of the survey were received in early April 2012 in two reports: (1) a final
report of the results of each question and (2) a final report which benchmarked the City against 500
jurisdictions nationwide. Both reports illuminate strengths and weaknesses of the City as identified by the
citizens of Annapolis.
The weaknesses in particular informed the strategic planning process. For example, one of the three
lowest scores of citizen satisfaction was received in the area of affordable housing. Promoting affordable
housing, along with employment opportunities, was then formalized as one of the three strategic issues to
be addressed as part of the City’s Strategic Plan. Likewise, public information services were identified by
the National Research Center as a key driver of citizen satisfaction for citizens of Annapolis. With this in
mind, opening and expanding communication to the public was established as a Strategic Plan goal.
In addition to informing the Strategic Plan, the timing of the survey allowed the results to actively inform
the FY 2013 budget. The citizen survey’s real impact on budgetary decisions is most evident in the FY
2013 decisions to (a) privatize all solid waste collection services and (b) create a sidewalk fund to
specifically address sidewalk improvement. Responses to the solid waste and sidewalk questions are
presented in the Solid Waste Division and Sidewalk Fund overviews of this document.
Furthermore, the citizen survey is purposefully meant to tie into the CPM performance measurements
survey. Customer satisfaction questions on the FY 2012 CPM survey are answered directly from results
of the 2012 National Citizen Survey. In this way, the citizen survey will inform the FY 2012 CPM survey
while continuing to be a valuable tool in priority assessment.
Like the CPM Final Report, the two National Citizen Survey reports can be accessed online at
http://ci.annapolis.md.us/Government/Departments/Mayor/CityManager.aspx or are available upon
request.
Through the Strategic Plan, performance measurements, and the National Citizen Survey, the City is
gaining actionable and meaningful information. With this gathered knowledge, budgetary decisions are
better informed and priority-based budgeting is beginning to gain roots in the City.
10
Strategic Plan
“A strategic plan is an instrument for aligning an organization, such as a city government, to
anticipated changes in its policital, social, economic, or demographic environment. While a
long-range plan focuses on managing existing projects and activities, a strategic plan
positions a city government to meet the evolving needs of the community by focusing on
projects and activities that should be provided in the future.”
- University of Maryland
Institute for Governmental Service and Research
In November 2011, the City began partnership with the University of Maryland’s Institute for
Governmental Service and Research (IGSR) in order to create a strategic plan for the City. The process
required input from the Mayor and City Council, the City Manager, department directors and the City’s
external stakeholders who participated in focus groups and interviews. With input from all these groups,
strategic issues were identified and actionable goals were established to address these issues. The
strategic planning process reached conclusion in September 2012 and though the final document from
the IGSR is pending, the City’s vision, mission, issues and goals as identified through the process are as
follows in the section below.
A main function of any strategic plan is to predicate budgetary decisions. As the strategic planning
process unfolded alongside the fiscal year 2013 budgeting process, the plan served as a guide in making
budgetary decisions. As such, the budget document as follows is a reflection of the strategic planning
process. In future years, the budget will even more strongly align with the vision, missions, issues, goals,
and actions as identified in the Strategic Plan as all these pieces have now been solidified.
VISION:
Annapolis is Maryland’s dynamic, culturally diverse capital city, renowned for its history and maritime
amenities and as a safe, healthy, sustainable place to live, work and visit.
MISSION:
The City of Annapolis delivers comprehensive high quality services to a diverse population of residents,
businesses, and visitors through a broadly representative, accessible, and accountable city government
recognized for its professionalism, stewardship of resources, and efficiency.
11
Strategic Plan
ISSUES and GOALS:
Issue 1: The need to match service delivery to resource constraints
Goal 1: Optimize operating capital
Goal 2: Give funding priority to core services
Goal 3: Increase efficiency of operations, processes, and services.
Issue 2: The need to diversify input to the City Council
Goal 1: Improve City Council meetings to facilitate/encourage resident input from different
perspectives.
Goal 2: Offer additional forums for residents to provide input to Council.
Goal 3: Improve and expand Council communication and interaction with residents.
Issue 3: The need to promote housing and employment opportunities for lower/middle income
levels
Goal 1: Promote workforce development
Goal 2: Increase job opportunities
Goal 3: Improve housing opportunities for residents of public housing and lower/middle income
levels.
The final City of Annapolis Strategic Plan document will explain how these issues and goals were
pinpointed and will also include a detailed action plan for achievement of each goal. The final document
will be made available upon request or online at
http://ci.annapolis.md.us/Government/Departments/Mayor/CityManager.aspx
12
Budget Message
As noted in the Budget Timeline, the annual budget process kicks off with a message from the Finance
Director to all department directors. This message comments on the fiscal influences on the City and
instructs department directors on how to submit their budget proposals and enhancement requests.
Below is this year’s message from Finance Director Bruce T.Miller.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Department Heads
FROM: Bruce Miller, Finance Director
THROUGH: Mike Mallinoff, City Manager
DATE: December 19, 2011
SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Submission Guidelines
The City is currently embarking on two new initiatives which will guide priority-based budgeting in
Fiscal Year 2013. In order to facilitate this shift, the Fiscal Year 2013 budget process will present a
transitional phase as the initiatives take hold in the City.
The main initiative the City is undertaking is the creation of a strategic plan. The strategic planning
process requires input from the Mayor and City Council, The City Manager, Department Directors
and the City’s external stakeholders. With input from all these groups, actionable goals for the City
will be established and City-wide services and programs will be evaluated against these goals. In
addition to assessing programs based on goal-relevancy, programs and services will also be assessed
by performance measurements.
Performance measurement is the second initiative the City began when City departments completed
The Center for Performance Measurement’s (CPM) 101 survey in October 2011. The CPM 101 survey
measured inputs and outputs across City services and functions. We will learn from the collected
data once the final report is received but of equal importance, we have learned from the process itself.
In fact, a main benefit to completing the survey was pinpointing where the City has strong,
established data-gathering systems and where such infrastructure is lacking. The objective is to
maintain, improve or create measurement practices so that data can be put to work for the City.
We do not aim to collect numbers simply for measurement’s sake. Rather, the purpose is to clearly
identify where needs exist and allocate resources, both staff and funds, accordingly.
13
City of Annapolis; FY 2013 Budget Message
Informed by the strategic plan and City-wide performance measurements, priority-based budgeting
will take hold in the City. Unfortunately, both the strategic planning timeline and the timeline for
using and establishing performance measurements do not coincide with this year’s budget process
but we do plan to use this year to set the stage. With this in mind, and in addition to your budget,
please submit the following information:
1) A written overview of your department’s functions and goals for fiscal year 2013.
i) Answer the questions:
(a) What goals does your department strive to achieve?
(b) What functions does your department serve/what does your department do?
(c) Why are those functions important or how do those functions address the
goals?
(d) How are those functions measured (inputs and outputs)? If those functions
are not currently measured (objectively/numerically) how should and could
they be measured in the future. Provide a list of inputs and outputs that
should be used in the future.
(e) How do (or how would) those measurements (numbers) reflect the
functions and address the goals as they were previously explained in (a)
and (b)?
2) Up-to-date organizational chart (with only positions displayed, not employee names)
The following is an overview of expected revenue estimates and expenditure constraints.
REVENUES SUMMARY:
As in recent years, slow economic growth continues to constrain revenue projections for FY 2013
which is reflective of continued sluggishness in the national, regional and local economies.
Furthermore, due to the City’s tri-annual valuation, the City is expecting a decline of approximately
10% in its assessable tax base. This decrease will have a corresponding adverse impact on tax
revenues unless the tax rate is adjusted accordingly to offset the decrease in valuations.
EXPENSE SUMMARY;
Although the City has been successful in limiting, or even decreasing, growth in most expense
categories, some of the City’s cost categories continue to grow faster than corresponding revenues.
This trend essentially is limited to the City’s risk pools, including; employee benefits and general
insurance, however this mismatch continues to strain the City’s ability to shift resources to general
operations. Additionally, several of the City’s liabilities remain significantly under funded, including
14
City of Annapolis; FY 2013 Budget Message
OPEB, Other Post Employment Obligation, and the risks pools noted above while other City liabilities as
a percentage of funding are declining as evidenced by the Police and Fire Pension trust fund
continues. As a result of these liabilities being under-funded and growing, combined with increased
annual pay-go expenditures, it is likely that resources will need to be shifted from the operating
budgets.
FUND BALANCE SUMMARY;
As part of the FY 2012 budget, the City implemented an aggressive plan to address the City’s limited
cash reserves vis-à-vis increasing the unrestricted fund balances for the general and the enterprise
funds. Although year to date projections point to realizing FY 2012 revenue goals, the City will
continue to struggle with managing fund balances during the foreseeable future. As such, the City
will continue to budget surplus revenues for the purpose of building fund balances for FY 2013.
BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS;
Because of the continued challenges the FY 2013 budget presents as noted above, managers should
evaluate three broad areas; new revenue streams or increased fee opportunities, cost containment and
operational efficiencies when preparing their respective budgets.
• New revenue streams; managers need to evaluate departmental activities to determine if the
cost associated with certain definable activities should be born by the user, and if appropriate
develop fee(s) that equal the cost of the services provided. Additionally, fees should equal,
and can not exceed, the cost of the services provided. Departments are requested to evaluate
associated fee structures to insure that all costs are captured, and current costs are being used
to calculate FY 2013 fees rather then costs associated with previous budgets- arguably, fees
should increase each year to keep pace with current costs and budgets. This process will also
help the Finance Committee when they review and approve the current fee structure.
Finally, activities should be evaluated to determine if revolving funds should be established to
account for the receipt and activity expenditures. If you have any questions or
recommendations relative to revolving funds, please contact me prior to developing your
department’s budget so we can discuss the appropriateness, the steps to create the fund, and
the impact on the FY 2013 budget.
• Cost containment / operational efficiencies are always difficult, especially after three plus
years of decreased budgets. Recognizing this reality, continue to evaluate opportunities for
enhancements, including; technological solutions and/or reorganizing work flows. Although
funding for recommended outlays may not be provided in the current fiscal year, this exercise
is highly recommended since more often then not; it provides capital programming solutions
for future funding. When preparing an analysis, it is helpful to provide anticipated return on
investment for recommended opportunities and solutions.
15
City of Annapolis; FY 2013 Budget Message
Salaries
• Salary budgets should only reflect current staffing levels.
• Using a separate schedule, itemize and provide sufficient details and justification for any new
staffing recommendations; including cost savings and/or increases in operational effectiveness
and efficiencies associated with your requests.
Operating Budget
• Operating budgets must be prepared using zero base budgeting techniques; e.g., operating
budgets must itemize cost components and their corresponding cost factors for each line-
number.
• Using a separate schedule, itemize and provide sufficient details and justification for any
expenditure request exceeding a level funded operating budget.
• Submit a budget that will reduce your department’s budget by 5 percent. Identify how this
decrease will impact the services your department provides the City’s taxpayers and
residences.
• Using a separate schedule, identify potential efficiencies and cost containment initiatives that
you feel should be introduced in your department and the potential cost savings that the
initiative could capture on an annual basis. If the initiative requires the expenditure of funds
to realize cost savings, please provide a cost/benefit analysis.
Grants
• Grants will be appropriated separately, not in the general fund, so please compile a list of
grants that you expect to receive during FY 2013.
Timeline/ Budget Process Documents
The information requested in this memorandum is due January 13, 2012. A budget timeline and
Budget Process Documents for the entire process will follow this email immediately.
As a final reminder, please remember that the City has a new chart of accounts, a change that was
part of the Munis Financial systems conversion, which is different than previous years’ formats.
Please use the current Munis Chart of Accounts, sequence of accounts, etcetera, when developing the
budget- let me know if you have any questions, or difficulties.
Thank you.
16
State of the City Address
As noted in the Budget Process and Timeline, the Mayor presents his Mayor’s Proposed Budget to the
City Council in March as part of the annual State of the City Address. The following pages contain Mayor
Cohen’s FY 2013 State of the City Address and Proposed Budget speech as outlined in his PowerPoint
presentation.
City of Annapolis
State of the City Address and Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Presentation
March 12, 2012
Tonight’s Presentation:
• Top three fiscal priorities: where do we stand?
• Proposed budget changes for FY 13
• Tax and fee implications
• Closing thought
Top Three Fiscal Priorities:
1. Structurally balanced budget
2. Restored fund balance
3. Fully funded long-term liabilities
Fiscal Priority 1: Structurally balanced budget
• FY2011: Focused on slashing expenses – Decreased budget by 13%
Laid off 33 employees; cut funding for 66 more positions
Personnel costs reductions made up 51% of cuts
Employee contract concessions totaled nearly $2 million.
Employee health care increased from 15% to 20% of premiums
Retirees’ health care increased from 25% to 30% of premiums.
AFSCME unions foregoed a previously negotiated 3% increase.
All employees took between 4 and 9 furlough days, and department heads took 13
furlough days (5% of pay)
Largest budget cut of any of Maryland’s 157 municipalities.
• FY2012: Focused on raising revenues
Increased property tax rate from $0.53 to $0.56
Increased water and sewer rates
Increased solid waste fee
Increased stormwater utility fee
Increased bus fares
Increase other fees to accurately reflect cost of service
• FY 2011 and FY2012
Balanced approach: combination of spending cuts and increased revenues
Both steps were necessary to reverse course, stop deficit spending, and restore
structural balance to the budget.
17
State of the City Address
• Personnel Comparison: Then and Now
FY2010
o Dec. 2009 total employee count (FTE): 604.5
o Total budgeted personnel costs: $54,819,160
FY2012
o Dec. 2011 total employee count (FTE): 587.5
o Total budgeted personnel costs: $50,170,710
18
State of the City Address
Fiscal Priority 2: Restored Fund Balance
• In 2010 the City Council adopted Resolution R-21-10.
Establishes fund balance floor of 10% of operating expenses and target of 15%.
“The City Council shall allocate fifty percent of any increase in income and property tax
revenues above the prior fiscal year’s base to fund the reserves.”
“The Council shall appropriate all necessary funds to satisfy the target reserve of fifteen
percent as part of the Fiscal Year 2014 budget.”
19
State of the City Address
20
State of the City Address
Fiscal Priority 3: Fully funded long-term liabilities
• Addressed in FY12 budget:
Water and Sewer
o Significant fee increases brought revenues in line with expenses
o Current fee structure includes full funding to pay debt service on new water
treatment plant
Solid Waste
o Increased annual refuse fee from $380 to $426 per household (12 percent)
o Commitment to seek greater efficiencies through managed competition
Stormwater
o Increased annual residential fee from $22 to $40
o Increased non-residential from $120 to tiered fees of $150-$500
o Created new 50% credit for best management practices
o Increased dedicated revenues from $493,000 to $934,000
• Long-term liabilities that remain to be addressed
Infrastructure:
o Sidewalks
o Transit
o Vehicle Replacement
Personnel:
o Police and Fire Pension
o OPEB (retiree medical)
• Sidewalks
City lacks a reliable revenue source to pay for sidewalk repair and maintenance
DPW estimates long-term $20 million liability based upon a 40-year lifecycle for
sidewalks.
City needs approx. $500,000 annually to keep pace with replacement schedule.
• Transit
Transit has always operated at a deficit
FY11
o Deficit was $1.75M
In FY12
o City increased bus fare from $1.00 to $1.50
o Instituted market pricing at City garages
o Hiring part-time employees reduced cost per hour from $18.11 to $16.24
o Projected FY12 deficit of $1.6M
o Projected FY12 farebox recovery rate of 23%
Statewide mandated farebox recovery rate is 35%
• Vehicle Replacement Schedule
During FY10 and FY11 the City paid for vehicle replacement on a pay-as-you-go basis.
FY12: City took first step to re-institute a funded replacement schedule
o Annual funding target: $1.9 Million
o $300,000 current FY12 appropriation
21
State of the City Address
22
State of the City Address
Proposed FY 13 Budget Highlights:
Top Three Priorities for FY13:
1. Maintain structurally balanced budget
2. Continue to restore fund balance
3. Increase funding for long term liabilities
…while still providing value and quality service for our constituents
Continuing to evolve as an organization
• Merge Planning and Zoning with Neighborhood and Environmental Programs
New Department of Planning, Environment and Permits (PEP)
Consolidation will improve internal coordination and accountability
Will elevate Environment as co-equal with Planning and Permits
• Expand focus for Office of Emergency Management (OEM)
New name of Emergency Preparedness and Risk Management
Reflects importance of enhancing risk management to reduce financial exposure to
claims
Shifts funding source from grants to General Fund
23
State of the City Address
Proposed Spending – Major Highlights
• Current employees:
Eliminate furlough days (per collective bargaining): $662,775
Convert 24 contract employees per City Council policy: $275,000
• Long-term liabilities:
Add $4 million from General Fund to unreserved fund balance ($5.3 million across all
funds)
Increase fleet replacement funding from $300,000 to $1,132,000
Increase City pension contribution to 4% for both Police and Fire: $741,000
Dedicate $600,000 for new sidewalk fund
Double OPEB trust fund from $100,000 to $200,000
Other spending highlights
• Continued focus on economic development
Increase allocation to Annapolis EDC by $90,000 to $475,000
Increase allocation to Main Streets Annapolis and Arts District by $12,500 each to
$25,000 each
• Mobility (budget neutral)
Expand Gold Route to Edgewater/Sojourner-Douglass College
Expand Circulator Trolley to Eastport
• Enhancing community quality of life
Increase community grants total by $45,000 to $250,000
Add $10,000 for maintenance of Whitmore Park
24
State of the City Address
Proposed new taxes and fees
• Solid waste fee
• Water and sewer rates
• Bus fares
• Property taxes
Solid Waste
• City conducted managed competition process
• RFP was for entire solid waste program including:
Residential refuse – once per week
Residential and commercial recycling
Street and park can collection
Yard waste
Leaf collection – bagged inside of vacuumed
Bulk collection – on demand instead of quarterly
• Evaluation committee recommended full contractor option
• Results of process:
Based on current delivery system, FY14 annual cost will be: $3.67M
Full City option would cost $2.92M (20% savings)
Full contractor option would cost $1.91M (48% savings)
• Budget proposes modified City option
Contractor continues to provide recycling; City continues to provide refuse, yard waste,
bulky items, street and park cans
Projected costs in FY14: $2.64M (28% savings)
Eliminate 6 positions during FY13
• FY13 annual household fee will drop by $48 to $378 (11% savings)
• Household savings will increase in future years
Water and Sewer
• In FY12 the City increased the average residential water and sewer rate by 75%
Average quarterly bill increased from $125 to $220 (based on 250gal/day)
• FY13 budget proposes 2% increase
Average quarterly bill will increase to $224.50
• City is negotiating agreement with U.S. Navy to charge same wastewater fees.
FY13 budget reflects tentative $440,000 increase from USN.
Bus Fares
• Proposed FY13 fare increase from $1.50 to $2.00
• Proposed FY13 budget acheives farebox recovery rate of 35%
25
State of the City Address
Property taxes
• Triennial reassessment reduced taxable base by 11.7%
$6.88 Billion to $6.075 Billion
• Current FY12 property tax rate of $0.56
Tax rate must increase by 7 cents to $0.63 in order to achieveconstant yield
• Proposed FY13 budget proposes tax rate of $0.6583
Tax rate increase of 2.83 cents over constant yield
o 1 cent of which is dedicated for Sidewalk Fund
4.5% increase in tax levy over FY12
26
State of the City Address
27
State of the City Address
28
State of the City Address
Final Thought: Bond Ratings
City Bond Rating
• Most recent bond ratings issued March 2011:
Fitch: AA+, stable outlook
Standard and Poor’s: AA, stable outlook
Moody’s: Aa3, negative outlook
• Change:*
Fitch: downgraded one notch
Standard and Poor’s: maintained
Moody’s: downgraded two notches
Thank you.
* NOTE: The City’s final bond ratings as received in June 2012 are as follows:
Fitch Ratings: AA+, Stable Outlook
Standard and Poor’s RatingsDirect: AA, Stable Outlook
Moody’s Investor Services: Aa3, Stable Outlook
29
Changes From Proposed to Adopted Budget
The Mayor’s State of the City Report is presented to the City Council and the Citizens of Annapolis as an
accompaniment to the Mayor’s Proposed Operating Budget and Proposed Capital Improvement Program.
The State of the City Report highlights the Mayor’s major initiatives and goals contained in the proposed
budget for the upcoming year, focusing on the proposed property tax rate, organizational changes, and
major capital projects. Once the Mayor’s proposed budget has been presented to the City Council, the
Council may then propose amendments to the Mayor’s budget; these amendments are voted on during
the City Council meeting at which the budget is adopted.
The Mayor’s State of the City Report on the preceding pages includes projects and changes that the
Mayor had incorporated into his proposed budget; some of these were modified, replaced, or eliminated
by the City Council when the budget was adopted. The “Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Report of the Finance
Committee of the Annapolis City Council” (May 29, 2012) provides further insight into changes from the
Proposed to Adopted budget. Please see Appendix A to read the full Finance Committee report (with an
attached report from the Financial Advisory Commission).
Change:
FY 13 Mayor FY 13
Adjustments to Revenues Increase / Reason
Proposed Adopted
(Decrease)
Changes to GENERAL FUND
Real Estate Taxes 38,919,346 37,221,346 (1,698,000) Maintain constant yield.
Civil Engineer assigned to capital
Transfer in from projects, partial salary transferred from
Capital Projects 259,642 313,462 53,820 Capital Improvement (CIP) Budget.
Per increase in Parking Fund revenue
Transfer in from Parking 2,300,000 2,840,000 540,000 projections.
TOTAL Change to General Fund (1,104,180)
(continued)
30
FY 13 General Fund: Expenditures
Change:
Adjustments to Revenues FY 13 Mayor FY 13
Increase / Reason
(continued) Proposed Adopted
(Decrease)
Changes to PARKING FUND
Additional revenues from parking
On-Street & citations (new technology), rates, and
Off-Street Parking 675,000 1,515,000 840,000 fees.
Changes to TRANSPORTATION FUND
Accurately reflect only those General
Transfer In from Fund transfer dollars which are not
General Fund 4,577,563 2,840,000 (1,737,563) supported by parking revenues.
Changes to REFUSE FUND
Result of privatization of refuse
Recycling Revenues 50,000 100,000 50,000 services
Changes to SIDEWALK FUND
Transfer only what is required to cover
Transfer In from personnel costs. All other activities to
General Fund 600,000 277,444 (322,556) be funded from the CIP Budget.
TOTAL Change to Enterprise Funds (1,170,119)
Total PROPOSED Revenues 100,774,762
Total Change (2,274,299)
Total ADOPTED Revenues 98,500,463
31
Changes from Proposed to Adopted Budget
Change:
Adjustments to FY 13 Mayor FY 13
Increase / Reason
Expenditures Proposed Adopted
(Decrease)
Changes to GENERAL FUND
Increase the contribution to the
Economic Development Annapolis EDC but by less than
Contribution 475,000 450,000 (25,000) originally proposed.
Do not fund a new contractual
Elections Deputy position or an
Office of Law: additional Assistant City Attorney
Salaries & Benefits 972,581 819,761 (152,820) position.
Do not increase funding for
Office of Law: Operating training/conference/memberships
(Training & Education) 11,000 2,500 (8,500) costs.
Finance: Fund only one new Accountant
Salaries & Benefits 1,743,952 1,652,827 (91,125) position.
Planning & Zoning: Do no fund additional professional
Operating (Contract services aimed to assist with data
Services) 59,000 58,000 (1,000) entry.
Additional funds not needed to support
an Automation Administrator position
Police: Salaries Only 10,208,168 10,163,168 (45,000) for traffic control technology.
Police: Operating Do not increase funding for non-armory
(Supplies) 225,460 190,460 (35,000) materials and supplies.
Police: Operating (Repair Do not fund new Uninterrupted Power
& Maintenance) 194,220 183,720 (10,500) Supply (U.P.S.)
Office of Emer. Support funding of new Risk Analyst
Preparedness & Risk position pursuant to new
Mgmt: Salaries & Ben'fts. 241,893 262,136 20,242 responsibilities of the Office.
Public Works - Streets: Do not increase funding to the
Salaries 1,957,255 1,854,739 (102,516) temporary employee pool.
Public Works - Traffic
Control & Maintenance: Do not increase funding for flags and
(Supplies) 34,480 21,980 (12,500) curb paint
Public Work - General Reallocated of salary/benefit funds to
Gov't Buildings: Salaries the Market House Fund deemed
& Benefits 280,153 335,693 55,540 unnecessary.
Do not fund new Account Clerk
Recreation & Parks: position for the Roger "Pip" Moyer
Salaries & Benefits 1,255,505 1,194,755 (60,750) Recreation Center.
Recreation & Parks:
Operating (Repair & Do not increase funding for Whitmore
Maintenance) 25,000 15,000 (10,000) Park maintenance.
32
Changes from Proposed to Adopted Budget
(continued)
Adjustments to Change:
FY 13 Mayor FY 13
Expenditures Increase / Reason
Proposed Adopted
(continued) (Decrease)
Changes to GENERAL FUND (continued)
Spend $100,000 less on Fleet
Fleet Replacement: All Replacement Program than originally
General Fund 587,351 487,350 (100,001) proposed.
Proposed budget meant to reflect
$250,000. $205,000 presented in
Community Grants 205,000 250,000 45,000 error.
Accurately reflect only those General
Transfer to Transportation Fund transfer dollars which are not
Fund 4,577,563 2,840,000 (1,737,563) supported by parking revenues.
Transfer only what is required to cover
personnel costs. All other activities to
Transfer to Sidewalk Fund 600,000 277,444 (322,556) be funded from the CIP Budget.
Increase City's contribution to the
Police & Fire Pension and Police & Fire pension and to the Other
(OPEB) 741,000 2,250,000 1,509,000 Post-Employment Benefits fund.
Enact the chosen conversions half-way
Contractual employees through the fiscal year for a cost-
conversions 275,000 158,448 (116,552) savings.
TOTAL Change to General Fund (1,201,600)
Changes to PARKING FUND
Cost increase reflects costs of new
parking garage management company,
Professional Services 1,023,070 1,321,092 298,022 Towne Park.
Increase transfer to General Fund per
Transfer to General Fund 2,300,000 2,840,000 540,000 increase in projected revenues.
TOTAL Change to Parking Fund 838,022
(continued)
33
Changes from Proposed to Adopted Budget
Adjustments to Change:
FY 13 Mayor FY 13
Expenditures Increase / Reason
Proposed Adopted
(continued) (Decrease)
Changes to TRANSPORTATION FUND
Administration: Salaries & Do not fund new Assistant Director
Benefits 569,686 430,996 (138,690) position.
Do not increase by $12,700. Do not
Administration: Training level-fund from City's operating budget;
& Education 15,200 0 (15,200) these costs are grant-funded.
Administration: Contract Do not increase funding for passenger
Services 44,100 22,656 (21,444) sampling survey.
The difference reflects the portion of
Vehicle Operations: salaries which are grant-funded (do not
Salaries & Benefits 1,892,489 956,879 (935,610) burden the City's operating budget).
Vehicle Operations: The difference reflects expenditures
Operating (Equipment, which are grant-funded and need not
Fuel/Oil, Vehicles) 401,500 111,027 (290,473) burden the City's operating budget.
The difference reflects the portion of
salaries which are grant-funded (do not
Maintenance: Salaries 524,434 366,224 (158,210) burden the City's operating budget).
The difference reflects expenditures
Maintenance: Supplies which are grant-funded and need not
and Vehicle Maintenance 395,000 369,112 (25,888) burden the City's operating budget.
Do not fund increases to budget as
Parking Operations: they pertain to use of license plate
Supplies, Repair & Maint. 35,540 27,540 (8,000) reader technology.
Increase funds for Transportation's fleet
Fleet Replacement replacement program but by less than
Program: Transportation 182,181 36,000 (146,181) proposed.
TOTAL Change to Transportation (1,739,696)
Changes to DOCK FUND
Do not fund new Assistant
Salaries & Benefits 430,503 353,818 (76,685) Harbormaster position.
TOTAL Change to Dock Fund (76,685)
(continued)
34
Changes from Proposed to Adopted Budget
Adjustments to Change:
FY 13 Mayor FY 13
Expenditures Increase / Reason
Proposed Adopted
(continued) (Decrease)
Changes to REFUSE FUND
Residential: Salaries & Result of privatization of refuse
Benefits 1,154,200 619,045 (535,155) services.
Result of privatization of refuse
Residential: All Operating 184,270 41,885 (142,385) services.
Residential: Misc. Result of privatization of refuse
Services and Charges 617,250 653,460 36,210 services.
Residential: Contract Result of privatization of refuse
Services 30,030 503,820 473,790 services.
Curbside Recycling: Result of privatization of refuse
Supplies 14,360 50,000 35,640 services
Curbside Recycling: Result of privatization of refuse
Contract Services 255,000 262,567 7,567 services.
Per privatization of refuse services,
Fleet Replacement fewer City funds required for
Program: Refuse 77,750 2,500 (75,250) replacement of Refuse vehicles.
TOTAL Change to Refuse Fund (199,583)
Changes to STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FUND
Difference reflects costs of furlough
abolishment (omitted from proposed
Salaries & Benefits 198,362 201,080 2,718 budget in error).
TOTAL Change to Stormwater Fund 2,718
Changes to SIDEWALK FUND
Reflects cost of personnel
expenditures as related to sidewalk
Salaries & Benefits 0 277,444 277,444 improvement.
Cost of these capital expenditures will
Capital Expenditures: be supported in the Capital
Improvement, replacement 600,000 0 (600,000) Improvement Plan (CIP) budget.
TOTAL Change to Sidewalk Fund (322,556)
Total PROPOSED Expenditures 96,033,759
Total Change (2,699,380)
Total ADOPTED Expenditures 93,334,379
ADOPTED Surplus $ 5,166,084
35
All Funds Summary
The accounts of the City are organized on the basis of funds and account groups, each of which is
considered a separate accounting entity. The operations of each fund are accounted for with a separate
set of self-balancing accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund equities, revenues and
expenditures/expenses. Budgets for the following funds are included in this document:
General Fund – The General Fund is the general operating fund for the City. It is used to account for
all financial resources except those required to be accounted for in another fund.
Enterprise Funds – the Enterprise Funds are used to account for those activities of the City which are
financed and operated in a manner similar to private business enterprises where costs and expenses,
including depreciation, are recovered principally through user charges. Individual operations which the
City of Annapolis has designated as Enterprise Funds include Water, Sewer, Parking, Dock, Market,
Transportation, Stormwater Management and Refuse funds. A description of the individual activities of
each Enterprise Fund is given later in this section.
Special Revenue Fund – Special revenue funds are used to account for the proceeds of specific
revenue sources that are restricted by legal and regulatory provisions to finance specific activities.
The City’s Special Revenue Fund is used to account for State and Federal grants, including the
Community Development Block Grants.
The following tables and charts offer varying summaries of the FY 2013 Adopted Budget for the General
and Enterprise Funds.
FY 2013 Adopted Revenues
& Expenditures by FUND Revenues Expenditures Surplus/(Deficit)
General $ 67,261,985 $ 63,235,331 $ 4,026,654
Water 7,947,818 7,922,666 25,152
Sewer 7,652,148 6,946,025 706,123
Parking Fund* 5,535,000 5,517,699 17,301
Transportation 4,170,000 4,167,867 2,133
Dock 1,196,000 1,116,572 79,428
Market 229,000 228,813 187
Stormwater Management 934,000 926,840 7,160
Refuse 3,297,068 2,995,123 301,945
Sidewalk 277,444 277,444 0
GRAND TOTAL $ 98,500,463 $ 93,334,379 $ 5,166,084
* For FY13, Parking Enforcement revenues w ere moved from the General Fund into the Off-Street Parking
Fund and Parking Enforcement expenditures w ere moved to the Transportation Fund. The Off-Street Parking
Fund is now entitled the Parking Fund.
36
All Funds Summary
% of Total
FY 2013 Adopted Revenues by TYPE
FY 2013 Adopted Revenues
Taxes $ 39,158,827 39.75%
Licenses and Permits 2,520,000 2.56%
Intergovernmental* 8,704,000 8.84%
Charges for Service 28,261,034 28.69%
Fines and Forfeitures 2,831,500 2.87%
Money and Property 892,100 0.91%
Capital Facility Fees 800,000 0.81%
Transfers In 15,333,002 15.57%
GRAND TOTAL $ 98,500,463 100.00%
* FY 2013 Intergovernmental revenue does not include state or federal grants. Starting in FY 2013, grant
revenues and expenditures w ill be separately appropriated one-by-one as they are received throughout
the fiscal year.
% of Total
FY 2013 Adopted Expenditures by TYPE
FY 2013 Adopted Expenditures
Personnel $ 50,465,947 54.07%
Operating 17,268,927 18.50%
Capital Outlay 303,000 0.32%
Fleet Replacement 708,541 0.76%
Contributions 320,000 0.34%
Contingency & Insurance 1,228,819 1.32%
Retirement Costs 2,250,000 2.41%
Debt Service 5,919,901 6.34%
Depreciation 2,133,024 2.29%
Transfers Out 12,736,220 13.65%
GRAND TOTAL $ 93,334,379 100.00%
* FY 2013 Intergovernmental revenue does not include state or federal grants. Starting in FY 2013, grant
revenues and expenditures w ill be separately appropriated one-by-one as they are received throughout
the fiscal year.
37
All Funds Summary
% of Total
Expenditures by DEPARTMENT
Budget FY 2013 Expenditures
Mayor & Alderpersons 2,707,117 2.90%
Economic Affairs 450,000 0.48%
Finance 4,024,449 4.31%
Human Resources 895,418 0.96%
Planning and Zoning 1,493,356 1.60%
Police 15,013,271 16.09%
Fire 13,455,791 14.42%
Neighborhood & Environment 2,435,736 2.61%
Public Works 17,526,812 18.78%
Recreation & Parks 4,577,361 4.90%
Transportation* 4,534,304 4.86%
Debt Service 5,919,901 6.34%
Depreciation 2,133,024 2.29%
Transfers Out 12,736,220 13.65%
Staff Conversions** 158,448 0.17%
Furlough Abolishment 765,809 0.82%
Fleet Replacement 708,541 0.76%
Contributions 320,000 0.34%
Contingency & Insur'nce 1,228,819 1.32%
Retirement Costs 2,250,000 2.41%
ENDING BALANCE 93,334,379 100.00%
* FY 2013 Parking Operations expenditures are included under Transportation expenditures.
** Halfw ay through FY2013, some of the City's contractual employees w ill be converted to Civil Service or
Exempt status. This category reflects the associated costs.
38
All Funds Summary
Pie Graphs: FY 2013 REVENUE Allocations
By FUND: FY 2013 Adopted Revenues FY 2013
Total: $ 98,500,463 Fund Budget % Total
General $ 67,261,985 68.29%
Water, 8.07%
Trans/Parking 9,705,000 9.85%
Sew er, 7.77%
Water 7,947,818 8.07%
Trans / Parking.
General, Sew er 7,652,148 7.77%
9.85%
68.29%
Refuse 3,297,068 3.35%
Dock, 1.21%
Dock 1,196,000 1.21%
Market, 0.23% Stormw ater 934,000 0.95%
Sidew alk* 277,444 0.28%
Stormwater,
Sidew alk , 0.95% Market 229,000 0.23%
0.28% Refuse , 3.35%
Total $ 98,500,463 100.00%
* All sidewalk revenue comes from a transfer from the General Fund to pay personnel expenses
By TYPE: FY 2013 Adopted Revenues FY 2013
Total: $ 98,500,463 Revenue Type
Budget % Total
Charges for
Taxes $ 39,158,827 39.75%
Service
Charges for
31.09%
Service 30,626,034 31.09%
Transfers / Transfers /
Interfund Interfund 15,333,002 15.57%
15.57%
Intergovernmental 8,704,000 8.84%
Intergovernment
License & Permits 2,520,000 2.56%
8.84%
Licenses & Money & Property 892,100 0.91%
Perm its
Taxes 2.56% Cap. Facility Fees 800,000 0.81%
39.75%
Fines &
Fines & Capital Facility Money & Forfeitures 466,500 0.47%
Forfeitures Fees Property
0.47% 0.81% 0.91%
Total $ 98,500,463 100.00%
39
All Funds Summary
Pie Graphs: FY 2013 EXPENDITURE Allocations
By FUND:
FY 2013 Adopted Expenditures
Total: $ 93,334,379 FY 2013
Fund Budget % Total
Water , 8.49%
General $ 63,235,331 67.75%
Trans. & Parking 9,685,566 10.38%
Sewer, 7.44%
Water 7,922,666 8.49%
General, Trans & Parking, Sew er 6,946,025 7.44%
67.75% 10.38%
Refuse 2,995,123 3.21%
Dock, 1.20 % Dock 1,116,572 1.20%
Stormw ater 926,840 0.99%
Market, 0.25%
Sidew alk 277,444 0.30%
Sidewalk Refuse, Market 228,813 0.25%
Stormwater,
0.30% 3.21% 0.99%
Total $ 93,334,379 100%
By TYPE: FY 2013 Adopted Expenditures
Total: $ 93,334,379 FY 2013
Type Budget % Total
Operating Personnel $ 50,465,947 54.07%
18.50%
Operating 17,268,927 18.50%
Transfers Out
13.65% Transfers Out 12,736,220 13.65%
Debt Service 5,919,901 6.34%
Debt Service
6.34% Retirement Costs 2,250,000 2.41%
Depreciation 2,133,024 2.29%
Retirement
2.41% Contingency & Ins. 1,228,819 1.32%
Depreciation
Personnel
2.29% Fleet Replacement 708,541 0.76%
54.07% Contingency &
Ins. 1.32% Contributions 320,000 0.34%
Capital Outlay Fleet 0.76%
Capital Outlay 303,000 0.32%
0.32% Contributions
0.34% Total $ 93,334,379 100%
40
All Funds Summary
By DEPARTMENT: FY 2013 Adopted Expenditures Departm ent FY 13 Budget %
Total: $ 93,334,379
Public Works $ 17,526,812 18.8%
Police 15,013,271 16.1%
Transfers Out
13.6% Fire 13,455,791 14.4%
Debt Service Transfers Out 12,736,220 13.6%
Fire
14.4% 6.3%
Other* Debt Service 5,919,901 6.3%
5.8% Rec. & Parks 4,577,361 4.9%
Transport/Parking 4,534,304 4.9%
Rec. & Parks
Finance 4,024,449 4.3%
4.9%
Convs'n, Furl., Ret. 3,174,257 3.4%
Transport / Mayor & Ald. 3,157,117 3.4%
Police Parking
16.1% 4.9%
DNEP 2,435,736 2.6%
Depreciation 2,133,024 2.3%
Finance, 4.3%
Plan & Zone 1,493,356 1.6%
Mayor & Ald, Contingency & Ins 1,228,819 1.3%
3.4% Hum an Resources 895,418 1.0%
DNEP, 2.6%
Public Works Fleet Replace 708,541 0.8%
18.8% Hum an Plan &
Resources Zone Depreciation Contributions 320,000 0.3%
1.0% 1.6% 2.3% TOTAL $ 93,334,379 100.0%
* “Other” encompasses Conversions, Furloughs, & Retirement Costs; Contingency & Insurance; Fleet Replacement; and Community Contributions as
detailed in the adjacent table.
41
All Funds Summary
Fy 2013 Adopted REVENUE Budget for All Funds
% of Total % of Total
Revenues Gen. Fund Enterprise Enterprise Total per % of Total
General Fund Revenue Funds Rev. Revenue Type Revenue
Taxes $ 39,158,827 58.22% $0 0 $ 39,158,827 39.75%
Licenses and Permits 2,520,000 3.75% 0 0 2,520,000 2.56%
Fines and Forfeitures 466,500 0.69% 0 0 466,500 0.47%
Money and Property 837,100 1.24% 55,000 0.18% 892,100 0.91%
Charges for Service 3,360,000 5.00% 27,266,034 87.28% 30,626,034 31.09%
Capital Facility Fees 0 0 800,000 2.56% 800,000 0.81%
Intergovernmental* 8,704,000 12.94% 0 0 8,704,000 8.84%
Transfers/Interfund Sources 12,215,558 18.16% 3,117,444 9.98% 15,333,002 15.57%
Total $ 67,261,985 100.00% $ 31,238,478 100.00% $ 98,500,463 100.00%
* FY 2013 Intergovernmental revenue does not include state or federal grants. Starting in FY 2013, grant revenues and expenditures w ill be
separately appropriated one-by-one as they are received throughout the fiscal year.
42
All Funds Summary
FY 2013 Adopted EXPENDITURE Budget by Department for All Funds
% of Total % of Total Total per
Expenditures Gen. Fund Enterprise Enterprise Expenditure % of Total
General Fund Expend. Funds Exp. Type Expend.
Mayor & Aldermen $ 2,707,117 4.28% $0 0 $ 2,707,117 2.90%
Economic Affairs 450,000 0.71% 0 0 450,000 0.48%
Finance 4,024,449 6.36% 0 0 4,024,449 4.31%
Human Resources 895,418 1.42% 0 0 895,418 0.96%
Planning and Zoning 1,493,356 2.36% 0 0 1,493,356 1.60%
Police 15,013,271 23.74% 0 0 15,013,271 16.09%
Fire 13,455,791 21.28% 0 0 13,455,791 14.42%
Neighborhood & Environm't 2,435,736 3.85% 0 0 2,435,736 2.61%
Public Works 6,827,434 10.80% 10,699,378 35.55% 17,526,812 18.78%
Recreation & Parks 4,094,244 6.47% 483,118 1.61% 4,577,361 4.90%
Transportation & Parking 0 0 4,534,304 15.06% 4,534,304 4.86%
Debt Service 3,613,680 5.71% 2,306,221 7.66% 5,919,901 6.34%
Depreciation 0 0 2,133,024 7.09% 2,133,024 2.29%
Transfers Out 3,117,444 4.93% 9,172,096 30.47% 12,289,540 13.17%
Staff Conversions 158,448 0.25% 0 0 158,448 0.17%
Furlough Abolishment 662,774 1.05% 103,036 0.34% 765,809 0.82%
Fleet Replacement 487,350 0.77% 221,191 0.73% 708,541 0.76%
Contributions 320,000 0.51% 0 0 320,000 0.34%
Contingency & Insurance 1,228,819 1.94% 446,681 1.48% 1,675,500 1.80%
Retirement Costs 2,250,000 3.56% 0 0 2,250,000 2.41%
Total $ 63,235,331 100.00% $30,099,048 100.00% $ 93,334,379 100.00%
43
All Funds Summary: History
Summarized in the following tables and graphs is a look at City-wide revenues and expenditures over time.
FY 2013 numbers do not include grant revenues or grant-funded expenditures. Starting in FY 2013, grant
revenues and expenditures will be separately appropriated one-by-one as they are received throughout the
fiscal year. All prior years’ figures include both grant revenues and grant-funded expenditures.
City-Wide FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 % Change
Revenues by Type Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted FY12 to FY13
Taxes $ 33,258,160 $ 34,681,920 $ 35,335,848 $ 39,136,350 $ 39,158,827 0.06%
Licenses and Permits 2,107,920 2,772,250 2,665,256 2,539,000 2,520,000 -0.75%
Intergovernmental* 17,577,190 15,657,170 12,830,140 15,771,090 8,704,000 -44.81%
Charges for Service 19,680,530 20,737,360 21,471,304 29,187,160 28,261,034 -3.17%
Fines and Forfeitures 1,229,030 897,910 829,371 948,000 2,831,500 198.68%
Money and Property 1,488,770 1,213,690 977,588 964,330 892,100 -7.49%
Capital Facility Fees - - 2,162,344 - 800,000 100.00%
Transfers In - - 5,642,531 - 15,333,002 100.00%
Other 3,615,130 19,375,530 3,264,487 9,820,380 0 -100.00%
GRAND TOTAL $ 78,956,730 $ 95,335,830 $ 85,178,869 $ 98,366,310 $ 98,500,463 0.14%
* FY 2013 Intergovernmental revenue does not include state or federal grants. Starting in FY 2013, grant revenues and expenditures w ill be
separately appropriated one-by-one as they are received throughout the fiscal year.
City-Wide FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 % Change
Expenditures by Type Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted FY12 to FY13
Personnel $ 51,624,490 $ 54,819,160 $ 48,152,177 $ 50,174,710 $ 50,465,947 0.58%
Operating 15,401,380 19,258,270 16,246,210 15,618,380 17,268,927 10.57%
Capital Outlay 1,320,800 1,596,080 404,199 250,000 303,000 21.20%
Fleet Replacement - - - - 708,541 100.00%
Contributions - - - - 320,000 100.00%
Contingency & Insurance - - - - 1,228,819 100.00%
Retirement Costs - - - - 2,250,000 100.00%
Debt Service 9,250,780 10,634,490 5,463,242 7,094,800 5,919,901 -16.56%
Depreciation 2,313,280 2,497,210 2,470,977 2,100,040 2,133,024 1.57%
Administrative 2,164,550 (2,700,720) - 8,570,070 - -100.00%
Contribution to CIP 2,058,610 1,473,570 - - - 0.00%
Transfers Out - 7,663,840 5,827,960 6,241,860 12,736,220 104.05%
Intergovernmental - - 1,470,345 - - 0.00%
GRAND TOTAL $ 84,133,890 $ 95,241,900 $ 80,035,111 $ 90,049,860 $ 93,334,379 3.65%
* FY 2013 Intergovernmental revenue does not include state or federal grants. Starting in FY 2013, grant revenues and expenditures w ill be
separately appropriated one-by-one as they are received throughout the fiscal year.
44
All Funds Summary: History
Expenditures by Actual FY Actual FY Actual FY Adopted FY Budget FY % Change
Department 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 FY12 v. 13
Mayor & Aldermen 3,454,750 3,175,130 2,437,774 2,515,360 2,707,117 7.62%
Economic Affairs 459,630 420,080 508,540 - 450,000 100.00%
Finance 3,541,580 4,157,600 3,048,605 3,724,840 4,024,449 8.04%
Human Resources 868,630 972,580 796,761 727,300 895,418 23.12%
Planning and Zoning 1,641,180 1,873,160 1,417,776 1,478,080 1,493,356 1.03%
Central Services 4,119,020 4,164,490 1,743,034 - - 0.00%
Police 16,526,890 17,406,470 15,715,966 15,409,490 15,013,271 -2.57%
Parking Operations* 616,790 556,100 496,086 541,150 - -100.00%
Fire 13,541,530 15,689,740 11,876,816 12,990,340 13,455,791 3.58%
Neighbrh'd & Environm't 2,325,160 2,376,840 3,176,327 2,253,560 2,435,736 8.08%
Public Works 13,557,900 16,735,240 14,207,587 16,702,080 17,526,812 4.94%
Recreation & Parks 3,323,850 3,689,660 4,545,313 4,513,370 4,577,361 1.42%
Transportation* 4,369,760 4,456,420 4,837,479 5,187,520 4,534,304 -12.59%
Debt Service 9,250,780 10,634,490 5,463,242 7,094,800 5,919,901 -16.56%
Depreciation 2,313,280 2,497,210 2,470,977 2,100,040 2,133,024 1.57%
Transfers Out - 7,663,840 5,827,960 6,241,860 12,736,220 104.05%
Intergovernmental - - 1,471,205 - - 0.00%
Administrative 2,164,550 (2,700,720) - 8,570,070 - -100.00%
Contribution to CIP 2,058,610 1,473,570 - - - 0.00%
Staff Conversions** - - - - 158,448 100.00%
Furlough Abolishment - - - - 765,809 100.00%
Fleet Replacement - - - - 708,541 100.00%
Contributions - - - - 320,000 100.00%
Contingency & Insur'nce - - - - 1,228,819 100.00%
Retirement Costs - - - - 2,250,000 100.00%
ENDING BALANCE 84,133,890 95,241,900 80,041,447 90,049,860 93,334,379 3.65%
* FY 2013 Parking Operations expenditures are included under Transportation expenditures.
** Halfway through FY2013, some of the City's contractual employees will be converted to Civil Service or Exempt status. This category reflects the
associated costs.
45
All Funds Summary: History
10 Year History: Total REVENUES (All Funds)
FY 2003 - FY 2013
110,000,000
100,000,000
Total Revenues (dollars )
90,000,000
80,000,000
70,000,000
60,000,000
50,000,000
40,000,000
30,000,000
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Fiscal Year
Actual Adopted
Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Rev. 55,707,573 54,991,310 62,379,600 69,095,260 71,182,350 82,516,440 78,956,730 95,335,830 85,178,869 98,366,310 98,500,463
% change from
-1.29% 13.44% 10.77% 3.02% 15.92% -4.31% 20.74% -10.65% 15.48% 0.14%
prior year
10 Year History: Total EXPENDITURES (All Funds)
FY 2003 - FY 2013
110,000,000
Total Expenditures (dollars)
100,000,000
90,000,000
80,000,000
70,000,000
60,000,000
50,000,000
40,000,000
30,000,000
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Fiscal Year
Actual Adopted
Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Exp. 57,928,230 56,215,970 61,110,860 72,232,130 73,209,840 82,051,790 84,133,890 95,241,900 80,035,111 90,049,860 93,334,379
% change from
-2.96% 8.71% 18.20% 1.35% 12.08% 2.54% 13.20% -15.97% 12.51% 3.65%
prior year
46
All Funds Summary: History
10 Year History: Year-EndSURPLUS or (DEFICIT)
10,000,000
8,000,000
Surplus / (Deficit) (dollars)
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
(2,000,000)
(4,000,000)
(6,000,000)
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Fiscal Year
Actual Adopted
Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Surp (2,220,657) (1,224,660) 1,268,740 (3,136,870) (2,027,490) 464,650 (5,177,160) 93,930 5,143,758 8,316,450 5,166,084
% change from
45% 204% -347% 35% 123% -1214% 102% 5376% 62% -38%
prior year
47
All Funds Summary: History
History of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures by Fund: FY 2003 – FY 2013
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005
Original Original Original
Adopted Adopted Adopted
Fund Actual Budget Actual Budget Actual Budget
General $ 41,300,650 $ 39,506,770 $ 38,181,700 $ 37,339,250 $ 39,760,440 $ 39,754,490
Water 3,593,510 3,587,940 3,984,390 3,782,910 4,259,510 3,798,560
Sewer 4,548,380 4,443,680 4,910,590 5,104,320 5,990,340 5,020,720
Transportation & Parking 5,370,740 4,907,480 5,426,140 5,432,700 6,924,210 5,325,440
Dock 689,000 591,370 720,790 671,240 777,910 629,180
Market 84,470 92,860 101,090 116,770 68,860 102,000
Stormwater Mgmt - - 141,060 0 293,350 240,620
Refuse 2,341,480 2,441,720 2,750,210 2,477,250 3,036,240 2,654,680
Sidewalk - - - - - -
TOTAL $ 57,928,230 $ 55,571,820 $ 56,215,970 $ 54,924,440 $ 61,110,860 $ 57,525,690
Variance: Actual v. Adopt -4.1% -2.3% -5.9%
FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
Original Original Original
Adopted Adopted Adopted
Fund Actual Budget Actual Budget Actual Budget
General $ 45,613,790 $ 43,098,000 $ 48,186,320 $ 46,315,970 $ 53,311,570 $ 52,920,640
Water 4,447,490 3,922,890 4,234,210 4,164,470 4,959,460 4,633,280
Sewer 6,169,050 5,061,630 5,756,560 5,620,340 4,185,150 5,776,470
Transportation & Parking 11,674,030 6,316,300 9,956,620 8,301,540 10,560,190 7,339,790
Dock 862,430 655,370 1,471,470 1,495,580 4,991,670 716,340
Market 115,880 70,820 347,770 100,000 456,000 102,620
Stormwater Mgmt 273,600 283,910 275,660 332,830 473,470 376,780
Refuse 3,075,860 2,801,860 2,981,230 3,030,920 3,114,280 3,235,040
Sidewalk - - - - - -
TOTAL $ 72,232,130 $ 62,210,780 $ 73,209,840 $ 69,361,650 $ 82,051,790 $ 75,100,960
48
All Funds Summary: History
FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
Original Original Original
Adopted Adopted Adopted
Fund Actual Budget Actual Budget Actual Budget
General $ 61,461,760 $ 57,640,160 $ 61,078,080 $ 68,286,180 $ 58,457,350 $ 51,980,250
Water 4,987,070 4,574,630 4,784,890 5,080,440 4,966,776 5,034,660
Sewer 3,784,120 5,959,600 5,966,110 6,182,670 7,330,977 6,239,370
Transportation & Parking 7,487,620 8,508,610 9,642,060 9,651,680 7,985,328 6,726,900
Dock 1,517,820 980,000 1,050,000 1,218,730 1,228,289 1,053,660
Market 828,270 106,000 104,850 544,820 171,670 111,150
Stormwater Mgmt 885,530 529,520 467,000 724,690 595,487 511,860
Refuse 3,181,700 3,255,000 3,400,000 3,400,000 3,269,154 3,500,000
Sidewalk - - - - - -
TOTAL $ 84,133,890 $ 81,553,520 $ 86,492,990 $ 95,089,210 $ 84,005,031 $ 75,157,850
Variance: Actual v. Adopt -3.1% 9.9% -10.5%
FY 2012 FY 2013
Original
Adopted Revised
Fund Budget Budget Adopted Budget
General $ 61,909,020 $ 61,342,501 $ 63,235,331
Water 7,014,240 7,019,239 7,922,666
Sewer 6,939,920 6,939,916 6,946,025
Transportation & Parking 8,550,160 9,168,312 9,685,566
Dock 1,255,930 1,632,668 1,116,572
Market 142,580 215,082 228,813
Stormwater Mgmt 849,240 849,241 926,840
Refuse 3,388,770 3,388,768 2,995,123
Sidewalk - - 277,444
TOTAL $ 90,049,860 $ 90,555,726 $ 93,334,379
Variance: Actual v. Adopt 0.6%
49
All Funds Summary: Comparatives
FY 2003 versus FY 2013
FY 2013 figures do not include grant revenues or grant-funded expenditures. Starting in FY 2013, grant revenues and
expenditures will be separately appropriated one-by-one as they are received throughout the fiscal year. FY 2003
figures include both grant revenues and grant-funded expenditures.
Revenues by FUND:
• The General Fund includes the departments of the Mayor and Alderman, Finance, Human Resources,
Planning and Zoning, Police, Fire, Neighborhood and Environmental Programs, Public Works
(Administration, Engineering, Streets, Traffic Control & Maintenance, Snow & Ice Removal, Government
Buildings, Fleet), and Recreation and Parks.
Fy 2003 Actual Revenues by Fund
Total: $ 55,707,573
Water, 4,335,088 ,
8%
Sewer, 5,745,855
10%
General,
$36,870,032 ,
66% Parking & Trans,
5,456,734 , 10%
Dock, 859,469 ,
2%
Market, 110,447 ,
Refuse, 2,329,948
<1%
4%
* FY 2003 had no Stormwater Management Fund or Sidewalk Fund.
FY 2013 Adopted Revenues by Fund
Total: $ 98,500,463
Water,
$7,947,818, 8%
Sewer,
$7,652,148, 8%
General, Trans / Parking.
$67,261,985, 9,705,000, 10%
68%
Dock,
1,196,000, 1%
Market, 229,000
<1%
Stormwater,
Sidewalk , Refuse, 934,000
277,444, 0% 3,297,068, 4% 1%
50
All Funds Summary: Comparatives
Expenditures by FUND:
• The General Fund includes the departments of the Mayor and Alderman, Finance, Human Resources,
Planning and Zoning, Police, Fire, Neighborhood and Environmental Programs, Public Works
(Administration, Engineering, Streets, Traffic Control & Maintenance, Snow & Ice Removal, Government
Buildings, Fleet), and Recreation and Parks.
FY 2003 Actual Expenditures by Fund
Total: $ 57,928,230
Water, 3,593,510 ,
6%
General, Sewer, 4,548,380
$41,300,650 ,
8%
72%
Parking & Trans,
5,370,740 , 9%
Dock, 689,000 ,
1%
Market, 84,470 ,
Refuse <1%
2,341,480 , 4%
* FY 2003 had no Stormwater Management Fund or Sidewalk Fund.
FY 2013 Adopted Expenditures by Fund
Total: $ 93,334,379
Water,
$7,922,666 , 9%
Sewer,
$6,946,025 , 8%
General,
$63,235,331 , Parking & Trans,
68% 9,685,566 , 10%
Dock, 1,116,572 ,
1%
Market, 228,813 ,
<1%
Sidewalk
277,444 , <1% Refuse, Stormwater,
2,995,123, 3% 926,840 , 1%
51
All Funds Summary: Comparatives
Revenues by TYPE:
FY 2003 Actual Revenues
Total: $ 55,707,573
FY 2003
Charges for Revenue Type
Service Actual % Total
29.20%
Intergovernment Taxes $ 19,049,000 34.19%
23.71% Charges for
Service 16,265,330 29.20%
Intergovernmental 13,208,713 23.71%
Other Sources Other Sources 2,668,000 4.79%
4.79%
License & Permits 2,081,840 3.74%
License &
Permits 3.74% Money & Property 1,406,780 2.53%
Taxes 34.19% Fines &
Fines & Money & Forfeitures 1,027,910 1.85%
Forfeitures Property 2.53%
1.85%
Total $ 55,707,573 100.00%
FY 2013 Adopted Revenues FY 2013
Total: $ 98,500,463 Revenue Type
Budget % Total
Charges for
Service Taxes $ 39,158,827 39.75%
31.09% Charges for
Service 30,626,034 31.09%
Transfers / Transfers /
Interfund Interfund 15,333,002 15.57%
15.57%
Intergovernmental 8,704,000 8.84%
Intergovernment
8.84% License & Permits 2,520,000 2.56%
Licenses & Money & Property 892,100 0.91%
Perm its
Taxes 2.56%
39.75% Cap. Facility Fees 800,000 0.81%
Fines &
Money &
Fines & Capital Facility Forfeitures 466,500 0.47%
Property
Forfeitures Fees
0.47% 0.91%
0.81% Total $ 98,500,463 100.00%
52
All Funds Summary: Comparatives
Expenditures by TYPE:
FY 2003 Actual Expenditures
Total: $ 57,928,230
Operating
22.10%
FY 2003 %
Type
Actual Total
Transfer to CIP Personnel $ 35,088,750 60.57%
9.29%
Operating 12,955,470 22.36%
Debt Service
Transfer to CIP 5,447,040 9.40%
7.61%
Personnel
59.85% Debt Service 4,461,630 7.70%
Capital Outlays
0.55% Capital Outlays 324,130 0.56%
Other
-0.59%
Other -348,790 -0.60%
Total $ 57,928,230 100%
FY 2013 Budgeted Expenditures
FY 2013 %
Total: $ 93,334,379 Type
Budget Total
Operating
18.50% Personnel $ 50,465,947 54.07%
Transfers Out
13.65% Operating 17,268,927 18.50%
Transfers Out 12,736,220 13.65%
Debt Service
6.34% Debt Service 5,919,901 6.34%
Retirement 2,250,000 2.41%
Retirement
2.41% Depreciation 2,133,024 2.29%
Depreciation
Contingency & Ins. 1,228,819 1.32%
2.29%
Personnel
Contingency & Fleet Replace 708,541 0.76%
54.07%
Ins . 1.32%
Fleet 0.76% Contributions 320,000 0.34%
Capital Outlay
0.32% Contributions Capital Outlay 303,000 0.32%
0.34%
GRAND TOTAL $ 93,334,379 100%
53
All Funds Summary: Comparatives
Expenditures by DEPARTMENT:
FY 2003 Actual Expenditures
Total: $ 57,928,230 Dept. / Type FY 03 Actual %
Public Works $ 12,719,880 22.0%
Fire Transfer to CIP
Police 11,697,240 20.2%
14% 9%
Debt Service Fire 8,429,630 14.6%
8%
Transfer to CIP 5,447,040 9.4%
Transport /
Debt Service 4,461,630 7.7%
Parking, 7%
Transport/Parking 4,029,080 7.0%
Police Rec. & Parks 2,623,970 4.5%
Rec. & Park, 4%
20%
Finance 2,054,290 3.5%
Finance, 4%
Mayor & Ald. 2,046,770 3.5%
Mayor & Ald, Central Services 1,579,670 2.7%
3%
Central Srvcs Plan & Zone 1,439,090 2.5%
3% DNEP 1,126,330 1.9%
Plan & Zone,
Public Works Hum an Resources 622,400 1.1%
22% Other Human DNEP
2%
-1% Res. 2% Other (348,790) -0.6%
1% TOTAL 57,928,230 100.0%
FY 2013 Adopted Expenditures Departm ent FY 13 Budget %
Total: $ 93,334,379 Public Works $ 17,526,812 18.8%
Police 15,013,271 16.1%
Transfers Out Fire 13,455,791 14.4%
14%
Debt Service Transfers Out 12,736,220 13.6%
Fire
14% 6% Debt Service 5,919,901 6.3%
Other*
6% Rec. & Parks 4,577,361 4.9%
Transport/Parking 4,534,304 4.9%
Rec. & Parks Finance 4,024,449 4.3%
5%
Convs'n, Furl., Ret. 3,174,257 3.4%
Transport / Mayor & Ald. 3,157,117 3.4%
Police Parking
16% DNEP 2,435,736 2.6%
5%
Depreciation 2,133,024 2.3%
Finance, 4% Plan & Zone 1,493,356 1.6%
Mayor & Ald, Contingency & Ins 1,228,819 1.3%
3% Hum an Resources 895,418 1.0%
Public Works DNEP, 3%
Human Fleet Replace 708,541 0.8%
19% Plan &
Resources Depreciation Contributions 320,000 0.3%
Zone
1% 2% 2%
TOTAL $ 93,334,379 100.0%
* “Other” encompasses Conversions, Furloughs, & Retirement Costs; Contingency & Insurance; Fleet Replacement; and Community Contributions as
detailed in the adjacent table.
54
All Funds Summary: Comparatives
City of Annapolis versus Combined Maryland Municipalities
Expenditure Allocation of All Maryland Municipalities (Combined Totals) – Fiscal Year 2010
Data sourced from Local Government Finances Fiscal 2010 (Maryland Department of Legislative Services) as presented in the 2012 report
Overview of Maryland Local Governments; Finances and Demographic Information (Department of Legislative Services, p.35)
FY 2010: All Maryland Municipalities
Expenditures - Combined Total: $ 1,294,087,367
Dept. / Type FY10 Actual %
General
Government Public Works $ 371,440,588 28.7%
14% Transport'n
13% Police 216,952,228 16.8%
Rec & Parks General Gov't 182,501,451 14.1%
Police
17% 7%
Transport'n 171,845,287 13.3%
Debt Service,
Rec & Parks 97,576,728 7.5%
6%
Debt Service 75,767,046 5.9%
Economic /
Community Econ. / Com m unity
Develop't, 4% Developm ent 50,977,734 3.9%
Fire
4% Fire 49,075,801 3.8%
Public Works
29% Other Public Misc. Misc. 45,944,363 3.6%
Safety 4%
2% Other Public Safety 32,006,141 2.5%
TOTAL $ 1,294,087,367 100.0%
The City of Annapolis’s “GENERAL GOVERNMENT” category is comprised of the departments of the Mayor and Alderman (including the
Office of Law, the Office of Public Information and Economic Development); Finance (including IT and Central Purchasing); Human
Resources; and Planning and Zoning. These departments are represented separately in the previous pie charts but, when combined, equal
approximately 10% of the FY 2013 budgeted expenditures and 11% of FY 2003 Actual Expenditures.
55
All Funds Summary: Fund Balances
The following tables show the anticipated beginning and ending fund balance for the City’s operating funds. The fund
balance is the accumulated total of all prior years’ actual revenues in the excess of expenditures, commonly referred to as
“surplus.” Maintaining a prudent fund balance is critical to ensuring the City is able to cope with financial emergencies
and fluctuations in revenue cycles.
GENERAL Fund Balance
Actual FY 2011 Adopted FY 2012 Budget FY 2013
Beginning Balance $ 3,792,986 $ 12,041,507 $ 18,339,457
Revenues
Taxes 35,335,848 39,136,350 39,158,827
Licenses and Permits 2,665,256 2,539,000 2,520,000
Fines and Forfeitures 829,371 948,000 466,500
Money and Property 820,868 904,330 837,100
Charges for Service 4,099,295 4,167,000 3,360,000
Intergovernmental* 11,245,223 13,182,440 8,704,000
Transfers In / Interfund Sources 4,507,871 - 12,215,558
Debt Issuance 1,746,220 - -
Bond Premiums 1,485,999 - -
Total Revenues 62,735,951 60,877,120 67,261,985
Expenses
General Government 9,952,489 9,911,920 9,570,340
Public Safety 31,265,195 31,194,540 31,236,493
Community Services 3,880,465 4,025,510 4,446,834
Public Works 4,474,508 5,010,050 6,950,499
Debt Service 4,489,773 4,281,840 3,613,680
Transfers Out / Interfund Charges 425,000 3,117,444
Contingency, Insurance & Retirement - - 3,478,819
Employee Conversions/Furlough Abolish - - 821,222
Other Financing Uses - 155,310 -
Total Expenditures 54,487,430 54,579,170 63,235,331
ENDING BALANCE $ 12,041,507 $ 18,339,457 $ 22,366,111
Ending Balance without Prior Year's Adopted Surplus $ 4,026,654
* FY 2013 Intergovernmental revenue does not include state or federal grants. Starting in FY 2013, grant revenues and
expenditures w ill be separately appropriated one-by-one as they are received throughout the fiscal year.
56
All Funds Summary: Fund Balances
WATER Fund Balance
Actual FY 2011 Adopted FY 2012 Budget FY 2013
Beginning Balance $ 4,453,711 $ 12,041,507 $ 12,823,167
Revenues
Charges for Service 3,888,613 7,345,900 7,492,818
Capital Facility Fees 356,258 400,000 400,000
Transfers In 634,660 - -
Intergovernmental* 5,377 - -
Interest Income 918 - -
Water Rental Income 104,194 50,000 55,000
Total Revenues 4,990,020 7,795,900 7,947,818
Expenses
Salaries 2,041,035 2,320,600 2,430,455
Utilities 331,104 338,680 334,000
Training and Education - 4,880
Repairs and Maintenance 176,102 361,230 561,230
Materials and Supplies 406,626 351,080 350,880
Contractual Services 94,925 63,270 67,852
Admininstrative Charges / Transfers Out 962,243 2,380,960 2,740,434
Depreciation 596,051 474,010 474,010
Debt Expense 358,690 724,410 865,500
Fleet Replacement - 93,425
Total Expenditures 4,966,776 7,014,240 7,922,666
ENDING BALANCE $ 4,476,955 $ 12,823,167 $ 12,848,319
Ending Balance without Prior Year's Adopted Surplus $ 25,152
* FY 2013 Intergovernmental revenue does not include state or federal grants. Starting in FY 2013, grant revenues and
expenditures w ill be separately appropriated one-by-one as they are received throughout the fiscal year.
57
All Funds Summary: Fund Balances
SEWER Fund Balance
Actual FY 2011 Adopted FY 2012 Budget FY 2013
Beginning Balance $ 11,934,228 $ 9,455,942 $ 9,523,422
Revenues
Charges for Service 4,362,254 6,607,400.00 7,252,148
Capital Facility Fees 456,585 400,000.00 400,000
Interest Income 1,584 - -
Other 32,268 - -
Total Revenues 4,852,691 7,007,400 7,652,148
Expenses
Salaries 635,255 436,450.00 525,026
Utilities 173,861 180,800.00 179,000
Training and Education - - 2,500
Repairs and Maintenance 181,349 211,520.00 211,520
Materials and Supplies 59,814 58,930.00 56,430
Treatment Plant Operations 3,090,670 3,098,200.00 3,100,000
Contractual Services 103,596 90,990.00 91,985
Admininstrative Charges / Transfers Out 1,311,852 1,233,700.00 1,295,657
Intergovernmental 912,484 - -
Depreciation 632,921 631,970.00 631,970
Debt Expense 229,175 997,360.00 774,577
Fleet Replacement - 77,360
Total Expenditures 7,330,977 6,939,920 6,946,025
ENDING BALANCE $ 9,455,942 $ 9,523,422 $ 10,229,545
Ending Balance without Prior Year's Adopted Surplus $ 706,123
58
All Funds Summary: Fund Balances
REFUSE Fund Balance
Actual FY 2011 Adopted FY 2012 Budget FY 2013
Beginning Balance $ 359,668 $ 738,907 $ 1,018,337
Revenues
Charges for Service 3,653,009 3,918,200 3,297,068
Total Revenues 3,653,009 3,918,200 3,297,068
Expenses
Salaries 1,146,567 1,370,040 619,045
Utilities 1,882 2,600 1,900
Repairs and Maintenance 35,417 53,640 13,410
Materials and Supplies 128,210 120,060 76,325
Training and Education - - 250
Contractual Services 767,128 887,750 766,387
Miscellaneous Services and Charges - - 653,460
Fleet Replacement - - 2,500
Admininstrative Charges / Transfers Out 1,149,429 950,680 816,005
Depreciation 35,905 4,000 35,905
Debt Expense 4,616 - 9,936
Other 4,616 250,000 -
Total Expenditures 3,273,770 3,638,770 2,995,123
ENDING BALANCE $ 738,907 $ 1,018,337 $ 1,320,282
Ending Balance without Prior Year's Adopted Surplus $ 301,945
59
All Funds Summary: Fund Balances
STORMWATER Fund Balance
Actual FY 2011 Adopted FY 2012 Budget FY 2013
Beginning Balance $ (252,227) $ (354,077) $ (269,317)
Revenues
Charges for Service 493,586 934,000 934,000
Interest Income 51 - -
Total Revenues 493,637 934,000 934,000
Expenses
Salaries 237,325 190,850 201,080
Utilities - 1,800 1,800
Repairs and Maintenance 10,388 10,000 10,000
Materials and Supplies 11,353 15,000 15,000
Contractual Services 60,809 52,200 52,200
Admininstrative Charges / Transfers Out 265,233 540,580 636,047
Depreciation 1,629 1,630 1,629
Debt Expense 8,750 37,180 9,085
Total Expenditures 595,487 849,240 926,840
ENDING BALANCE $ (354,077) $ (269,317) $ (262,157)
Ending Balance without Prior Year's Adopted Surplus $ 7,160
60
All Funds Summary: Fund Balances
MARKET Fund Balance
Actual FY 2011 Adopted FY 2012 Budget FY 2013
Beginning Balance $ 263,555 $ 283,015 $ 283,015
Revenues
Charges for Service 36,931 - 229,000
Capital Facility Fees 153,996 - -
Interest Income 203 - -
Transfers In - 142,580 -
Total Revenues 191,130 142,580 229,000
Expenses
Salaries - - -
Utilities 10,051 6,000 33,700
Repairs and Maintenance 4,170 4,000 7,400
Materials and Supplies 1,326 - 2,000
Contractual Services 19,500 - 93,600
Admininstrative Charges / Transfers Out 80,741 12,790 12,791
Depreciation 24,892 24,890 25,000
Debt Expense 30,990 94,900 54,321
Total Expenditures 171,670 142,580 228,813
ENDING BALANCE $ 283,015 $ 283,015 $ 283,202
Ending Balance without Prior Year's Adopted Surplus $ 187
61
All Funds Summary: Fund Balances
SIDEWALK REVOLVING* Fund Balance
Actual FY 2011 Adopted FY 2012 Budget FY 2013
Beginning Balance $ - $ -
Revenues
Charges for Service - - -
Transfers In 277,444
Total Revenues - - 277,444
Expenses
Salaries - - 277,444
Utilities - - -
Repairs and Maintenance - - -
Materials and Supplies - - -
Contractual Services - - -
Admininstrative Charges / Transfers Out - - -
Depreciation - - -
Debt Expense - - -
Total Expenditures - - 277,444
ENDING BALANCE $ - $ - $ 0
Ending Balance without Prior Year's Adopted Surplus $ 0
* The Sidew alk Revolving Fund w as new ly established for FY 2013. See Enterprise Funds section and Department of Public Works
section for more information.
62
All Funds Summary: Fund Balances
TRANSPORTATION** Fund Balance
Actual FY 2011 Adopted FY 2012 Budget FY 2013
Beginning Balance $ 45,976 $ (1,042,530) $ (284,560)
Revenues
Charges for Service 764,847 1,498,000 1,330,000
Capital Facility Fees 1,042,064 - -
Grant Income* 1,339,748 2,400,000 -
Money and Property 48,999 - -
Transfers In 500,000 1,797,680 2,840,000
Total Revenues 3,695,658 5,695,680 4,170,000
Expenses
Salaries 2,718,946 2,965,530 2,337,441
Utilities 43,246 59,300 59,300
Repairs and Maintenance 291,482 561,110 413,414
Materials and Supplies 433,511 343,000 199,375
Contractual Services 40,030 24,100 47,656
Fleet Replacement - - 36,000
Admininstrative Charges / Transfers Out 628,927 629,910 725,689
Depreciation 507,194 335,570 335,570
Debt Expense 2,780 19,190 13,422
Capital Outlay 118,048 - -
Total Expenditures 4,784,164 4,937,710 4,167,867
ENDING BALANCE $ (1,042,530) $ (284,560) $ (282,427)
Ending Balance without Prior Year's Adopted Surplus $ 2,133
* FY 2013 Intergovernmental revenue does not include state or federal grants. Starting in FY 2013, grant revenues and
expenditures w ill be separately appropriated one-by-one as they are received throughout the fiscal year.
** For FY13, Parking Enforcement expenditures w ere moved from the General Fund into the Transportation Fund and Parking
Enforcement revenues w ere moved to the formerly-named Off-Street Parking Fund. The Off-Street Parking Fund is now entitled
the Parking Fund.
63
All Funds Summary: Fund Balances
PARKING* Fund Balance
Actual FY 2011 Adopted FY 2012 Budget FY 2013
Beginning Balance $ 689,971 $ 639,637 $ 677,187
Revenues
Charges for Service (Off-Street Parking) 3,150,184 3,650,000 3,170,000
Citations and Meters - - 2,365,000
Interest Income 646 - 0
Total Revenues 3,150,830 3,650,000 5,535,000
Expenses
Salaries 0 0 0
Utilities 127,643 142,200 142,200
Repairs and Maintenance 40,956 63,420 63,420
Materials and Supplies 5,957 5,790 5,790
Contractual Services 1,016,160 1,023,070 1,321,092
Capital Outlay 1,500 - -
Admininstrative Charges / Transfers Out 828,729 1,425,290 3,174,607
Intergovernmental 557,001 - -
Depreciation 415,440 413,940 413,940
Debt Expense 207,778 538,740 396,650
Total Expenditures 3,201,164 3,612,450 5,517,699
ENDING BALANCE $ 639,637 $ 677,187 $ 694,488
Ending Balance without Prior Year's Adopted Surplus $ 17,301
* For FY13, Parking Operations (on-street parking) revenues w ere moved from the General Fund into the Off-Street Parking Fund
and Parking Operations expenditures w ere moved to the Transportation Fund. The Off-Street Parking fund is now entitled the
Parking Fund.
64
All Funds Summary: Fund Balances
DOCK Fund Balance
Actual FY 2011 Adopted FY 2012 Budget FY 2013
Beginning Balance $ (844,302) $ (656,648) $ (647,268)
Revenues
Charges for Service 1,022,585 1,076,660 1,196,000
Capital Facility Fees 153,441 - -
Grant Income* 239,792 188,650 -
Interest Income 125 - -
Total Revenues 1,415,943 1,265,310 1,196,000
Expenses
Salaries 344,710 358,060 360,089
Utilities 49,623 44,200 43,700
Repairs and Maintenance 209,449 41,600 41,600
Materials and Supplies 19,372 29,000 29,000
Contractual Services 41,694 15,000 15,000
Fleet Replacement - - 11,905
Admininstrative Charges / Transfers Out 175,806 152,860 217,546
Depreciation 256,945 214,030 215,000
Debt Expense 130,690 401,180 182,731
Total Expenditures 1,228,289 1,255,930 1,116,572
ENDING BALANCE $ (656,648) $ (647,268) $ (567,840)
Ending Balance without Prior Year's Adopted Surplus $ 79,428
* FY 2013 Intergovernmental revenue does not include state or federal grants. Starting in FY 2013, grant revenues and
expenditures w ill be separately appropriated one-by-one as they are received throughout the fiscal year.
65
FY 2013 General Fund: Revenues
Total FY 2013 General Fund revenues are budgeted at $67,261,985: a decrease of 1.39% from FY 2012 budgeted
revenue and an increase of 7.21% over actual FY 2011 receipts. The categorical descriptions below provide greater
insight into the various trends affecting the City’s revenue streams.
% of
GENERAL FUND
FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Revenues
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Taxes $ 33,258,160 $ 34,681,920 $ 35,335,848 $ 39,136,350 $ 39,158,827 58.22%
Licenses and Permits 2,107,920 2,772,250 2,665,256 2,539,000 2,520,000 3.75%
Fines and Forfeitures 1,229,030 897,910 829,371 948,000 466,500 0.69%
Money and Property 1,006,200 927,310 820,868 904,330 837,100 1.24%
Transfers/Interfund Source - - 4,507,871 - 12,215,558 18.16%
Charges for Service 2,514,090 3,576,380 4,099,295 4,167,000 3,360,000 5.00%
Intergovernmental* 14,555,480 12,470,590 11,245,223 13,182,440 8,704,000 12.94%
Other Sources 2,308,170 5,167,440 3,232,219 7,329,850 0 0.00%
Total $ 56,979,050 $ 60,493,800 $ 62,735,951 $ 68,206,970 $ 67,261,985 100.00%
% Change from Prior Year 6.17% 3.71% 8.72% -1.39%
* FY 2013 Intergovernmental revenue does not include state or federal grants. Starting in FY 2013, grant revenues and expenditures w ill be
separately appropriated one-by-one as they are received throughout the fiscal year.
66
FY 2013 General Fund: Revenues
This category of revenue consists of taxes on the assessed value of real estate (including land, structures and
improvement) and taxes on the assessed value of inventory, furniture, and fixtures of business establishments. Property
is assessed at 100% of property value. The tax rate is the amount charged per $100 of assessed value, as determined by
the State Department of Assessments and Taxation. The Mayor and Council establish the tax rate each year in order to
finance the General Fund activities
The assessable base of all taxable property fluctuates because of changes to the market value of the existing base or
because of the addition of new residential or commercial properties. The City is under a tri-annual assessment period for
real property and increases are phased in over three years. FY2013 figures represent the first year of a new assessment.
Assessable Base of All Taxable Property
In Billions of Dollars
FY 2003 - FY 2013
Assessable base is defined as the total value of all real and personal property in the City which is used
as a basis for levying taxes. Tax exempt property is excluded from the assessable base.
$9.0
$8.0
$7.093 $7.030 $7.048 $6.952
Billions of Dollars
$7.0
$6.165
$5.903
$6.0
$5.044
$5.0
$4.144
$4.0
$3.708
$3.092
$2.760
$3.0
$2.0
67
FY 2013 General Fund: Revenues
A City resident pays a combined tax rate levied by the City, Anne Arundel County, and the State of Maryland. The County
tax rate is reduced for City residents because City residents do not utilize certain County services to the same extent they
are used by other County residents. The cost of education, provided by the County, is the major factor in calculating the
credit or tax differential. The tax rates for the last several years based on full assessed values have been as follows:
Total Rate in City
Fiscal County Tax Non-City
City Rate County Rate State Rate (Sum of City, County, &
Year State Rate)
Differential County Rate
13 0.640 0.564 0.112 1.316 0.377 0.941
12 0.560 0.543 0.112 1.215 0.367 0.910
11 0.530 0.525 0.112 1.167 0.353 0.878
10 0.530 0.523 0.112 1.165 0.353 0.876
09 0.530 0.530 0.112 1.172 0.358 0.888
08 0.530 0.531 0.112 1.173 0.360 0.891
07 0.530 0.548 0.112 1.190 0.370 0.918
06 0.560 0.555 0.132 1.247 0.376 0.931
05 0.580 0.561 0.132 1.273 0.380 0.941
04 0.600 0.555 0.132 1.287 0.400 0.955
03 0.624 0.550 0.084 1.258 0.400 0.950
68
FY 2013 General Fund: Revenues
This category of property consists of taxes on the assessed value of real property, which includes land, structures, and
improvements. Real property taxes are charged on both residences and commercial establishments. In FY2013, real
property taxes alone are budgeted at $ 36,421,346 to maintain a constant levy from the prior fiscal year. These real
property taxes constitute 54% of the City’s FY2013 General Fund revenue budget.
The calculation of assessed value begins with an estimate prepared by the State of the assessed value of all property that
will be on the tax roles as of the beginning of the City’s FY2013. The estimate of tax revenue is based on multiplying the
assessed value by the tax rate, taking into account when, during the fiscal year, the tax on new property is taxed and the
impact of appeals and late payments from previous years.
Real Property Tax Revenue
In Millions of Dollars
FY 2003 - FY 2013
$45
$40
$35
Millions of Dollars
$30
$25
$20
$15
$10
FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13
Adopted Adopted
Real Property Tax Revenue History, Projections, and Percent Change
FY 2003 - FY 2013
REAL PROPERTY TAX
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007
Revenue
Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual
Revenue $16,446,120 $17,960,670 $19,383,540 $20,806,040 $22,976,330
% Change from Prior Year 9.21% 7.92% 7.34% 10.43%
REAL PROPERTY TAX
FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
Revenue (continued)
Actual Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted
Revenue $26,441,770 $30,347,750 $31,571,200 $32,550,332 $36,421,346 $36,421,346
% Change 15.08% 14.77% 4.03% 3.10% 11.89% 0.00%
69
FY 2013 General Fund: Revenues
This category of revenue consists of the City’s share of income taxes received by the State for returns filed from
Annapolis. The income tax is the second largest source of revenue to the General Fund.
Maryland counties are able to impose an income tax that “piggy-backs” on the State income tax. Municipalities receive
only a fraction of the piggy-back tax collected by the State from returns filed in the municipality; the County receives the
remainder of the tax.
IncomeTax Revenue
In Millions of Dollars
FY 2003 - FY 2013
$6.0
$5.5
Millions of Dollars
$5.0
$4.5
$4.0
$3.5
$3.0
FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13
Adopted Adopted
Income Tax Revenue History, Projections, and Percent Change
FY 2003 - FY 2013
INCOME TAX Revenue FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007
Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual
Revenue $3,934,780 $3,998,210 $3,845,710 $4,444,410 $5,264,850
% Change from Prior Year 1.61% -3.81% 15.57% 18.46%
INCOME TAX Revenue
FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
(continued)
Actual Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted
Revenue $5,168,800 $5,422,810 $4,328,300 $4,589,934 $4,900,000 $4,700,000
% Change -1.82% 4.91% -20.18% 6.04% 6.76% -4.08%
70
FY 13 General Fund: Expenditures
The following tables detail General Fund expenditures by Type and by Department for a five year period starting in
FY 2009:
% of
GENERAL FUND FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
Total
Expenditures by Type Actual Actual Actual Adopted Budget
(FY 13)
Personnel $ 43,453,600 $ 46,418,150 $ 41,028,339 $ 42,533,180 $ 45,965,367 72.69%
Operating 9,337,360 10,854,640 8,258,806 7,358,840 8,687,021 13.74%
Capital Outlay 548,840 1,262,970 284,651 250,000 303,000 0.48%
Debt Service 6,029,110 6,702,990 4,489,773 4,281,840 3,613,680 0
Administrative* 34,240 (4,088,090) - 7,485,160 - 0.00%
Contribution to CIP 2,058,610 1,473,570 - - - 0.00%
Community Contrib'tions - - - - 320,000 0.51%
Contingency Reserve - - - - 400,000 0
Liability Insurance - - - - 828,819 1.31%
Transfers Out - - 425,000 - 3,117,444 4.93%
ENDING BALANCE $ 61,461,760 $ 62,624,230 $ 54,486,570 $ 61,909,020 63,235,331 100%
% Change from Prior Year 1.89% -12.99% 13.62% 2.14%
* The negative dollar amounts are a result of the credits to the General Fund for indirect administrative costs allocated to each enterprise fund.
71
FY 13 General Fund: Expenditures
GENERAL FUND % of
FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
Expenditures by Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Budget
Department (FY 13)
Mayor & Alderpersons $ 2,875,160 $ 2,531,360 $ 2,437,774 $ 2,515,360 $ 2,707,117 4.28%
Economic Affairs 459,630 420,080 508,540 - 450,000 0.71%
Finance 3,541,580 4,157,600 1,967,851 3,724,840 4,024,449 6.36%
Human Resources 868,630 972,580 796,761 727,300 895,418 1.42%
Planning and Zoning 1,641,180 1,873,170 1,417,776 1,478,080 1,493,356 2.36%
Central Services 2,182,040 2,577,320 0 - - 0
Police 16,526,890 17,406,470 16,212,052 15,409,490 15,013,271 23.74%
Parking Operations* 616,790 556,100 - 541,150 - 0
Fire 13,541,530 15,689,740 11,876,816 12,990,340 13,455,791 21.28%
Neighbrh'd & Environm't 2,325,160 2,376,840 3,176,327 2,253,560 2,435,736 3.85%
Public Works 5,437,360 6,284,840 4,474,508 6,476,390 6,827,434 10.80%
Recreation & Parks 3,323,850 3,689,660 3,880,465 4,025,510 4,094,244 6.47%
Debt Service 6,029,110 6,702,990 4,489,773 4,281,840 3,613,680 5.71%
Administrative** 34,240 (4,088,090) - 7,485,160 - 0
Contribution to CIP 2,058,610 1,473,570 - - - 0
Transfers Out - - 425,000 - 3,117,444 4.93%
Staff Conversions*** - - - 158,448 0.25%
Furlough Abolishment - - - - 662,774 1.05%
Fleet Replacement - - - - 487,350 0.77%
Contributions - - - - 320,000 0.51%
Contingency & Insur'nce - - - - 1,228,819 1.94%
Retirement Costs - - - - 2,250,000 3.56%
ENDING BALANCE $ 61,461,760 $ 62,624,230 $ 51,663,643 $ 61,909,020 63,235,331 100%
% Change from Prior Year 1.89% -17.50% 19.83% 2.14%
* In FY 2013, Parking Operations expenditures w ere moved to the Transportation Fund (an enterprise fund)
** The negative dollar amounts are a result of the credits to the General Fund for indirect administrative costs allocated to each enterprise fund
*** Halfw ay through FY2013, some of the City's contractual employees w ill be converted to Civil Service or Exempt status. This category
reflects the associated costs.
72
FY 13 General Fund: Expenditures
The following graph illustrates total General Fund expenditures over a several-year period, starting with FY 2002:
Actual General Fund Expenditures Over Time
Millions of Dollars
FY 2002 - FY2013
$65 $63.2
$62.6
$60
$61.5 $61.9
Millions of Dollars
$55
$50 $48.2 $53.3 $54.5
$45
$41.3 $45.6
$39.9
$40
$39.8
$35 $38.2
$30
73
FY 2013: Enterprise Funds
Enterprise Funds are used to account for operations that are financed and operated in a manner similar
to private business enterprises where the goal is that the cost of expenses, including operations and
capital, are financed or recovered primarily through user-related charges. Capital purchases are not
budgeted as expenses; in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, they are
depreciated over the useful life of the asset. Individual operations which the City of Annapolis has as
enterprise funds include the Water, Sewer, Parking, Dock, Market, Transportation, Stormwater
Management and Refuse Fund.
The City’s goal is for enterprise funds to establish rates which provide for self-sufficiency.
All funds are summarized on the following pages.
74
FY 2013: Enterprise Funds
Water Fund
The Water Fund is an enterprise fund used to acount for all financial activity associated with the operation of the City’s
water plant and water distribution system. The fund’s primary source of revenue is from user charges levied on water
customers. User charges consist primarily of service charges, penalties and new connections. The revenue for water
charges is based on usage, population increases/decreases as well as annexations into the City. Another primary source
of revenue is the capital facility assessment. The capital facility assessment is the fee charged to customers for
maintenance of the City’s water system. It is billed to the property owner over a period of thirty years and is used solely
for water system improvements.
The Water Fund consists of two divisions: Water Supply & Treatment Facility and Water Distribution. The Water Supply
and Treatment Facility (commonly referred to as the Water Plant) is responsible for the production, treatment, testing,
storage and initial distribution of all potable water for customers of the City. The Water Distribution division is responsible
for meter reading and operating, and maintaining and repairing the City’s 125-mile water distribution system, including
service lines, water meters and fire hydrants.
% of
WATER FUND Revenues FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Charges for Service $ 3,250,590 $ 3,170,330 $ 3,888,613 $ 7,345,900 $ 7,492,818 94.28%
Water Rental Income 95,730 95,380 104,194 50,000 55,000 0.69%
Capital Facility Fees 340,540 334,500 356,258 400,000 400,000 5.03%
Transfers In - 1,350,000 634,660 - - 0
Interest Income - - 918 - - 0
Non-operating adjustments - - - - - 0
Intergovernmental - - 5,377 - - 0
Other - 2,050 - - - 0
Total $ 3,686,860 $ 4,952,260 $ 4,990,020 $ 7,795,900 $ 7,947,818 100%
% Change from Prior Year 34.32% 0.76% 56.23% 1.95%
% of
WATER FUND Expenses FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel $ 1,937,210 $ 2,028,680 $ 2,041,035 $ 2,320,600 $ 2,430,455 30.68%
Operating 1,210,410 1,224,170 1,008,757 1,114,260 1,318,842 16.65%
Capital Outlay 80,210 16,550 - - - 0
Fleet Replacement - - - - 93,425 1.18%
Debt Service 746,390 1,268,930 358,690 724,410 865,500 10.92%
Depreciation 554,070 595,960 596,051 474,010 474,010 5.98%
Administrative / Transfers 458,780 167,600 962,243 2,380,960 2,740,434 34.59%
Total $ 4,987,070 $ 5,301,890 $ 4,966,776 $ 7,014,240 $ 7,922,666 100%
% Change from Prior Year 6.31% -6.32% 41.22% 12.95%
75
FY 2013: Enterprise Funds
Sewer Fund
The Sewer Fund is an enterprise fund used to account for all financial activity associated with the operation of the City’s
sewage collection and treatment program. The fund’s primary source of revenue is from user charges levied on sewer
system customers. User charges consist primarily of service charges, penalties and new connections. The revenue for
sewer charges is based on usage, population increases/decreases as well as annexations into the City. Another primary
source of revenue is the capital facility assessment. The capital facility assessment is the fee charged to customers for
the maintenance of the City’s sewer system. It is billed to the property owner over a period of thirty years and is used
solely for sewage conveyance system improvements.
The Sewer Fund consists of two divisions: Water Reclamation Facility and Wastewater Collection. The Water
Reclamation Facility accounts for the City’s share of operating expenses for the treatment of all wastewater generated by
City customers and certain Anne Arundel County customers at the Annaplis Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is owned
jointly by Annapolis and Anne Arundel County. The Wastewater Collection division is responsible for operating,
maintaining and repairing the City’s 125-mile sewage conveyance system, including twenty-four pumping stations.
% of
SEWER FUND Revenues FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Charges for Service $ 4,947,860 $ 4,570,710 $ 4,362,254 $ 6,607,400 $ 7,252,148 94.77%
Capital Facility Fees 412,040 347,790 456,585 400,000 400,000 5.23%
Interest Income 19,280 540 1,584 - - 0
Other 51,770 93,240 32,268 - - 0
Total $ 5,430,950 $ 5,012,280 $ 4,852,691 $ 7,007,400 $ 7,652,148 100%
% Change from Prior Year -7.71% -3.18% 44.40% 9.20%
% of
SEWER FUND Expenses FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel $ 1,066,740 $ 755,010 $ 635,255 $ 436,450 $ 525,026 7.56%
Operating 531,750 485,140 415,024 451,250 449,450 6.47%
Contract Services 988,290 3,254,850 3,194,266 3,189,190 3,191,985 45.95%
Fleet Replacement - - - - 77,360 1.11%
Debt Service 782,860 1,038,360 229,175 997,360 774,577 11.15%
Depreciation 617,350 631,970 632,921 631,970 631,970 9.10%
Administrative / Transfers 97,140 1,375,460 1,311,852 1,233,700 1,295,657 18.65%
Intergovernmental - - 912,484 - - 0
Total $ 4,084,130 $ 7,540,790 $ 7,330,977 $ 6,939,920 $ 6,946,025 100%
% Change from Prior Year 84.64% -2.78% -5.33% 0.09%
76
FY 2013: Enterprise Funds
Refuse Fund
The Refuse Fund is an enterprise fund used to account for all financial activity associated with the operation of the City's
solid waste and curbside recycling. The fund's primary source of revenue is from refuse charges paid by the residential
customers. The revenue for refuse charges is based on residential population increases/decreases as well as residential
annexations into the City. The fund's primary expense, aside from personnel costs, is the landfill tipping fee paid to the
County for the disposal of residential and bulk refuse. Formerly, another primary expense was the contract service cost
incurred for curbside recycling services. This is still the case, but now even more so as the City also contracted out solid
waste collection starting in FY2013.
The decision to privatize solid waste collection was informed by results from the National Citizen Survey which asked a
question specific to contracting solid waste services as a cost-saving measure. The solid waste privatization question and
responses as reported by the National Citizen Survey are shown below. Thirty-three percent of respondents strongly
supported privatization as a cost-saving measure and 33 % somewhat supported it. Please see the “Guiding Factors”
section of this document for more information on the National Citizen Survey.
National Citizen Survey Cost-Saving Question (custom question for the City):
The National Citizen Survey™ by National Research Center, Inc.
77
FY 2013: Enterprise Funds
% of
REFUSE FUND Revenues FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Refuse Collection Charges $ 3,742,530 $ 3,683,650 $ 3,653,009 $ 3,903,200 $ 3,297,068 100.00%
Other - - 260,000 15,000 - 0
Transfers - 0 - (250,000) - 0
Total $ 3,742,530 $ 3,683,650 $ 3,913,009 $ 3,668,200 $ 3,297,068 100%
% Change from Prior Year -1.57% 6.23% -6.26% -10.12%
% of
REFUSE FUND Expenses FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel $ 1,299,460 $ 1,333,260 $ 1,168,558 $ 1,370,040 $ 619,045 20.67%
Contract Services 836,810 838,010 250,299 887,750 766,387 25.59%
Operating 197,800 184,370 690,612 176,300 747,845 24.97%
Debt Expense - - 4,891 - 9,936 0.33%
Depreciation 4,010 35,910 35,630 4,000 35,905 1.20%
Administrative 843,620 892,990 698,199 400,680 816,005 27.24%
Transfers - 848,000 451,230 550,000 - 0
Total $ 3,181,700 $ 4,132,540 $ 3,299,419 $ 3,388,770 $ 2,995,123 100%
% Change from Prior Year 29.88% -20.16% 2.71% -11.62%
78
FY 2013: Enterprise Funds
Stormwater Management Fund
The Stormwater Management Fund is an enterprise fund used to account for all financial activity associated with the
operation of the City's stormwater facilities. The fund is totally self-supporting. The fund's primary source of revenue is a
utility charge levied on water customers. The revenue for stormwater charges is based on population increases or
decreases as well as annexations into the City. Revenues generated directly support the Stormwater Utility. Additional
work such as upgrading of existing storm drain systems, development of drainage basin studies, water quality
improvements, administrative costs and construction of major capital improvements are required under the Clean Water
Act.
STORMWATER % of
MANGEMENT FUND FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Revenues Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Stormwater Charges $ 516,780 $ 509,990 $ 493,586 $ 934,000 $ 934,000 100.00%
Interest Income - 90 51 - - 0
Other 150,000 1,500 - - - 0
Total $ 666,780 $ 511,580 $ 493,637 $ 934,000 $ 934,000 100%
% Change from Prior Year -23.28% -3.51% 89.21% 0.00%
STORMWATER % of
MANAGEMENT FUND FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Expenses Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel $ 177,270 $ 169,730 $ 237,325 $ 190,850 $ 201,080 21.70%
Operating 94,610 160,620 82,550 79,000 79,000 8.52%
Debt Service 0 18,020 8,750 37,180 9,085 0.98%
Depreciation - 1,630 1,629 1,630 1,629 0.18%
Administrative 613,640 261,370 - 40,580 46,047 4.97%
Transfers - 290,040 265,233 500,000 590,000 63.66%
Total $ 885,520 $ 901,410 $ 595,487 $ 849,240 $ 926,840 100%
% Change from Prior Year 1.79% -33.94% 42.61% 9.14%
79
FY 2013: Enterprise Funds
Market Fund
The Market House Fund is an enterprise fund used to account for all financial activity associated with the operation of the
City's Market House, an enclosed pavilion housing vendors who sell a wide variety of quality goods. The fund's revenue
is from rent paid by the vendors. Primary expenses are operating costs, debt service, depreciation, and contract services
used to pay a management company.
% of
MARKET FUND Revenues FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Market Charges $ 3,190 $ 77,910 $ 36,931 $ - $ 229,000 100.00%
Interest Income - - 203 - - 0
Transfers 668,000 775,800 - 142,850 - 0
Total $ 671,190 $ 853,710 $ 37,134 $ 142,850 $ 229,000 100%
% Change from Prior Year 27.19% -95.65% 284.68% 60.31%
% of
MARKET FUND Expenses FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Operating $ 6,860 $ 301,560 $ 35,047 $ 10,000 $ 136,700 59.74%
Capital Outlay 691,740 20,120 - - - 0
Debt Service 59,840 58,300 30,990 94,900 54,321 23.74%
Depreciation 24,890 24,890 24,892 24,890 25,000 10.93%
Administrative 44,940 44,400 80,741 12,790 12,791 5.59%
Total $ 828,270 $ 449,270 $ 171,670 $ 142,580 $ 228,813 100%
% Change from Prior Year -45.76% -61.79% -16.95% 60.48%
80
FY 2013: Enterprise Funds
Sidewalk Revolving Fund
The Sidewalk Fund is a new fund for FY2013. The purpose of the fund is to address the need for sidewalk replacement,
repair, and maintenance throughout the City. As opposed to putting the burden on the City residents and business
owners to repair and maintain the sidewalks in front of their own properties, the City will maintain the responsibility. The
decision to keep sidewalk improvement the responsibility of the City was made, in part, due to results from the National
Citizen Survey which asked a question specific to sidewalk improvement. The sidewalk question and responses as
reported by the National Citizen Survey are shown below. Twenty-two percent of respondents strongly supported a raise
in the real estate tax in support of keeping sidewalk maintenance the City’s responsibility and 28% of respondents
somewhat supported it. Please see the “Guiding Factors” section of this document for more information on the National
Citizen Survey.
The costs of the repair and maintenance of sidewalks will be charged to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget
but the personnel costs associated with the labor are attributed to this Sidewalk Fund. This Sidewalk Fund is a revolving
fund such that tax revenue will be transferred from the General Fund into this Sidewalk Fund to pay for only those
personnel costs associated with sidewalk repair and maintenance. This tax revenue will be a constant source of revenue
from year to year to ensure necessary sidewalk repair is properly funded. Additionally, residents may elect to contribute
to the Sidewalk Fund in order to accelerate improvement of the sidewalk abutting their property.
National Citizen Survey Sidewalk Maintenance Question (custom question for the City):
The National Citizen Survey™ by National Research Center, Inc.
81
FY 2013: Enterprise Funds
% of
SIDEWALK REVOLVING
FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
FUND Revenues
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Transfer from General Fund $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 277,444 100.00%
Total $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 277,444 100%
% Change from Prior Year Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable
% of
SIDEWALK REVOLVING
FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
FUND Expenses
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 277,444 100.00%
Total $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 277,444 100%
% Change from Prior Year Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable
82
FY 2013: Enterprise Funds
Transportation Fund
The Transportation Fund is an enterprise Fund used to account for all financial activity associated with the operation and
maintenance of the City's public transportation system. This fund usually operates at a significant deficit which is offset by
transfers from Parking Fund revenue and the General Fund. The fund's primary source of revenue is from transit charges
based on the number of passengers annually. Federal and State Grants also account for a large portion of revenues.
The Transportation Fund formerly consisted of three divisions: Administration, Vehicle Operations, and Maintenance.
Starting in FY2013, Parking Operations is now part of the Transportation Fund. Parking Operations was formerly under
the General Fund but starting in FY2013, all Parking Operations expenditures will come under the Transportation Fund.
Parking Operations is the division responsible for on-street parking operations such as meter collections and parking
enforcement. The Administration Division is responsible for operational planning and service management, grants
management, and taxi and pedicab licensing and regulation. The Vehicle Operations Division is responsible for operating
an effective and efficient public transit system in accordance with all state and federal regulations. The Maintenance
Division is responsible for the repair and maintenance of all service and support vehicles, facilities and equipment.
(continued)
83
FY 2013: Enterprise Funds
% of
TRANSPORTATION FUND
FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Revenues
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Transportation Charges $ 968,710 $ 1,077,230 $ 764,847 $ 1,488,000 $ 1,330,000 31.89%
Transfers - 4,400,000 500,000 1,797,680 2,840,000 68.11%
County Contributions 150,000 150,000 117,568 - - 0
State Oper. & Capital Grants 1,402,610 1,223,420 1,365,142 2,400,000 - 0
Federal Oper. & Capital Gra 772,730 1,113,610 181,157 - - 0
Other 51,730 91,940 6,431 10,000 - 0
Total $ 3,345,780 $ 8,056,200 $ 2,935,144 $ 5,695,680 $ 4,170,000 100%
% Change from Prior Year 140.79% -63.57% 94.05% -26.79%
* FY13 figures do not include grant revenues. Starting in FY 2013, grant revenues and expenditures will be separately appropriated one-
by-one as they are received throughout the fiscal year.
% of
TRANSPORTATION FUND
FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Expenses
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel $ 3,566,360 $ 3,707,910 $ 2,718,946 $ 2,965,530 $ 2,337,441 56.08%
Operating 803,410 748,500 808,269 987,510 719,745 17.27%
Debt Service 22,500 19,480 2,780 19,190 13,422 0.32%
Depreciation 432,770 526,410 507,194 335,570 335,570 8.05%
Administrative 326,870 284,980 - 629,910 725,689 17.41%
Transfers - - 628,927 - - 0
Capital Outlay - - 118,048 - - 0
Fleet Replacement - - - - 36,000 0.86%
Total $ 5,151,910 $ 5,287,280 $ 4,784,164 $ 4,937,710 $ 4,167,867 100%
% Change from Prior Year 2.63% -9.52% 3.21% -15.59%
* FY13 figures do not include grant-funded expenditures. Starting in FY 2013, grant revenues and expenditures will be separately
appropriated one-by-one as they are received throughout the fiscal year.
** FY13 figures include Parking Operations (on-street parking) expenditures.
84
FY 2013: Enterprise Funds
Parking Fund
What was formerly the Off-Street Parking Fund merged with Parking Operations to form one inclusive Parking Fund.
Parking Operations is on-street parking. It is a division responsible for the operation of parking meters and enforcement
of all parking violations in the City (via the issuance of citations). As such, parking enforcement officers make up the bulk
of the parking operations. Formely, Parking Operations was part of the General Fund; its revenues from meter collections
and parking citations were attributed to the General Fund as were all expenses associated with the operation.
Parking operations was formerly under the direction of the Police Department, but once it came under the direction of the
Department of Transportation, it made fiscal sense to join Parking Operations with Off-Street Parking. This makes it
easier to abide by City ordinance which mandates that parking revenues are to offset Transportation expenses. Now,
revenue from Parking Operations is attributed to the Off-Street Parking Fund while expenses are charged to the
Transportation Fund (which is also an enterprise fund).
The off-street parking functions of the Parking Fund remain the same. Off-street parking accounts for all financial activity
associated with the operation of the City’s municipal off-street parking facilities. These facilities include the Noah Hillman
parking garage, Gott’s Court parking garage, Knighton parking garage, Park Place parking garage and two parking lots
(Larkin and South Street). The primary source of off-street revenue is from garage parking fees. The City maintains a
contractual agreement with a parking management company (Towne Park) for the day-to-day operations of all parking
facilities.
% of
PARKING FUND Revenues FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Off-Street Parking Charges $ 2,869,770 $ 3,213,470 $ 3,150,184 $ 3,650,000 $ 2,365,000 42.73%
Citations & Meters 1,659,741 1,420,684 1,445,689 1,525,000 3,170,000 57.27%
Interest Income 430 1,440 646 - - 0
Total $ 4,529,941 $ 4,635,594 $ 4,596,519 $ 5,175,000 $ 5,535,000 100%
% Change from Prior Year 2.33% -0.84% 12.59% 6.96%
% of
PARKING FUND
FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Expenses*
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Contract Services $ 1,005,100 $ 1,021,210 $ 1,016,160 $ 1,023,070 $ 1,321,092 23.94%
Other Operating 233,270 229,270 174,556 211,410 211,410 3.83%
Capital Outlay 0 15,000 1,500 - - 0
Debt Service 1,168,700 1,108,300 755,659 538,740 396,650 7.19%
Depreciation 413,130 413,940 108,041 413,940 413,940 7.50%
Administrative (484,490) (512,720) 328,729 325,291 334,607 6.06%
Transfers - 2,300,000 500,000 1,100,000 2,840,000 51.47%
Total $ 2,335,710 $ 4,575,000 $ 2,884,645 $ 3,612,451 $ 5,517,699 100%
% Change from Prior Year 95.87% -36.95% 25.23% 52.74%
* Does not include on-street Parking Operations expenses (those expenses are included under the Transportation Fund).
85
FY 2013: Enterprise Funds
Dock Fund
The Dock Fund is an enterprise fund used to account for all financial activity associated with the management and control
of the City’s waterways, including slips and mooring buoys, showers and restrooms for boaters, sewage pump-out
faciliites for boaters, and maintenance of the City Dock area. This fund is totally self-supporting, generating annual
surplus. The Dock Fund’s primary source of revenue is from slip charges. These are fees charged for mooring at a City
Dock boat clip, based on the number of hours the boat stays in the slip.
% of
DOCK FUND Revenues FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Dock Charges $ 867,020 $ 857,690 $ 1,022,585 $ 1,076,660 $ 1,196,000 100.00%
Interest Income - 200 - - - 0
State Oper. & Capital Grants 637,010 140,260 131,051 188,650 - 0
Federal Oper. & Capital Gra 59,360 - 108,740 - - 0
Total $ 1,563,390 $ 998,150 $ 1,262,376 $ 1,265,310 $ 1,196,000 100%
% Change from Prior Year -36.15% 26.47% 0.23% -5.48%
* FY13 figures do not include grant revenues. Starting in FY 2013, grant revenues and expenditures will be separately appropriated one-
by-one as they are received throughout the fiscal year.
% of
DOCK FUND Expenses FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel $ 423,850 $ 406,410 $ 344,710 $ 358,060 $ 360,089 32.25%
Operating 155,730 237,360 320,138 129,800 129,300 11.58%
Debt Service 441,370 420,120 130,690 401,180 182,731 16.37%
Depreciation 267,070 266,510 256,945 214,030 215,000 19.26%
Administrative 229,800 256,270 - 152,860 117,546 10.53%
Transfers - 2,842,800 175,806 - 100,000 8.96%
Fleet Replacement - - - - 11,905 1.07%
Total $ 1,517,820 $ 4,429,470 $ 1,228,289 $ 1,255,930 $ 1,116,572 100%
% Change from Prior Year 191.83% -72.27% 2.25% -11.10%
* FY13 figures do not include grant-funded expenditures. Starting in FY 2013, grant revenues and expenditures will be separately
appropriated one-by-one as they are received throughout the fiscal year.
86
Special Revenue Fund
Special revenue funds are used to account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are
restricted by legal and regulatory provisions to finance specific activities. Included in the special revenue
fund is the Community Development Block Grant.
Community Development Block Grant
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund is a special revenue fund supported by grant or
federal funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. This grant is made
available to the City for affordable housing, homelessness, and community and economic development
activities. The City’s Housing and Community Development Committee, a standing committee of the City
Council, with staff input and support, hears community grant requests and makes recommendations to
the full City Council for approval. The process is separate from the normal operating and capital budget
adoption. The Housing and Community Development division of the Department of Planning and Zoning
is responsible for planning, organizing and implementing the CDBG program.
% of
CDBG Revenues FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
CDBG Revenues $ 727,630 $ 824,940 $ 469,922 $ 324,840 $ 212,110 100.00%
Total $ 727,630 $ 824,940 $ 469,922 $ 324,840 $ 212,110 100%
% Change from Prior Year 13.37% -43.04% -30.87% -34.70%
% of
CDBG Expenditures FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Operating $ 542,030 $ 642,030 $ 309,754 $ 123,050 $ 42,400 19.99%
Capital 185,600 182,910 160,168 201,790 169,710 80.01%
Total $ 727,630 $ 824,940 $ 469,922 $ 324,840 $ 212,110 100%
% Change from Prior Year 13.37% -43.04% -30.87% -34.70%
87
Debt Service Fund
Debt Service Fund Summary:
The City issues general obligation bonds to provide funds for the acquisition and construction of major
capital facilities. General obligation bonds have been issued for both general government and proprietary
activities. These bonds therefore are reported in the proprietary funds as they are expected to be repaid
from proprietary fund revenues. In addition, general obligation bonds have been issued to refund general
obligation bonds. General obligation bonds are direct oligations and pledge the full faith and credit of the
City.
General Obligation Bonds:
As of June 30, 2012, the City had six general obligation bond issues outstanding, as described below:
1. Public Improvement Refunding Bonds of 2003 – These $7,690,000 bonds were issued on June 26,
2003, with a tweleve year term. The bond proceeds were used for the refunding of a part of the
1993, 1994, and 1995 series bonds.
2. Public Improvement Bonds of 2005 – These $15,000,000 bonds were issued on August 11, 2005
with a twenty year term. The bond proceeds were used to fund the police station renovation,
Knigton Garage and other various public projects.
3. Public Improvement Bonds of 2007 – These $28,900,000 bonds were issued on August 15, 2007
with a fifteen year term. The bond proceeds were used to finance the start of the new recreation
center, replace the City Dock bulkhead, public safety improvements, general roadway
improvements, and other various public projects.
4. Public Improvement Bonds of 2009 -- These $26,970,000 bonds were issued on June 15, 2009,
with a twenty year term. The bond proceeds were used to fund the remaining cost of the new
recreation center, general roadway improvements, various public works projects, public safety
facilities, and other various general governmental projects.
5. Public Improvement and Refunding Bonds, Series 2011 – These $35,820,000 bonds were issued in
March 23, 2011 with a thirty year term. The bond proceeds were used for the refunding of all or
part of five general obligation bonds: $4,185,000 of the 1998 Public Improvement Bond,
$11,120,000 of the 2002 Public Improvement Bond, $2,270,000 of the 2005 Public Improvement
Bond, $9,175,000 of the 2007 Public Improvement Bond and $3,350,000 of the 2009 Public
Improvement Bond. The remainder of the bond proceeds was used to finance the cost of
improvement to the closed landfill, City Hall renovations, general roadways, a new City-wide
financial system, sewer pumps, general sewer rehabilitiation and other various general government
projects.
6. Public Improvement and Refunding Bonds, 2012 Series – These $19,245,000 bonds were issued
on June 26, 2012 with a twenty year term. The bond proceeds will be used for the refunding of all
or part of two general obligation bonds: $8,110,000 of the 2005 Public Improvement Bonds and
$3,535,000 of the 2007 Public Imporovement Bonds. The remainder of the bond proceeds will be
used to finance roadway improvement, water distribution upgrades, sewer station and sewer pump
rehabilitation and improvements, water treatment plant replacement, stormwater management
retrofit projects, the upgrade of the water and sewer control and communication system (SCADA),
and various other general government projects.
88
Debt Service Fund
Loans:
As of June 30, 2012 the City had one loan outstanding, as described below:
1. State of Maryland Water Quality Loan - This $1,570,795 loan was used to finance the costs of
improvements to the Annapolis Water Reclamation Facility.
Capital Leases:
As of June 30, 2012 the City had one capital lease outstanding, as described below:
2. Capital Lease - 2007 - This $2,015,000 loan was used to finance the cost of replacing aged City
vehicles.
LONG-TERM DEBT SUMMARY
The following is a list of the bonds, loans, and capital leases included in the CIty’s long-term debt as of
June 30, 2012.
General Fund Long-Term Debt:
Bonds Year of Outstanding Interest Rate Year of Final
Issuance Principal Maturity
Public Improvement Refunding 2003 $ 1,091,340 2.65% 2015
Public Improvement 2005 1,312,150 3.50 - 4.13% 2025
Public Improvement 2007 6,442,482 4.25 - 5.00% 2022
Public Improvement 2009 16,084,490 2.00 - 4.25% 2029
Public Improvement & Refunding 2011 18,966,129 2.00 - 5.00% 2041
Public Improvement & Refunding 2012 11,357,342 2.00 - 4.00% 2033
Total Outstanding Principal $ 55,253,933
Capital Leases Year of Outstanding Interest Rate Year of Final
Issuance Principal Maturity
Vehicle Replacement 2007 $ 193,821 4.07% 2012
Total Outstanding Principal $ 193,821
GRAND TOTAL GENERAL Outstanding Principal $ 55,447,754
89
Debt Service Fund
Enterprise Funds Long Term Debt:
Bonds Year of Outstanding Interest Rate Year of Final
Issuance Principal Maturity
Public Improvement Refunding 2003 $ 1,258,660 2.65% 2015
Public Improvement 2005 382,850 3.50 - 4.13% 2025
Public Improvement 2007 3,867,518 4.25 - 5.00% 2022
Public Improvement 2009 6,330,507 2.00 - 4.25% 2029
Public Improvement & Refunding 2011 18,984,379 2.00 - 5.00% 2041
Public Improvement & Refunding 2012 7,887,658 2.00 - 4.00% 2033
Total Outstanding Principal $ 38,711,572
Capital Leases Year of Outstanding Interest Rate Year of Final
Issuance Principal Maturity
Vehicle Replacement 2007 $ 26,430 4.07% 2012
Total Outstanding Principal $ 26,430
Loans Year of Outstanding Interest Rate Year of Final
Issuance Principal Maturity
Water Quality Loan 1993 $ 308,421 3.25% 2015
Total Outstanding Principal $ 308,421
GRAND TOTAL ENTERPRISE Outstanding Princ. $ 39,046,423
90
Debt Service Fund
DEBT SERVICE PRINCIPAL & INTEREST PAYMENTS
The tables below list the principal and interest payments for general obligation bonds, loans and capital
leases for fiscal years 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013.
FY 13 % of
General Obligation
FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total Adopted
Bonds
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted Budget
Principal $ 5,885,820 $ 6,670,000 $ 4,235,000 $ 2,295,000 $ 3,291,325 3.53%
Interest 2,816,850 3,408,710 3,038,567 4,179,020 2,378,676 2.55%
Total $ 8,702,670 $ 10,078,710 $ 7,273,567 $ 6,474,020 $ 5,670,001 6.07%
% Change from Prior Year 15.81% -27.83% -10.99% -12.42%
FY 13 % of
Loans FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total Adopted
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted Budget
Principal $ 87,580 $ 95,660 $ 93,369 $ 96,400 $ 100,000 0.11%
Interest 16,280 14,030 11,691 12,670 72,700 0.08%
Total $ 103,860 $ 109,690 $ 105,060 $ 109,070 $ 172,700 0.19%
% Change from Prior Year 5.61% -4.22% 3.82% 58.34%
FY 13 % of
Capital Leases FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total Adopted
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted Budget
Principal $ 378,750 $ 394,320 $ 410,534 $ 427,420 $ 188,452 0.20%
Interest 65,490 51,770 33,273 84,290 11,997 0.01%
Total $ 444,240 $ 446,090 $ 443,807 $ 511,710 $ 200,449 0.21%
% Change from Prior Year 0.42% -0.51% 15.30% -60.83%
FY 13 % of
SUMMARY FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total Adopted
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted Budget
Total Principal $ 6,352,150 $ 7,159,980 $ 4,738,903 $ 2,818,820 $ 3,579,778 3.84%
Total Interest 2,898,630 3,474,510 3,083,530 4,275,980 2,463,372 2.64%
Total $ 9,250,780 $ 10,634,490 $ 7,822,434 $ 7,094,800 $ 6,043,150 6.47%
% Change from Prior Year 14.96% -26.44% -9.30% -14.82%
91
Debt Service Fund
LEGAL DEBT MARGIN
The City Charter limits the aggregate amount of bonds and other indebtedness, with certain exceptions,
to 10% of the assessable base of the City, which includes real and personal property. For FY 2013, the
debt margin of the City is as follows:
Assessed Value for FY 2013: $ 6,165,038,912
(Assessable Base of Real & Personal Property)
Debt Limit: 10% of Assessed Value: 616,503,891
Debt Subject to Limitation: 94,494,177
(Total FY 2013 Outstanding Long-Term Debt Principal)
Legal Debt Margin $ 522,009,714
Ratio of City Debt to Assessable Base 1.53%
Under provisions of Article 41, Section 266A through 266I of the Annotated Code of Maryland, the City
has participated in Industrial Revenue Bonds for various projects within the City. Neither the bonds, nor
the interest thereon, constitue an indebtedness or contingent liability of the City and, accordingly, they are
not included in the general long-term debt.
Debt Service as a Share of Expenditures:
• The City’s budgeted debt service of $ 6,043,150 for FY 2013 is 6.47% of the $ 93,334,379 FY 2013
total expenditure budget.
• $ 3,757,429 of this debt service total is General Fund debt service, which is equal to 5.94% of the
total General Fund budgeted expenditures of $ 63,235,331
92
Debt Service Fund
SHORT-TERM DEBT SUMMARY
During fiscal year 2010, the City obtained one short-term loan in the form of a bank-issued line of credit.
The loan was repaid in full, with interest, in fiscal year 2011, less than six months after issuance.
Additionally, in June 2011, the City obtained a Tax Anticipation Note (TAN). A TAN is a municipal note
issued in anticipation of revenues from future tax receipts. The City’s TAN requires repayment within 18
months of issuance, or December 2012.
The following table summarizes these short-term debts which have influenced the City’s recent fiscal
standing.
Amount Amount Amount Amount
Short Term Borrowing Borrowed Borrowed Borrowed Outstanding Date of Final
FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 June 30, 2012 Maturity
Line of Credit $ 10,000,000 $ - $ 8,000,000 $ - All paid in full
Tax Anticipation Note - 10,000,000 - 10,000,000 Dec. 2012
Total Outstanding Principal (Short-Term Debt) $ 10,000,000
93
Position Summary: Full-Time Equivalent Positions
Halfway through FY 2013, twenty four of the City's contractual employees will be converted to Civil Service or
Exempt status. Enacting such conversions half-way through the fiscal year was done as a cost-saving
measure. The budgeted cost of conversions City-wide is shown in the General Fund summary tables
preceeding this section of the document. This cost is budgeted at $158,488 for the fiscal year. Conversion
from contractual status creates a cost to the City due to the increased retirement and benefits obligations that
come with Civil Service or Exempt status. The contractual employees chosen for conversion were chosen
based on seniority and criticalness of position.
The following permanent position tables reflect the anticipated conversions.
• The following table summarizes the changes in permanent positions from FY 2009 to FY 2013
FY 2013 Adopted
FY 13 % of City-wide
Before & After Mid-
Total FTE
Year Conversions
FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 BEFORE AFTER
Permanent Positions BEFORE AFTER
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Conversion Conversion
Mayor & Alderpersons 14 21 12 10 11 17 2.07% 3.06%
Economic Affairs 2 2 1 - - - 0.00% 0.00%
Finance 23 19 23 26 27 31 5.08% 5.58%
Human Resources 7 7 6 6 6 6 1.13% 1.08%
Planning & Zoning 15 14 11 11 11 11 2.07% 1.98%
Central Services* 5 5 4 - - - 0.00% 0.00%
Police 162 163 145 145 149 151 28.01% 27.16%
Fire 143 143 132 132 131 134 24.62% 24.10%
Neighborh'd & Environ. 21 22 21 21 23 24 4.32% 4.32%
Public Works 110 111 106 107 106 108 19.92% 19.42%
Recreation & Parks 20 20 18 21 18 22 3.38% 3.96%
Transportation 70 67 58 58 50 52 0 0
Total 592 594 537 537 532 556 100.00% 100.00%
% Change from Prior Year* 0.34% -9.60% 0.00% -0.93% 3.54%
* Central Services w as dissolved in FY2012. 3 Central Services positions moved to Finance and 1 position moved to Public Works.
** FY 2013 percent change AFTER conversions is based on a comparison to FY 2012 adopted positions.
94
Position Summary: Full-Time Equivalent Positions
• The table on the following two pages summarizes, by department, which contractual positions will be
converted to permanent status (Civil Service or Exempt) halfway through the fiscal year.
Permanent Permanent
Departments with Employees to be Converted Number of FTEs Begin FTEs End
Employees to July1, 2012 - Jan 1, 2013 -
be Converted Dec. 31, 2012 Jun 30, 2013
Mayor and Alderpersons
Boards & Comm. & Council Liaison (Mayor Office) 1
Ombudsman/Human Services Officer (Mayor Office) 1
Executive Office Associate (Mayor Office) 1
Administrative Office Associate (Mayor Office) 1
Community Relations Specialist (Mayor Office) 1
Assistant City Attorney (Office of City Attorney) 1
Total Mayor and Alderpersons 6 11 17
Finance
MIT Technical Support Specialist (Office of MIT) 1
Admin. Support Analyst (Office of MIT) 1
GIS Coordinator (Office of MIT) 1
GIS Technician (Office of MIT) 1
Total Finance 4 27 31
Police
Hispanic Liaison 1
Executive Assistant 1
Total Police 2 149 151
Fire
Public Info. Officer & Quartermaster (Fire) 1
Dep. Director of EPRM (Emer. Prep & Risk Mgmt) 1
Risk Analyst (Emer. Prep & Risk Mgmt) 1
Total Fire 3 131 134
95
Position Summary: Full-Time Equivalent Positions
Permanent Permanent
Departments with Employees to be Converted Number of FTEs Begin FTEs End
Employees to July1, 2012 - Jan 1, 2013 -
be Converted Dec. 31, 2012 Jun 30, 2013
Neighborhood & Environmental Programs (DNEP)
Office Associate III 1
Total DNEP 1 23 24
Public Works
Facilities Maintenance Supervisor(Gen. Gov't Bldgs) 1
Facilities Maint. Engineer II (Gen. Gov't Buildings) 1
Total Public Works 2 106 108
Recreation
Facility Supervisor (Pip Moyer Rec. Center) 1
Marketing/Membership Coordinator (PMRC) 1
Front Desk Supervisor (PMRC) 1
Dance & Fitness Coordinator (PMRC) 1
Total Recreation 4 18 22
Transportation
Mobility and Parking Specialist (Admin. Division) 1
Parking Meter Collector I (Parking Operations) 1
Total Transportation 2 50 52
Total Employees Converted on Jan. 1, 2013 24
96
Position Summary: Classification
• The following tables show the FY 13 adopted position classification schedule.
97
Position Summary: Classification
Class Classification Title Grade
98
Position Summary: Classification
Class Classification Title Grade
99
Position Summary: Classification
Class Classification Title Grade
100
Position Summary: Classification
Class Classification Title Grade
101
Position Summary: Classification
Class Classification Title Grade
102
Position Summary: Compensation
• The following tables show the FY 13 adopted compensation schedule. Employees are compensated
per grade (as listed in the preceeding classification tables) and step. An employee’s step is most
commonly a function of longevity within the position.
Civilian Positions:
103
Position Summary: Compensation
• Sworn Fire Positions:
104
Position Summary: Compensation
• Sworn Police Positions:
105
Department of the Mayor and Alderpersons
106
Department of the Mayor and Alderpersons
Fund Support: General Fund
Description:
All municipal legislative powers under the Constitution and Laws of Maryland are vested in the City
Council. The City Council consists of nine members - the Mayor and eight Aldermen, who are nominated
and elected by the voters of the City for terms of four years each. Each of the Aldermen represents a
specific geographic area of the City known as a "Ward", whose boundaries are specified in the City Code.
The Mayor presides over the meetings of the City Council and is the "Chief Executive of the City",
devoting full time to the duties of the office. He/she supervises the City Manager, appointed by the Mayor
and City Council. The City Manager is the direct subordinate of the Mayor and is the immediate
supervisor of each Department Director.
The City Manager serves as the appointing and supervising authority of the department directors, the
Boards and Commissions Coordinator and City Council Liaison, and the Small & Minority Business
Enterprise (SMBE) Coordinator. The City Manager serves as the Chief Administrative Officer of the City.
Included in the Mayor’s Office is the Mayor’s Office Team. This team consists of a Human Services
Officer who supervises a Special Projects and Development Coordinator, and two Community Relations
Specialists.
The Public Information Office, the Office of Law, and the Boards and Commissions Office are separate
divisions under the Department of the Mayor and Aldermen.
STAFFING SUMMARY BY POSITION : FISCAL YEAR 2013
Permanent Positions
Total FTE: 11
Mayor's Office:
Mayor ............................................................................................................................................... 1
City Manager .................................................................................................................................... 1
SMBE Coordinator ........................................................................................................................... 1
Public Information Office:
Public Information Officer ................................................................................................................. 1
Part-time Camera Operator* ............................................................................................................ 1
City Attorney:
City Attorney ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Legal Assistant ................................................................................................................................. 1
Legislative Specialist ........................................................................................................................ 1
Paralegal .......................................................................................................................................... 1
City Clerk .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Deputy City Clerk ............................................................................................................................. 1
*New position for FY 2013
107
Department of the Mayor and Alderpersons
Contractual and Temporary Positions
The Department of the Mayor and Aldermen has various temporary and/or contractual positions. These
positions consist primarily of the Ombudsman/Human Services Officer, the Special Projects and
Development Coordinator, the Community Relations Specialists, the Boards & Commissions Coordinator
and City Council Liaison, the Assistant City Attorney, the Assistant City Manager (to replace the vacant
contractual Grants Coordinator position), technical support to the Public Information Office, and office
administration positions.
Conversions:
Of these contractual or temporary positions, the following will be included in the January 1, 2013
conversion of contractual employees to permanent status (civil service or exempt):
Mayor’s Office:
1. Boards and Commissions Coordinator & Council Liaison: Civil Service
2. Ombudsman/Human Services Officer: Exempt Status
3. Community Relations Specialist: Exempt Status
4. Executive Office Associate: Exempt Status
5. Administrative Assistant: Exempt Status
City Attorney:
1. Assistant City Attorney: Exempt Status
This will bring the total full-time equivalent count for this department to 17 half-way through the
fiscal year.
108
Department of the Mayor and Alderpersons
Division: Mayor’s Office and Team
Description:
The Mayor’s Office is responsible for the overall management of the City government. This department
includes the Mayor and Aldermen and the City Manager. The Mayor is the Chief Executive Officer and
the City Manager is the Chief Administrative Officer who directly supervises all department directors, the
Boards and Commissions Coordinator and City Council Liaison, and the Small & Minority Business
Enterprise (SMBE) Coordinator. The Mayor’s Office Team, described below, is included in the Mayor’s
Office budget.
Mission:
To foster a collaborative environment in which to provide City services in the most effective, transparent
and efficient manner possible for all residents, businesses, workers and visitors to the City of Annapolis.
Mayor’s Office Team:
Description:
The Mayor’s Office Team is responsible for ensuring quality customer service to the residents, visitors
and stakeholders of the City of Annapolis. This Team consists of an Ombudsman/Human Services Officer
who supervises a Special Projects and Development Coordinator and two Community Relations
Specialists.
Mission:
To provide consistent, effective and quality customer service through clear and respectful communication
in a timely, responsive manner while engaging all members of the community through both electronic and
in-person information-sharing, training, and technical assistance.
Goals & Objectives:
A. Provide quality customer service:
Respond to customers in a professional, respectful and clear manner.
B. Respond to customers in a timely manner
Respond to 100% of customer inquiries within 24 hours.
C. Maintain up-to-date electronic information to ensure customer access to accurate information.
Update 100% of contact lists annually
D. Engage the full diversity of the community in City government activities.
Ensure the inclusion of people of varied geographic, socioeconomic, racial, gender, sexual
preference, national origin, and religious groups as well as engaging the varied types of
customers (resident, business-owner, worker or visitor).
109
Department of the Mayor and Alderpersons
Division: Mayor’s Office and Team
Performance Measurements:
The Center for Performance Measurements (CPM) 101 Survey was completed by the City in October
2011. The CPM 101 survey measured inputs and outputs across City departments, services and
functions to perform analyses on the gathered data and compare our performance to that of other
jurisdictions nationwide.
The survey was completed using fiscal year 2011 data and the final CPM 101 Annual Data Report was
issued in August 2012. The final report is available upon request or it can be accessed online at:
http://www.ci.annapolis.md.us/Government/Reports/CPMReports2012.pdf
Fiscal year 2012 data will be submitted to the CPM in October 2012. The goal is to participate annually in
the survey so that trends in the City’s performance can be monitored and benchmarked, with adjustments
and budget decisions made according to performance. As the City becomes more accustomed to and
involved in the performance measurement process, the use of such metrics will have more influence on
budgeting practices. The process will begin during the fiscal year 2014 budget process, during which the
results of the fiscal year 2011 survey will begin to inform budgetary decisions.
There were no CPM survey questions which pertained directly to the services provided by the Mayor’s
Office Team. However, in looking ahead, performance measurementsthe Mayor’s Office Team may
collect and evaluate in-house are as follows. Since performance measurements are meant to track
progress toward a goal, the list letters tie the below performance measurements to the above-listed
divison goals.
A. Provide quality customer service:
Survey provided to customers. Each survey to provide a numerical score of
satisfaction.
B. Timely Response to Customers:
Log email and phone call inquiries to measure timely response of customer
service.
C. Maintain up-to-date electronic information:
Track percentage of contact sheets updated annually.
D. Engage the full diversity of the community:
Include an optional diversity assessment question on all surveys that come from
the Mayor’s Team Office.
110
Department of the Mayor and Alderpersons
Division: Mayor’s Office and Team
BUDGET SUMMARY:
Mayor Administration and Mayor’s Office Team
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 ** FY 2010 ** FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel* $ 1,120,000 $ 1,129,800 $ 1,232,455 $ 1,050,670 $ 1,205,366 66.15%
Operating 809,820 282,070 153,956 130,920 $ 166,920 9.16%
Economic Development 459,627 420,082 508,540 385,000 $ 450,000 24.69%
Total $ 2,389,447 $ 1,831,952 $ 1,894,951 $ 1,566,590 $ 1,822,286 100%
% Change from Prior Year -23.33% 3.44% -17.33% 16.32%
* For FY 2013, personnel expenditures for departments or divisions under the General Fund do not reflect the expense of abolishing
furlough days. Instead the cost of furlough abolishment for General Fund departments w as calculated as a lump sum totaling $662,773.67
for the fiscal year (2013).
** The expenditures of the Office of Emergency Management w ere reported under the Mayor's Office in FY 2009 and FY 2010. The
expenditures of the Public Information Office w ere reported under the Mayor's Office in FY 2009, FY 2010 and FY 2011.
111
Department of the Mayor and Aldermen
Division: Office of Law
Description:
The City Attorney’s Office includes the Office of Law and the City Clerk’s Office. The City Attorney’s
Office consists of a City Attorney, an Assistant City Attorney, a City Clerk, an Assistant City Clerk, a
Legislative & Policy Analyst, a Legal Assistant, and a Paralegal.
The Office of Law provides legal services for the City in compliance with federal, state, county and city
laws. As provided for in the City Charter and Code, the City Attorney's Office represents the City in a
wide-range of transactions involving public and private entities; represents the City and all its
departments, agencies, boards, commissions, and committees in connection with any litigation in which
the City is involved; drafts legal opinions and provides legal advice to various boards, commissions and
agencies of the City; drafts and reviews all ordinances, resolutions and charter amendments for the City;
prepares and reviews for legal sufficiency and form all documents to be executed by the City or to which
the City is a party; and performs such other duties as may be assigned by the Annapolis City Council.
The City Attorney or designee attends meetings of the City Council, various City boards, commissions,
and committees as required. The City Attorney’s Office also acts as the liaison for the City’s Ethics
Commission. Specialized legal services are provided to the City by private law firms on a contractual
basis.
The City Clerk’s Office maintains the permanent legislative records of the City in a manner consistent with
state and city regulations. The City Clerk is the custodian of the City Seal and the official records of the
City; keeps a record of all proceedings of the Annapolis City Council; maintains and records all laws,
charter amendments, ordinances, and resolutions adopted and enacted by the Annapolis City Council;
maintains and records annexations; prepares and grants certificates for licenses; and directly issues over
25 different types of permits. The City Clerk or her designee serves as Clerk to the City Council,
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board and the Board of Supervisors of Elections.
Mission:
To provide legal representation and manage risks to the City by the timely delivery of general and
specialized legal counsel and paralegal support to the Mayor, City Council and City officers, employees,
departments, agencies, boards, commissions, and committees in connection with legal opinions,
ordinances, charter amendments, external entities, lawsuits, proceedings, negotiations, grievances, and
contracts to which the City is or may become a party.
To certify and attest to the actions of the City; to corroborate, handle, make ready, and archive the City’s
official records, documents, epistles, proceedings of the Council, charter amendment laws, ordinances,
and resolutions adopted or enacted by the City Council, and to ensure convenient and reasonably
unencumbered access of this information; to ensure a convenient, consistent and timely process for the
application and issuance of City licenses and permits; and to plan, organize and supervise the City’s
electoral process.
Services:
• Drafts and reviews all ordinances, resolutions and charter amendments for the City.
• Represents the City and all its departments, agencies, boards, and commissions in connection
with any litigation in which the City is involved.
• Drafts legal opinions and provides legal advice to the Mayor, City Council and officers and
employees of the City and various boards and commissions.
• Prepares and reviews for form and legal sufficiency all documents to be executed by the City or
to which the City is a party.
112
Department of the Mayor and Aldermen
Division: Office of Law
• Negotiates a wide range of transactions on behalf of the City, including various Memoranda Of
Understanding (MOU’s), and franchise agreements.
• Prepares, maintains and records all laws, charter amendments, ordinances, and resolutions
adopted and enacted by the Annapolis City Council.
• Prepares City Council Agenda packets at least five days prior to each scheduled meeting.
• Prepares all employment contracts.
• Acts as liaison for City Ethics Commission.
• Affixes the City Seal to resolutions, ordinances and official documents adopted and enacted by
the Mayor and the City Council.
• Keeps minutes of all proceedings of the Annapolis City Council.
• Issues numerous types of licenses.
• Certifies and attests to the actions of the City.
• Maintains and records all annexations adopted and enacted by the Annapolis City Council.
• Serves as the Clerk to the City Council, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, and the Board of
Supervisors of Elections.
• Provides City election information upon request.
• Provides support to the Mayor’s Ad Hoc committees when assigned.
• Reviews requests for events to be held on City property.
• Maintains all calendars for City Council Chamber usage, City Council meetings, Board of
Supervisors of Elections meeting and the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board.
Goals & Objectives:
A. Improve internal department efficiencies and awareness of legal concerns for the City.
Keep department directors informed.
B. Manage the personnel and work flow of the City’s Office of Law.
Evaluate Office of Law processes to ensure Office of Law/Clerk department integration.
C. Provide user-friendly legal services efficiently and effectively.
Maintain quick turn-around time on requests made to the Office of Law.
D. Provide user-friendly legal services to public/citizens.
Provide citizens with an efficient, user-friendly process for obtaining forms, licenses, and
permits.
113
Department of the Mayor and Aldermen
Division: Office of Law
E. Improve file storage facility and find alternative process for record retention.
Research alternative methods for document storage and retrieval.
F. Improve procedures and decision-making of boards and commissions.
Improve procedures and decision-making of boards and commissions to reduce the
expense of appellate challenges.
BUDGET SUMMARY:
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel* $ 708,830 $ 769,820 $ 732,938 $ 759,000 $ 819,761 83.20%
Operating** 158,470 173,230 238,243 209,560 165,560 16.80%
Total $ 867,300 $ 943,050 $ 971,181 $ 968,560 $ 985,321 100%
% Change from Prior Year 8.73% 2.98% -0.27% 1.73%
* For FY 2013, personnel expenditures for departments or divisions under the General Fund do not reflect the expense of abolishing
furlough days. Instead the cost of furlough abolishment for General Fund departments w as calculated as a lump sum totaling $662,773.67
for the fiscal year (2013).
114
Department of the Mayor and Aldermen
Division: Public Information Office
Description:
This office is responsible for the formulation and dissemination of reliable and consistent information to
the public. In addition, this office is responsible for:
• Managing all internal and external communications and marketing efforts.
• Managing all social media platforms and website content – assuming responsibility for the
integrity, consistency and accuracy of the message.
• Overseeing all City TV operations.
Mission:
Develop a coordinated effort to promote communication outreach and marketing strategies for the City,
the Mayor, City Council and Department Heads.
Services:
• Oversee all crisis communication efforts and serve in the lead role in the City’s Joint Information
Center, generating real-time emergency response for the media and public.
• Promote City departments and their services and brand Annapolis as a destination for business,
culture, history and vacation.
• Guide departments in policy development
• Work with and develop relationships with business, tourism and government counterparts.
• Create and execute marketing campaigns focused on safety, education, transportation and
economic development.
• Promote internal communication by continuing to create training videos for various departments.
• Assist department directors in coordinating integrated communications and marketing activities.
• Develop and maintain marketing proposals, broadcast videos, brochures, web/social media
content, and other materials related to marketing.
• Execute a wide variety of media interaction involving direct mail, email, broadcast campaigns,
media advertisements, promotions and other marketing plans.
• Prepare and deliver press releases, presentations, citation and proclamations as well as
correspondence on behalf of the Mayor and City officials.
Goals & Objectives:
A. Promote Annapolis as a full service City.
B. Increase citizen/government interaction.
115
Department of the Mayor and Aldermen
Division: Public Information Office
C. Promote Annapolis as a fiscally responsible city, a city that is easy to do business with, and a city
that has an accessible government.
D. Promote accountability.
Performance Measurements:
The Center for Performance Measurements (CPM) 101 Survey was completed by the City in October
2011. The CPM 101 survey measured inputs and outputs across City departments, services and
functions to perform analyses on the gathered data and compare our performance to that of other
jurisdictions nationwide.
The survey was completed using fiscal year 2011 data and the final CPM 101 Annual Data Report was
issued in August 2012. The final report is available upon request or it can be accessed online at:
http://www.ci.annapolis.md.us/Government/Reports/CPMReports2012.pdf
Fiscal year 2012 data will be submitted to the CPM in October 2012. The goal is to participate annually in
the survey so that trends in the City’s performance can be monitored and benchmarked, with adjustments
and budget decisions made according to performance. As the City becomes more accustomed to and
involved in the performance measurement process, the use of such metrics will have more influence on
budgeting practices. The process will begin during the fiscal year 2014 budget process, during which the
results of the fiscal year 2011 survey will begin to inform budgetary decisions.
There were no CPM survey questions which pertained directly to the services provided by the Public
Information Office. However, in looking ahead, performance measurements the Public Information Office
may collect and evaluate in-house are as follows. Since performance measurements are meant to track
progress toward a goal, the list letters tie the below performance measurements to the above-listed
divison goals.
A. Promote Annapolis as a full service City:
Track number of programs which promote mobility in the City of Annapolis (such as
programs which showcase Annapolis Transit).
Track number of programs which showcase our area schools.
B. Increase citizen/government interaction.
Track percentage of council meetings, workshops, budget hearings and committee
hearings which are taped and made available for citizen viewing.
C. Promote Annapolis as a fiscally responsible city, a city that is easy to do business with, and
a city that has an accessible government.
Track number of programs that highlight businesses in the City.
Track number of programs which showcase the Arts & Entertainment District
Track number of programs which inform about the Annapolis Economic
Development Corporation.
D. Promote accountability.
Analyze City service satisfaction through online surveys which would provide a
numerical score of customers’ feelings of being well-informed, aware, and well-
serviced. The correlation between the number of programs and the survey scores
would be assessed.
116
Department of the Mayor and Aldermen
Division: Public Information Office
BUDGET SUMMARY:
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel* $ - $ - $ - $ 196,680 $ 176,715 70.20%
Operating** - - - 75,000 75,000 29.80%
Total $ - $ - $ - $ 271,680 $ 251,715 100%
% Change from Prior Year - - - -7.35%
* For FY 2013, personnel expenditures for departments or divisions under the General Fund do not reflect the expense of abolishing
furlough days. Instead the cost of furlough abolishment for General Fund departments w as calculated as a lump sum totaling $662,773.67
for the fiscal year (2013).
** The expenditures of the Office of Emergency Management w ere reported under the Mayor's Office in FY 2009 and FY 2010. The
expenditures of the Public Information Office w ere reported under the Mayor's Office in FY 2009, FY 2010 and FY 2011.
117
Department of the Mayor and Aldermen
Division: Boards and Commissions
Description:
The Boards and Commissions division is responsible for overseeing and assisting the City’s multiple
boards, commissions and committees. The division is staffed by one full-time contractual employee: the
Boards and Commissions Coordinator and City Council Liaison. This position is responsible for staffing,
preparing, informing and training the boards, commissions, and committees while also assisting City
Council. This position is assisted by two part-time clerical employees.
The Mayor appoints the members of all boards and commissions, subject to approval by the City Council,
according to the various Charter and Code requirements as they pertain to specific boards and
commissions. The boards and commissions are legally established by the respective ordinances and
resolutions as Adopted by the City Council. Some of these boards, commissions and committees are
staffed by employees of City departments.
The boards and commissions are an important part of citizen participation in City government. They are
as follows:
• Commission on Aging - serves as an advisory board to the City Council; studies matters
affecting the aged and makes recommendations with regard thereto; and educates the public
regarding these matters.
• Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC) - acts on applications regarding alcoholic beverage
licenses; adopts, administers and enforces rules; and disciplines licensees who violate the ABC
rules or other laws.
• Annapolis Conservancy Board - solicits the dedication of properties, real and personal, to the
City; administers and manages said properties; encourages the preservation of environmentally
sensitive land; further implements the goals for improving water quality; provides for the
development of additional recreation and open space opportunities; and preserves the natural
cultural and recreational resources of the City.
• Arts in Public Places Commission - adopts guidelines and procedures which identify suitable
art objects for City projects, and to facilitate the prservation of art objects and artifacts that may
be displayed in public places.
• Board of Appeals - hears certain appeals from decisions of the Planning and Zoning Director,
and certain variances and other Planning and Zoning matters; hears appeals related to the
licensing of peddlers, taxicab owners and drivers, valet parking, and housing matters; and hears
appeals on other matters as authorized by the City Council.
• Building Board of Appeals - hears appeals related to decisions of the Department of Public
Works relative to the National Building Code.
• Civil Service Board - reviews and makes recommendations to the City Council regarding the
classification and pay plan of the City; adopts certain rules governing the Civil Service; hears
certain personnel appeals; and reviews requests for promotions and merit pay increases.
• Board of Supervisors of Elections - compiles lists of registered voters; gives notice of a
municipal election; and conducts and supervises the election.
118
Department of the Mayor and Aldermen
Division: Boards and Commissions
• Education Commission - makes recommendations to the Anne Arundel County Board of
Education and the Superintendent and to the State Boards of Education concerning the
Annapolis School feeder system.
• Environmental Commission - is concerned with the protection and improvement of the natural
health and welfare of the environment; coordinates recycling activities; identifies specific
environmental problems; and reviews matters before other City bodies affecting the environment.
• Ethics Commission - enforces financial disclosure requirements; conducts information programs
and disseminates ethics requirements; investigates conflict of interest violations; issues advisory
opinions; and maintains certain reports and statements.
• Financial Advisory Commission - advises the Mayor and City Council on financial issues such
as collective bargaining agreements and public debt.
• Historic Preservation Commission - reviews applications to construct, alter, move, demolish, or
repair a structure within the historic district.
• Housing and Community Development Committee - plans and implements housing and
community development projects; exercises all of the powers and functions of redevelopment and
urban renewal; manages and improves the housing stock; coordinates federal, state and private
resources toward development activities in the City; and performs other duties as assigned.
• Human Relations Commission - accepts complaints relating to discrimination; surveys practices
and conditions in the areas of public accommodations, employment, housing, recreation and
education; makes recommendations concerning legislation; advises and counsels business
entities; and mediates disagreements.
• Maritime Advisory Board - provides expert and informed analysis of facts relating to marine
industry and pleasure boating on matters before the City Council or City agencies; and provides
advice to the City concerning the administration of the Maritime Economic Development Program
and Fund.
• Parking Advisory Commission - reviews and recommends policies, laws and regulations
relating to parking.
• Planning Commission - reviews proposed comprehensive plans, proposed zoning code
amendments, rezoning and conditional use applications, and other planning matters, and makes
recommendations to the City Council.
• Police and Fire Retirement Plan Commission - reviews public safety retirement plans and
reports and makes recommendations to the City Council with regard thereto.
• Port Wardens - regulates the placement, erection and construction of structures in the water;
reviews permits for construction of marinas and wharves; regulates the use of mooring buoys;
and generally oversees matters related to the use of waterways.
• Public Safety Disability Retirement Board - reviews and decides all applications for
occupational and non-occupational retirement for police officers and firefighters; conducts
hearings for review of applications; and reviews annually the continuation of retirement status and
allowances.
119
Department of the Mayor and Aldermen
Division: Boards and Commissions
• Recreation Advisory Board - acts in an advisory capacity to the Department and makes
recommendations concerning the Department's budget, activities, programs, facilities and public
relations.
• Risk Management Committee - establishes guidelines and makes recommendations concerning
the safety, productivity and risk management with regard to City employees.
• Transportation Board - provides informed analysis of the issues relating to transportation in
matters pending before the City Council, or any of the City's agencies, boards or commissions;
and advises the City in the planning of comprehensive parking and traffic policies and
procedures.
Mission:
To provide the citizens and customers of the City with an opportunity to be a part of the City government
process as well as providing a venue for citizens and customers to be heard by their peers.
Goals & Objectives:
A. Keep the board positions full.
A vacancy on a board can create a hardship for its staff and members as it can lead to
quorum problems and excessive workload.
B. Improve the information and training available to the Boards and Commissions.
This will increase the professionalism of the boards and thus the citizens’ and customers’
trust in their representation.
Provide relevant reference materials (books and handouts) and training sessions
C. Track the work and progress of the boards to assess how well they are serving and representing
the City’s stakeholders.
Improve the annual reporting on the boards and commissions by creating a report template
with clear, quantifiable questions for the boards to answer.
Performance Measurements:
The Center for Performance Measurements (CPM) 101 Survey was completed by the City in October
2011. The CPM 101 survey measured inputs and outputs across City departments, services and
functions to perform analyses on the gathered data and compare our performance to that of other
jurisdictions nationwide.
The survey was completed using fiscal year 2011 data and the final CPM 101 Annual Data Report was
issued in August 2012. The final report is available upon request or it can be accessed online at:
http://www.ci.annapolis.md.us/Government/Reports/CPMReports2012.pdf
Fiscal year 2012 data will be submitted to the CPM in October 2012. The goal is to participate annually in
the survey so that trends in the City’s performance can be monitored and benchmarked, with adjustments
and budget decisions made according to performance. As the City becomes more accustomed to and
involved in the performance measurement process, the use of such metrics will have more influence on
budgeting practices. The process will begin during the fiscal year 2014 budget process, during which the
results of the fiscal year 2011 survey will begin to inform budgetary decisions.
120
Department of the Mayor and Aldermen
Division: Boards and Commissions
There were no CPM survey questions which pertained directly to the services provided by the Boards and
Commissions Division. However, in looking ahead, performance measurements the Boards and
Commissions Division may collect and evaluate in-house are as follows. Since performance
measurements are meant to track progress toward a goal, the list letters tie the below performance
measurements to the above-listed divison goals.
A. Keep the board positions full:
Track number of board vacancies
B. Improve the information and training available to the Boards and Commissions.
Track number of training sessions offered and attended.
Survey board members on how prepared and capable they feel in performing their
board duties. Correlate numerical survey scores with trainings offered and
attended.
C. Track the work and progress of the boards to assess how well they are serving and
representing the City’s stakeholders.
Track time taken to issue a decision.
Track number of decisions issued.
Track number of cases heard.
Track pieces of legislation and number of cases reviewed
Track public outreach by the board by tracking public notices, press or literature
created, educational event participation, etc.
BUDGET SUMMARY:
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel* $ 32,590 $ 26,140 $ 54,400 $ 77,680 $ 80,944 82.77%
Operating** 45,460 37,380 25,782 15,850 16,850 17.23%
Total $ 78,050 $ 63,520 $ 80,182 $ 93,530 $ 97,794 100%
% Change from Prior Year -18.62% 26.23% 16.65% 4.56%
* For FY 2013, personnel expenditures for departments or divisions under the General Fund do not reflect the expense of abolishing
furlough days. Instead the cost of furlough abolishment for General Fund departments w as calculated as a lump sum totaling $662,773.67
for the fiscal year (2013).
121
Finance Department
122
Finance Department
Fund Support: General Fund
Description:
The Finance Department is responsible for the systems and procedures that assure the sound and
efficient functioning of the City's financial activities. The flow of financial activities begins with a plan
(budget). The plan is then implemented and the transactions recorded (accounting); and finally, the
results are reported (financial statements).
To make this process function smoothly, the Finance Department assists the Mayor in preparing an
operating budget and a multi-year capital improvements program (the first year of which is the capital
budget) before the start of each new fiscal year. As each year unfolds, these budgets are carefully
monitored for the extent to which actual financial transactions vary from the budget.
When the actual financial transactions occur, the Finance Department must see that all monies due the
City are collected, and all City liabilities are paid on time. All cash received has to be either immediately
disbursed, kept safely on hand, or invested. The Department routinely analyzes the flow of cash in and
out of the City accounts for a number of purposes, not the least of which is to know the length of time a
given amount of cash can be invested for short-term operating needs or for longer-term capital needs.
When funds are needed that exceed the City's cash reserves, then the Department arranges to borrow
them privately or sells bonds in the open market.
The Finance Department also keeps an accurate record of all financial transactions, generates interim
financial reports, and produces audited financial statements at the end of each fiscal year. More
specifically, it prepares the City's payroll; it bills, collects, and accounts for City taxes, water and sewer
fees, residential refuse fees and capital facilities assessments; and it maintains a file of the City
government's fixed assets.
Additionally, the Finance Department analyzes non-routine financial situations, undertakes special
financial projects and studies, and responds to requests for financial information from other governmental
agencies and private enterprises. The Department also administers the City's self-insurance program,
central purchasing and maintains a computer installation that supports most of the functions mentioned
above and provides, as well, computerized Management Information Technology services to other City
departments.
STAFFING SUMMARY BY POSITION : FISCAL YEAR 2013
Permanent Positions
Total FTE: 27
Accounting and Budgeting:
Finance Director ............................................................................................................................... 1
Assistant Director for Accounting ..................................................................................................... 1
Senior Accountant ............................................................................................................................ 2
Accountant* ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Administrative Office Associate ....................................................................................................... 1
Accounting Associate III ................................................................................................................... 5
Accounting Associate II .................................................................................................................... 4
Accounting Associate I ..................................................................................................................... 3
123
Finance Department
Management Information Technology (MIT):
MIT Manager .................................................................................................................................... 1
MIT Analyst ...................................................................................................................................... 1
MIT Specialist ................................................................................................................................... 1
Web Developer ................................................................................................................................ 1
MIT Engineer .................................................................................................................................... 1
Purchasing:
Procurement Officer ......................................................................................................................... 1
Buyer ................................................................................................................................................ 2
*One Accountant position added for FY 2013
Contractual and Temporary Positions
Within the office of Management Information Technology (MIT) there are various contractual positions,
namely a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Coordinator, a GIS Technical Support position, an
Administrative Support Analyst and an MIT Technical Support Specialist.
Conversions:
Of these contractual or temporary positions, the following will be included in the January 1, 2013
conversion of contractual employees to permanent status (civil service or exempt):
Office of Management Information Technology(MIT):
1. MIT Technical Support Specialist: Civil Service
2. MIT Administrative Support Analyst: Civil Service
3. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Coordinator: Civil Service
4. GIS Technician: Civil Service
This will bring the total full-time equivalent count for this department to 31 half-way through the
fiscal year.
124
Finance Department
Division: Accounting and Budgeting
Fund Support: General
Description:
This division is responsible for preparing the City operating and capital budgets, monitoring departmental
budgets, preparing tax, utility and other bills, paying all invoices, keeping all financial accounts, preparing
the payroll, borrowing and investing funds, analyzing budgetary and financial accounts/situations,
overseeing the City's internal financial controls, preparing budgetary and financial reports and studies,
advising the Mayor and Aldermen regarding financial matters, and managing liability risks.
Mission:
To manage the City’s financial and accounting operations efficiently, effectively, and with transparency
while ensuring compliance with financial standards and providing positive customer service.
Goals & Objectives:
A. Engage in sound fiscal decision-making based on current standing, historical trends and future
projections.
B. Produce accurate and timely financial reports to facilitate sound fiscal decision-making.
C. Provide for thoughtful and deliberate debt management.
D. Uphold strong internal controls to maintain a secure fiscal environment.
E. Ensure City-wide budgetary compliance
F. Maintain timely payments and cash deposits.
G. Improve risk management reporting and practices to stay abreast of the City’s liabilities.
H. Provide all customers with timely, well-informed, and cordial service.
Performance Measurements:
The Center for Performance Measurements (CPM) 101 Survey was completed by the City in October
2011. The CPM 101 survey measured inputs and outputs across City departments, services and
functions to perform analyses on the gathered data and compare our performance to that of other
jurisdictions nationwide.
The survey was completed using fiscal year 2011 data and the final CPM 101 Annual Data Report was
issued in August 2012. The final report is available upon request or it can be accessed online at:
http://www.ci.annapolis.md.us/Government/Reports/CPMReports2012.pdf
Fiscal year 2012 data will be submitted to the CPM in October 2012. The goal is to participate annually in
the survey so that trends in the City’s performance can be monitored and benchmarked, with adjustments
and budget decisions made according to performance. As the City becomes more accustomed to and
involved in the performance measurement process, the use of such metrics will have more influence on
125
Finance Department
Division: Accounting and Budgeting
budgeting practices. The process will begin during the fiscal year 2014 budget process, during which the
results of the fiscal year 2011 survey will begin to inform budgetary decisions.
Below is a compilation of the CPM questions which pertained to the Finance Department. The goal for
fiscal year 2013 is that those CPM measurements which the City is not currently monitoring will be
introduced into each department’s infrastructure for a more complete performance profile. In particular,
the customer satisfaction questions which the City could not answer for the fiscal year 2011 survey will be
answered on the fiscal year 2012 survey. This is due to the City’s participation in the National Citizen
Survey which is purposefully coordinated with the CPM 101 Survey. The survey was completed using
fiscal year 2011 data and the final report was issued in August 2012. The final report from the National
Citizen Survey is available upon request or it can be accessed online at:
http://www.ci.annapolis.md.us/Government/Departments/Mayor/CityManager.aspx under “The National
Citizen Survey: Final Report.”
The CPM 101 questions/measurements which applied to the Finance Department’s Accounting and
Budgeting Division are as follows:
Risk Management:
Total valuation of all property at risk (to reflect the replacement value of the property).
Total expenditures for property losses, premiums, and other risk management activities.
Number of “Excellent,” “Good,” “Fair,” “Poor,” or “Don’t Know” responses received from
internal risk management customer satisfaction surveys: No survey conducted, could not
answer.
The performance measurements specific to the Office of Management Information Technology and
the Central Purchasing Office are presented in the following sections as part of each Office’s
summary.
As reported by the CPM in their final fiscal year 2011 report, the graphs on the following pages
reflects how the City’s Finance Department compared to other jurisdictions across certain
input and efficiency measures. The Final CPM Report details some additional data and
analyses.
126
Finance Department
Division: Accounting and Budgeting
Total Valuation of all Propery at Risk
Mahomet IL $1,529,277
New Baden IL $1,810,923
Goodlettsville TN $3,825,000
Cherryvale KS $4,805,958
Snellville GA $6,224,989
Fox Point WI $7,259,795
Lunenburg MA $12,495,865
Greer SC $12,862,368
King William County VA $17,842,021 Mean: $ 109,550,557
Crestwood MO $19,226,583
Lakeland TN $19,438,060 Median: $ 71,441,796
Mason MI $24,502,144
Islamorada Islands FL $25,488,140
Salisbury MD $26,447,835 City: $ 267,710,983
Fredericksburg VA $30,827,682
Accomack County VA $31,222,239
Peters Township PA $32,292,599
Hopkinton MA $33,130,401
Rancho Cordova CA $35,643,000
Show Low AZ $37,595,648
Columbia TN $39,556,216
Shelton WA $42,750,925
Ramsey MN $43,814,084
Algonquin IL $45,512,435
Lake Mills WI $50,654,701
Newburgh NY $56,852,984
Rolla MO $63,958,000
Georgetown MA $69,500,000
Granby CT $73,383,592
Sahuarita AZ $74,944,604
Purcellville VA $79,236,120
Blue Ash OH $89,042,698
Coventry CT $89,478,518
Lancaster County SC $103,172,815
Weston MA $114,870,842
Edina MN $123,000,000
Dedham MA $123,811,820
Medway MA $124,136,008
Ukiah CA $125,073,859
Rohnert Park CA $128,621,818
Manhattan KS $128,848,203
Dover NH $129,452,294
O’Fallon MO $166,593,755
Belmont MA $169,742,499
Sugar Land TX $171,608,032
Delray Beach FL $182,886,632
Dartmouth MA $192,343,560
Windsor CT $197,638,311
Campbell County WY $199,883,512
Chula Vista CA $201,472,360
Eau Claire WI $229,046,938
Monterey CA $230,353,665
ANNAPOLIS, MD $267,710,983
Oshkosh WI $309,997,286
Fort Lauderdale FL $568,537,082
Greenwich CT $742,873,522
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
127
Finance Department
Division: Accounting and Budgeting
Total Expenditures for Property Losses, Premiums, and Other Risk
Management Activities
Cherryvale KS $31,252
Granby CT $38,619
Lakeland TN $42,132
King William County VA $60,397
Newburgh NY $67,391
New Baden IL $71,666
Mahomet IL $72,664
Dedham MA $91,320
Mason MI $106,955 Mean: $ 503,252
Crestwood MO $111,366
Purcellville VA $112,850
Peters Township PA $113,249 Median: $ 264,163
Fox Point WI $121,652
O’Fallon MO $123,551
Goodlettsville TN $124,028
City: $ 782,200
Medway MA $124,146
Lake Mills WI $136,493
Baker City OR $166,747
Sahuarita AZ $171,512
Snellville GA $180,000
Georgetown MA $180,004
Noblesville IN $182,037
Rancho Cordova CA $185,100
Lunenburg MA $200,090
Greer SC $214,438
Weston MA $234,031
Blue Ash OH $242,864
Eau Claire WI $250,970
Show Low AZ $274,163
Belmont MA $290,000
Coventry CT $298,993
Hopkinton MA $325,000
Junction City KS $334,697
Ramsey MN $347,189
Accomack County VA $355,563
Dover NH $357,675
Monterey CA $403,592
Columbia TN $404,819
Manhattan KS $409,769
Shelton WA $417,241
Islamorada Islands FL $427,560
Salisbury MD $486,028
Rohnert Park CA $529,070
Fredericksburg VA $603,626
Lancaster County SC $653,728
Oshkosh WI $738,789
Dartmouth MA $754,178
ANNAPOLIS, MD $782,200
Algonquin IL $794,858
Ukiah CA $889,775
Sugar Land TX $915,781
Chula Vista CA $1,219,298
Windsor CT $1,364,873
Campbell County WY $1,898,300
Fort Lauderdale FL $2,657,670
Delray Beach FL $2,929,418
Greenwich CT $3,063,962
* Greenwich, CT provides services to the Board of Education
* Expenditures for Other Risk Management Activities include personnel costs for staff directly involved in risk management activities,
contractor/consultant expenditures, and supplies used for risk managment operations.
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
128
Finance Department
Division: Accounting and Budgeting
Additional CPM Risk Management measurements are presented in Office of Emergency
Preparedness and Risk Management section of this document.
Looking ahead: Additional performance measurements the Accounting and Budgeting Division may
collect and evaluate are as follows. Since performance measurements are meant to track progress
toward a goal, the list letters tie the below performance measurements to the above-listed
departmental goals.
B. Produce accurate and timely financial reports to facilitate sound fiscal decision-making.
Track number of cash flow reports completed and reviewed.
Track number of year-to-date budget standing reports completed and reviewed.
Track percentage of quarterly Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports
completed and reviewed.
E. Ensure City-wide budgetary compliance
Track percentage of overdrawn expenditure accounts City-wide.
F. Maintain timely payments and cash deposits and ensure proper fiscal practices City-wide.
Track number of days between deposit posting to general ledger and same deposit
being posted with the respective bank.
Track percentage of deposits made within one day of receipt of funds.
G. Improve risk management reporting and practices to stay abreast of the City’s liabilities.
Track number of year-to-date risk management cost reports completed and
reviewed.
H. Provide all customers with timely, well-informed, and cordial service.
Make customer surveys available at cashier desk: surveys to provide numerical
score of customer service experience. Track scores.
BUDGET SUMMARY
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel* $ 1,554,990 $ 1,653,180 $ 1,402,502 $ 1,493,850 $ 1,652,827 77.82%
Operating 846,280 749,020 360,349 421,170 471,170 22.18%
Total $ 2,401,270 $ 2,402,200 $ 1,762,851 $ 1,915,020 $ 2,123,997 100%
% Change from Prior Year 0.04% -26.62% 8.63% 10.91%
* For FY 2013, personnel expenditures for departments or divisions under the General Fund do not reflect the expense of abolishing
furlough days. Instead the cost of furlough abolishment for General Fund departments w as calculated as a lump sum totaling $662,773.67
for the fiscal year (2013).
129
Finance Department
Division: Management Information Technology
Fund Support: General Fund
Description:
Maintains a central processing computer installation to support the many functions of the Finance
Department. Provides Management Information Technology (MIT) services to all City Departments; these
services include video, voice and data networks, microcomputers, software upgrades, web services,
geographic information systems (GIS), and computer training.
Mission:
To provide for the management, transmission, collection, processing and dissemination of secure, quality
and timely information and technology, and to support City operational, citizen and business services and
functions.
Services:
• Maintains central processing and network hardware, security, operating systems and voice and
data communications systems.
• Maintains, enhances and develops a business and financial management integrated computer
system using a central processing computer.
• Provides project management for IT related projects.
• Provides Internet, groupware and e-mail services.
• Provides fiber backbone, wired and wireless local area network (LAN) and wide area network
(WAN) services.
• Provides management, information and technology services to all City departments.
• Provides training for various PC computer applications including office productivity suites.
• Provides for PC computer, printer and related digital equipment hardware and software
specifications.
• Provides centralized PC computer hardware and software upgrades, troubleshooting and repair.
• Provides and maintains the City Internet (www.annapolis.gov) and Intranet web sites.
130
Finance Department
Division: Management Information Technology
• Coordinates all GIS services internally for the City and externally with the County and State.
• Provides Internet Protocol (IP) data, voice (telephone) and video communication services.
• Provides Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) carrier local and long distance data, and
voice (telephone) communication services supervision.
• Provides Public Education Government (PEG) cable access channel TV video technical support.
Goals and Objectives:
The following goals and objectives are further detailed in MIT’s 2010 5 Year Strategic Plan which can be
accessed at http://www.annapolis.gov/Government/Departments/MIT/ITStrategicPlan2010.aspx
Broad Goals:
A. Enhance business automation and increase employee productivity – do more with less.
B. Improve service quality.
C. Expand online access to City services and information.
D. Align IT investments with City strategic priorities
E. Ensure a reliable, responsive computing infrastructure
F. Maintain the mindset of doing the right thing at the right time at the right cost.
Information Technology Goals:
G. Make informed IT decisions
H. Improve IT accessibility and accountability
I. Streamline City Services
J. Ensure reliable technical infrastructure
K. Provide responsive IT support
L. Promote an IT-enabled and trained workforce.
Immediate Goals & Objectives:
M. Increase support functions and services for hardware, software, and technology.
N. Refresh PC desktop hardware and office software suite – Windows 7 and Microsoft Office 2010.
131
Finance Department
Division: Management Information Technology
O. Geographic information systems (GIS): Implement National Emergency Numbering Association
standards, coordinate structure numbering with Anne Arundel County, convert water/sewer system
operational maps to State-standard coordinates.
P. Develop new MIT services such as enterprise document management.
Q. Improve the ability to recover from and manage disasters.
R. MUNIS: Fully implement utility billing, treasury, collections, and cash management applications.
S. MUNIS: Fully utilize MUNIS payroll and human resources system.
T. Expand IP Telephony System.
U. PEG television services: Relocate PEG TV studio to 161 Duke of Gloucester Street and replace
audio and visual equipment in City Council Chambers.
V. Implement IT Executive Committee for IT governance and IT policy review.
Performance Measurements:
The CPM 101 questions/measurements which applied to the Office of Management Information
Technology are as follows:
Total number of hours paid to information technology staff.
Total expenditures for information technology services (including staff costs).
Total number of ALL help desk calls: Could not answer, not tracked in accordance with
CPM definition
Total number of help desk calls resolved at the time of call: Could not answer, not tracked
in accordance with CPM definition.
Maximum internet connection bandwidth of the jurisdiction’s network (wired network only
unless entirety of network is wireless): UPstream bandwidth.
Maximum internet connection bandwidth of the jurisdiction’s network (wired network only
unless entirety of network is wireless): DOWNstream bandwidth.
Number of Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, or Don’t Know responses received from internal IT
customer satisfaction surveys: No survey conducted, could not answer.
As reported by the CPM in their final fiscal year 2011 report, the graphs on the following pages
reflects how the City’s Office of Management Information Technology compared to other
jurisdictions across certain input and efficiency measures. The Final CPM Report details
some additional data and analyses.
132
Finance Department
Division: Management Information Technology
IT Department Full-Time Equivalents as a Percentage of Jurisdiction Full-Time
Equivalents
Cherryvale KS 0.1%
Salisbury MD 0.2%
Greenwich CT 0.3%
Lancaster County SC 0.4%
Libertyville IL 0.6%
O’Fallon MO 0.6%
Ramsey MN 0.7% Mean: 1.3%
Goodlettsville TN 0.7%
Dedham MA 0.7%
Rolla MO
City: 2.0%
0.7%
Newburgh NY 0.7%
Noblesville IN 0.8%
Dartmouth MA 0.8%
Hopkinton MA 0.9%
New Braunfels TX 0.9%
Columbia TN 0.9%
Greer SC 0.9%
Shelton WA 0.9%
Manhattan KS 0.9%
Blue Ash OH 0.9%
Crestwood MO 1.0%
Snellville GA 1.0%
Fredericksburg VA 1.0%
Peters Township PA 1.0%
Oshkosh WI 1.0%
Weston MA 1.1%
Windsor CT 1.2%
Rohnert Park CA 1.2%
Delray Beach FL 1.2%
Edina MN 1.2%
Fort Lauderdale FL 1.3%
Show Low AZ 1.3%
Junction City KS 1.4%
Chula Vista CA 1.4%
Eau Claire WI 1.4%
Andover MA 1.5%
Medway MA 1.6%
Monterey CA 1.6%
Tumwater WA 1.7%
Ukiah CA 1.7%
Belmont MA 1.7%
ANNAPOLIS, MD 2.0%
Islamorada Islands FL 2.2%
Sahuarita AZ 2.2%
Purcellville VA 2.3%
Campbell County WY 2.4%
Algonquin IL 2.4%
Lunenburg MA 2.5%
Sugar Land TX 2.9%
Rancho Cordova CA 3.0%
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
133
Finance Department
Division: Management Information Technology
Help Desk Calls per IT Full-Time Equivalent
Sahuarita AZ 101
ANNAPOLIS, MD 116
Delray Beach FL 153
Ukiah CA 190
Windsor CT 208
Mean: 689 calls
O’Fallon MO 209
Sugar Land TX 229
Andover MA 233
City: 116 calls
Campbell County WY 260
Shelton WA 263
Belmont MA 300
Chula Vista CA 328
Fort Lauderdale FL 336
Snellville GA 379
Algonquin IL 382
Salisbury MD 385
Rancho Cordova CA 398
Monterey CA 437
Fredericksburg VA 462
Lunenburg MA 593
Rohnert Park CA 672
Newburgh NY 733
Greenwich CT 780
Blue Ash OH 796
Purcellville VA 826
Junction City KS 896
Show Low AZ 999
Eau Claire WI 1,248
Libertyville IL 1,461
Medway MA 6,296
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
134
Finance Department
Division: Management Information Technology
Help Desk Calls per Jurisdiction Full-Time Equivalent
Salisbury MD 0.68
King William County VA 0.87
O’Fallon MO 1.33
Delray Beach FL 1.84
Sahuarita AZ 2.21
Mean: 34.83 calls
ANNAPOLIS, MD 2.28
Shelton WA 2.41
City: 2.28 calls
Windsor CT 2.44
Greenwich CT 2.66
Ukiah CA 3.18
Andover MA 3.56
Dover NH 3.66
Snellville GA 3.80
Fort Lauderdale FL 4.34
Chula Vista CA 4.55
Fredericksburg VA 4.68
Belmont MA 5.19
Newburgh NY 5.45
Coventry CT 5.65
Campbell County WY 6.15
Sugar Land TX 6.55
Monterey CA 7.05
Blue Ash OH 7.51
Rohnert Park CA 8.06
Libertyville IL 8.34
Algonquin IL 9.26
Rancho Cordova CA 11.97
Junction City KS 12.29
Show Low AZ 13.40
Eau Claire WI 17.44
Purcellville VA 18.90
Medway MA 100.68
Lunenburg MA 861.00
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
135
Finance Department
Division: Management Information Technology
IT Expenditures per Jurisdiction FTE
New Baden IL $68
Granby CT $383
Salisbury MD $384
Lancaster County SC $625
Manhattan KS $637
Cherryvale KS $701 Mean: $ 5,700
Baker City OR $732
Oshkosh WI $735
Shelton WA $886
City: $ 2,424*
Coventry CT $977
Fredericksburg VA $1,116
Greer SC $1,123
Snellville GA $1,155
Greenwich CT $1,169
King William County VA $1,176
Eau Claire WI $1,214
Libertyville IL $1,226
Chula Vista CA $1,235
Columbia TN $1,375
Noblesville IN $1,392
Dedham MA $1,484
Hopkinton MA $1,503
Junction City KS $1,535
O’Fallon MO $1,592
Edina MN $1,620
Mason MI $1,633
Goodlettsville TN $1,711
Weston MA $1,724
Dartmouth MA $1,789
Peters Township PA $1,847
Delray Beach FL $1,873
Medway MA $1,992
Crestwood MO $2,003
Ukiah CA $2,008
Windsor CT $2,009
Fort Lauderdale FL $2,032
Show Low AZ $2,126
New Braunfels TX $2,207
Rohnert Park CA $2,234
Belmont MA $2,327
Tumwater WA $2,338
ANNAPOLIS, MD $2,424
Blue Ash OH $2,698
Sahuarita AZ $2,955
Islamorada Islands FL $3,183
Sugar Land TX $3,310
Newburgh NY $3,489
Ramsey MN $3,551
Purcellville VA $3,864
Campbell County WY $3,950
Monterey CA $4,549
Lakeland TN $5,835
Rancho Cordova CA $6,635
Lunenburg MA $203,478
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
* The City figure reported in the CPM Final Report is only $611 per Jurisdiction FTE. This figure was derived in error using MIT’s
expenditures less MIT salaries. It was amended by CPM for the most up-to-date figure shown in the above graph ($ 2,424).
136
Finance Department
Division: Management Information Technology
Looking ahead: Additional performance measurements the Office of MIT may collect and evaluate
are as follows. Since performance measurements are meant to track progress toward a goal, the list
letters tie the below performance measurements to the above-listed departmental goals.
M. Increase support functions and services for hardware, software, and technology.
Track number of MUNIS applications supported.
Track number of calls to MIT for finance reports.
Track number of calls for IT service.
Track number of visits to public-access GIS site.
Measure estimated total cost of ownership and operation of PC office software over
five years (provide for office software refresh accordingly).
Measure estimated total cost of ownership and operation of PC desktop hardware
over five years (provide for desktop hardware refresh accordingly).
O. Geographic information systems (GIS): Implement National Emergency Numbering
Association standards, coordinate structure numbering with Anne Arundel County, convert
water/sewer system operational maps to State-standard coordinates.
Track percentage of Numbering Association standards adhered to/implemented.
Track percentage of City structures which have unique identifiers.
Track percentage of planimetrics and operational maps which are converted to
State-standard coordinates.
P. Develop new MIT services such as enterprise document management.
Document Management System via MUNIS: Track number of scanned pages to
establish count of hardcopy documents reduced.
Measure Institutional Network (I-Net) bandwidth utilization of City Fiber Ring.
Q. Improve the ability to recover from and manage disasters.
Develop department procedures for working at home: Track number of hours
worked from home.
Implement MUNIS Disaster Recovery Services: Track survival of business
operations.
Reliable sources of power: Measure survival of communication and network
systems.
Reliable sources of power: Measure electrical power consumption.
R. MUNIS: Fully implement utility billing, treasury, collections, and cash management
applications.
Track percentage of systems utilized.
S. MUNIS: Fully utilize MUNIS payroll and human resources system.
Track employee and application self-service (actions completed without MIT
dependency).
T. Expand IP Telephony System.
Track reduction in telephone costs.
Track increase in telephone services.
Track increase in network bandwidth.
U. PEG television services
Track number of actual viewers of PEG channels.
137
Finance Department
Division: Management Information Technology
BUDGET SUMMARY
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel* $ 792,800 $ 835,690 $ 819,674 $ 853,120 $ 890,582 56.94%
Operating 294,790 291,660 256,368 366,800 423,430 27.07%
Capital Outlay 52,720 628,060 4,710 250,000 250,000 15.98%
Total $ 1,140,310 $ 1,755,410 $ 1,080,752 $ 1,469,920 $ 1,564,012 100%
% Change from Prior Year 53.94% -38.43% 36.01% 6.40%
* For FY 2013, personnel expenditures for departments or divisions under the General Fund do not reflect the expense of abolishing
furlough days. Instead the cost of furlough abolishment for General Fund departments w as calculated as a lump sum totaling $662,773.67
for the fiscal year (2013).
138
Finance Department
Division: Central Purchasing
Fund Support: General Fund
Description:
Responsible for various procurement efforts for all departments; approve and process purchase orders
for various vendors and conduct competitive bidding to establish contracts for goods, services and
projects.
Mission:
Ensure requested goods and services are provided in a timely manner to help departments function
effectively and efficiently, and ensure such goods and services are provided at values which maximize tax
dollars.
Services:
• Provides purchasing support to all City departments.
• Obtains competitive pricing for various goods and services
.
• Manages the procurement process for the City and improve where possible.
• Promotes use of and provide training and assistance for MUNIS users and recommend
modifications to procedures as necessary.
• Processes and approve all purchase orders and change orders in MUNIS.
• Establishes and maintain various cooperative purchasing efforts statewide with other jurisdictions.
• Represents the City on the Baltimore Regional Cooperative Purchasing Committee (BRCPC)
including Energy Board and other purchasing efforts.
• Negotiates terms and conditions, and facilitate execution of various contracts.
• Advises and assist all departments in the development of specifications and scope of work for
Invitation for Bids (IFB) and Request for Proposals (RFP).
• Advertises and maintain correspondence for IFBs and RFPs.
• Participates in minority business enterprise (MBE) outreach efforts.
Goals and Objectives:
A. Obtain the maximum benefit for every tax dollar spent.
B. Implement a procurement card program.
C. Update purchasing policies and procedures.
D. Improve Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) participation.
139
Finance Department
Division: Central Purchasing
Performance Measurements:
The CPM 101 questions/measurements which applied to Central Purchasing are as follows:
Total dollar amount of actual purchases made, reviewed, or approved.
Of the dollar amount reported above, what amount was for actual construction purchases
made, reviewed, or approved?
Total number of hours paid to the staff in the central procurement office.
Number of Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, or Don’t Know responses received from internal
Procurement Services customer satisfaction surveys: No survey conducted, could not
answer.
As reported by the CPM in their final fiscal year 2011 report, the graphs on the following page
reflect how the City’s Central Purchasing Office compared to other jurisdictions across certain
input and efficiency measures. The Final CPM Report details some additional data and
analyses.
140
Finance Department
Division: Central Purchasing
Total Purchase Volume Per Procurement Full-Time Equivalent
Rohnert Park CA $379,699
Goodlettsville TN $1,025,260
Granby CT $2,594,054 Mean: $ 8,252,730
Lancaster County SC $2,668,310
Salisbury MD $2,913,632 Median: $ 6,547,788
Mason MI $4,736,244
City: $ 4,858,886
ANNAPOLIS, MD $4,858,886
Fort Lauderdale FL $6,290,597
Andover MA $6,547,788
Columbia TN $6,796,570
New Braunfels TX $8,418,724
Islamorada Islands FL $8,786,989
Chula Vista CA $12,867,493
Eau Claire WI $16,663,704
Dover NH $17,045,869
Oshkosh WI $18,700,388
Lunenburg MA $19,002,210
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
Per Capita Value of Purchases Made, Reviewed, or Approved by
Central Procurement Office
Dedham MA $3
Rohnert Park CA $9
Lancaster County SC $35
Goodlettsville TN $64 Mean: $ 403
Columbia TN $157
Chula Vista CA $158 Median: $ 342
Wauwatosa WI $229
Crestwood MO $272
New Braunfels TX
City: $ 332
$295
ANNAPOLIS, MD $332
Salisbury MD $351
Andover MA $359
Fort Lauderdale FL $418
Eau Claire WI $505
Mason MI $574
Granby CT $605
Lunenburg MA $754
Oshkosh WI $814
Dover NH $842
Islamorada Islands FL $1,293
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
141
Finance Department
Division: Central Purchasing
Looking ahead: Additional performance measurements the Central Purchasing Office may collect
and evaluate are as follows. Since performance measurements are meant to track progress toward a
goal, the list letters tie the below performance measurements to the above-listed departmental goals.
Mission statement (a): Ensure requested goods and services are provided in a timely manner to
help departments function effectively and efficiently
Track number of purchase orders processed.
Track time taken to process purchase orders.
Track number of formal IFBs processed.
Track time taken to process formal IFBs
Track number of RFPs processed.
Track time taken to process RFPs.
Survey departments on service received by Central Purchasing staff. Surveys to
provide numerical score of service.
Goal A: Obtain the maximum benefit for every tax dollar spent.
Track cost-savings obtained via competitive pricing.
Goal D: Improve Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) participation.
Track MBE participation in Capital Improvement Program projects.
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel* $ 565,210 $ 331,520 $ 323,100 $ 324,980 $ 321,519 95.57%
Operating 14,240 10,820 7,476 14,920 $ 14,920 4.43%
Total $ 579,450 $ 342,340 $ 330,576 $ 339,900 $ 336,439 100%
% Change from Prior Year -40.92% -3.44% 2.82% -1.02%
* For FY 2013, personnel expenditures for departments or divisions under the General Fund do not reflect the expense of abolishing
furlough days. Instead the cost of furlough abolishment for General Fund departments w as calculated as a lump sum totaling $662,773.67
for the fiscal year (2013).
** FY 2009 actual expenditures include those of the "Central Services Administration" w hich w as abolished w hen the Department of
Central Services w as eliminated. The Central Purchasing function of the Department of Central Service became a division of Finance (as it
is now ) and the General Government Buildings division of the Department of Central Services became a division of the Department of
Public Works (merged w ith the Facilities Divison).
142
Human Resources
143
Human Resources
Fund Support: General Fund
Description:
The Human Resources Department administers the provisions of the City Charter and Code that pertain
to employee appointments and promotions, recruitment and retention, benefits and wellness,
classification and compensation, performance and training, personnel records, separation and retirement,
and employee and labor relations.
The Human Resources Department provides staffing and support to the Civil Service Board, Public
Safety Disability Retirement Board, and the Human Relations Commission. Human Resources also
works as part of the City’s Union negotiating team, the Police and Fire Retirement Plan Commission, and
the Risk Management Policy group.
Mission:
The Human Resources Department is committed to actively recruiting qualified and diverse applicants,
retaining and engaging employees by offering competitive and comprehensive benefits, providing
ongoing education and learning opportunities, and ensuring a safe and equitable work environment for all
employees and citizens. We embrace a proactive philosophy dedicated to providing exemplary service
by identifying significant human resources issues and developing innovative, cost-effective solutions.
Services:
• Recruits, examines, and recommends to appointing authorities applicants for authorized City
positions.
• Administers entrance and promotional exams, and prepares lists of person eligible for hiring and
promotion.
• Develops and maintains the City-wide classification and compensation plan.
• Develops and administers employee benefits including medical, dental, vision, prescription drug,
Employee Assistant Program (EAP), Core and voluntary life, short term and long term disability,
deferred compensation, Pension and retirement programs, medical and dependent care, flexible
spending accounts, workers compensation, credit union , leave (annual, sick, personal).
• Coordinates the annual performance management program for all City employees.
• Oversees the disciplinary program and subsequent grievance and appeal processes under union or
civil service provisions.
• Participates in the negotiation and is responsible for the administration of fire, police, trades, and
clerical collective bargaining agreements.
• Coordinates and administers retirement plans for civilian and public safety employees.
• Creates and implements quality of life mandates, including fair labor standards, family medial leave,
harassment, drug abuse, disabilities, and equal employment opportunity.
144
Human Resources
• Plans, coordinates and delivers City-wide training for employees that fosters administrative goals
and objectives.
• Implements and maintains the newly acquired Human Resource Information System.
Goals & Objectives:
A. Maximize recruitment efforts.
Implement and maintain an electronic recruitment process.
Analyze sources of applications and target those sources.
Continue to actively achieve City-wide diversity hiring initiatives within all departments.
B. Offer supervisory training on: confidentiality/HIPPA/documentation, engagement/customer
service, revised Rules and Regulations and Performance Management.
C. Improve data collection and distribution methods to assist with legislative and administrative
decision making.
Configure state-of-the-art Human Resources Information System (HRIS).
Utilize the system to effectively improve overall human resource management operations
and procedures.
D. Continue to offer a cost-effective and comprehensive benefits and compensation package to City
employees.
Maintain competitive benefits package.
Create a working group to study and recommend Police/Fire Pension Plan options for
sustainability.
Initiate City-wide classification/compensation study.
Work with Risk Management team to reduce overall workers comp costs, increase safety
and decrease workplace accidents.
Decrease costs related to unhealthy lifestyle choices.
E. Continue to educate employees on the City’s Medical and Disease Management Program.
Continue to keep employees informed regarding the City’s new disease management
program.
F. Continue to develop great rapport and working relationship with the Benefit Focus Group.
Keep Benefit Focus Group engaged.
G. Implement and maintain:
A significantly increased workload related to HRIS functions and system requirements and
allocate additional tasks and responsibility among existing HR staff members.
Employee Self-Serve (ESS) module in HRIS
Benefit enrollments
Applicant tracking
Case management
Professional development
Research and implement new Performance Management System
145
Human Resources
Performance Measurements:
The Center for Performance Measurements (CPM) 101 Survey was completed by the City in October
2011. The CPM 101 survey measured inputs and outputs across City departments, services and
functions to perform analyses on the gathered data and compare our performance to that of other
jurisdictions nationwide.
The survey was completed using fiscal year 2011 data and the final CPM 101 Annual Data Report was
issued in August 2012. The final report is available upon request or it can be accessed online at:
http://www.ci.annapolis.md.us/Government/Reports/CPMReports2012.pdf
Fiscal year 2012 data will be submitted to the CPM in October 2012. The goal is to participate annually in
the survey so that trends in the City’s performance can be monitored and benchmarked, with adjustments
and budget decisions made according to performance. As the City becomes more accustomed to and
involved in the performance measurement process, the use of such metrics will have more influence on
budgeting practices. The process will begin during the fiscal year 2014 budget process, during which the
results of the fiscal year 2011 survey will begin to inform budgetary decisions.
Below is a compilation of the CPM questions which pertained to the Human Resources Department. The
goal for fiscal year 2013 is that those CPM measurements which the City is not currently monitoring will
be introduced into each department’s infrastructure for a more complete performance profile. In
particular, the customer satisfaction questions which the City could not answer for the fiscal year 2011
survey will be answered on the fiscal year 2012 survey. This is due to the City’s participation in the
National Citizen Survey which is purposefully coordinated with the CPM 101 Survey. The survey was
completed using fiscal year 2011 data and the final report was issued in August 2012. The final report
from the National Citizen Survey is available upon request or it can be accessed online at:
http://www.ci.annapolis.md.us/Government/Departments/Mayor/CityManager.aspx under “The National
Citizen Survey: Final Report.”
The CPM 101 questions/measurements which applied to the Human Resources Department are as
follows:
Human Resources:
Total number of hours paid to all jurisdiction staff.
Total number of hours paid to staff in the jurisdiction’s central human resources office.
Total expenditures for the jurisdiction’s central human resources office.
Total number of external recruitments completed.
Average number of working days required to complete an external recruitment.
Number of “Excellent,” “Good,” “Fair,” “Poor,” or “Don’t Know” responses received from a
customer satisfaction survey asking respondents to rate the quality of human resources
services: No survey conducted, could not answer.
Risk Management:
Total number of worker’s compensation claims filed.
Number of “Excellent,” “Good,” “Fair,” “Poor,” or “Don’t Know” responses received from
internal risk management customer satisfaction surveys: No survey conducted, could not
answer.
As reported by the CPM in their final fiscal year 2011 report, the graphs on the following pages
reflect how the City’s Human Resources Department compared to other jurisdictions across
certain input and efficiency measures. The Final CPM Report details some additional data and
analyses.
146
Human Resources
Hours Paid to All Jursidiction Staff
Lakeland TN 45,440
New Baden IL 52,982
Cherryvale KS 56,653
Mahomet IL 62,238
Mason MI 105,251
Lunenburg MA 122,446
Lake Mills WI 132,680 Mean: 759,498 hours
Rancho Cordova CA 133,431
Purcellville VA 143,152
Baker City OR 152,915
City: 927,466 hours
Coventry CT 158,171
Granby CT 168,585
Ramsey MN 172,487
Peters Township PA 176,427
King William County VA 193,838
Islamorada Islands FL 199,847
Medway MA 202,986
Snellville GA 207,378
Crestwood MO 212,003
Shelton WA 225,425
Hopkinton MA 242,261
Sahuarita AZ 291,064
Show Low AZ 298,913
Junction City KS 316,766
Greer SC 325,509
Goodlettsville TN 328,739
Algonquin IL 345,141
Weston MA 393,277
Rohnert Park CA 414,335
Ukiah CA 433,415
Blue Ash OH 440,659
Tumwater WA 443,001
Libertyville IL 448,736
Dartmouth MA 494,670
Windsor CT 532,862
Dedham MA 562,204
Rolla MO 566,873
Belmont MA 625,023
Newburgh NY 628,937
Dover NH 687,866
Noblesville IN 790,351
Edina MN 827,239
Salisbury MD 831,005
Manhattan KS 886,163
Columbia TN 912,647
ANNAPOLIS, MD 927,466
Lancaster County SC 956,349
O’Fallon MO 984,818
Monterey CA 1,120,322
Campbell County WY 1,153,877
New Braunfels TX 1,185,160
Fredericksburg VA 1,191,890
Eau Claire WI 1,306,772
Oshkosh WI 1,307,460
Sugar Land TX 1,545,936
Delray Beach FL 1,732,051
Andover MA 2,225,997
Chula Vista CA 2,834,357
Greenwich CT 5,424,816
Fort Lauderdale FL 5,680,637
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
147
Human Resources
Hours Paid to All Jurisdiction Staff per Capita
Rancho Cordova CA 2
Lakeland TN 4
Ramsey MN 7
Peters Township PA 8
Mahomet IL 9
Rohnert Park CA 10 Mean: 22 hours
Snellville GA 11
Algonquin IL 11
Chula Vista CA 11 City: 24 hours
Sahuarita AZ 12
Lunenburg MA 12
King William County VA 12
O’Fallon MO 12
Lancaster County SC 12
Coventry CT 13
Mason MI 13
Greer SC 13
Junction City KS 14
Dartmouth MA 14
Medway MA 15
Granby CT 15
Noblesville IN 15
Baker City OR 15
New Baden IL 16
Hopkinton MA 16
Manhattan KS 17
Edina MN 17
Crestwood MO 18
Sugar Land TX 18
Windsor CT 18
Purcellville VA 19
Eau Claire WI 20
Oshkosh WI 20
Goodlettsville TN 21
New Braunfels TX 21
Libertyville IL 22
Newburgh NY 22
Dedham MA 23
Shelton WA 23
Dover NH 23
Lake Mills WI 23
Cherryvale KS 24
ANNAPOLIS, MD 24
Campbell County WY 25
Tumwater WA 25
Belmont MA 26
Columbia TN 26
Show Low AZ 27
Salisbury MD 27
Ukiah CA 28
Delray Beach FL 28
Rolla MO 29
Islamorada Islands FL 33
Weston MA 34
Fort Lauderdale FL 34
Blue Ash OH 36
Monterey CA 40
Fredericksburg VA 49
Andover MA 67
Greenwich CT 89
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
148
Human Resources
Human Resources Expenditures per Completed Recruitment
Belmont MA $1,103
Junction City KS $1,918
Lancaster County SC $1,959
Andover MA $1,995
O’Fallon MO $2,643
Show Low AZ $3,930
Islamorada Islands FL $4,168 Mean: $ 33,365
Campbell County WY $5,293
Greer SC $5,425 City: $ 6,508
ANNAPOLIS, MD $6,508
Fredericksburg VA $6,591
Salisbury MD $6,818
Snellville GA $7,396
Noblesville IN $7,932
Purcellville VA $10,279
Manhattan KS $10,469
Delray Beach FL $10,563
Oshkosh WI $11,938
Ukiah CA $13,076
Goodlettsville TN $14,137
Eau Claire WI $15,286
Blue Ash OH $16,530
Weston MA $17,365
Windsor CT $21,125
Mason MI $22,486
Columbia TN $22,489
Sugar Land TX $23,462
Sahuarita AZ $24,901
Shelton WA $25,355
Medway MA $32,653
Hopkinton MA $37,896
Wauwatosa WI $47,745
Fort Lauderdale FL $55,926
Ramsey MN $97,690
Rohnert Park CA $105,125
Monterey CA $109,479
Rancho Cordova CA $194,001
Tumwater WA $264,211
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
149
Human Resources
Looking ahead: Additional performance measurements the Department of Neighborhood and
Environmental Programs may collect and evaluate are as follows. Since performance measurements
are meant to track progress toward a goal, the list letters tie the below performance measurements to
the above-listed departmental goals.
A. Maximize recruitment efforts (analyze sources of applications and target those sources).
Track total number of candidates for vacant positions.
B. Offer supervisory training and meet service goal of delivering City-wide training for
employees that fosters administrative goals and objectives.
Track total workforce trained.
D. Work with Risk Management team to reduce overall workers’ compensation costs, increase
safety and decrease workplace accidents.
Track total cost of workers’ compensation claims.
D & G. Maintain a competitive benefits package (D) & maintain benefits enrollment (G).
Track total number of employees and dependents enrolled in benefits
Track total number of retirees and dependents enrolled in benefits
Services: Recruitment and Retention/Separation and Retirement:
Track total number of terminations (excluding retirements).
Track total number of retirements.
STAFFING SUMMARY BY POSITION : FISCAL YEAR 2013
Total FTE: 6 Permanent Positions
Human Resources Director ........................................................................................................................... 1
Benefits Administrator ................................................................................................................................... 1
Training Programs Administrator .................................................................................................................. 1
HR Office Administrator ................................................................................................................................ 1
HR Associate I .............................................................................................................................................. 1
Recruitment/Employee Relations Administrator ………………………………………………………………….1
Contractual and Temporary Positions
The Department of Human Resources has one contractual HR Associate.
BUDGET SUMMARY
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel* $ 734,310 $ 795,680 $ 703,473 $ 576,100 $ 703,718 78.59%
Operating 134,320 176,900 93,288 151,200 191,700 21.41%
Total $ 868,630 $ 972,580 $ 796,761 $ 727,300 $ 895,418 100%
% Change from Prior Year 11.97% -18.08% -8.72% 23.12%
* For FY 2013, personnel expenditures for departments or divisions under the General Fund do not reflect the expense of abolishing
furlough days. Instead the cost of furlough abolishment for General Fund departments w as calculated as a lump sum totaling $662,773.67
for the fiscal year (2013).
150
Department of Planning and Zoning
151
Department of Planning and Zoning
Fund Support: General Fund
Description:
The Department of Planning and Zoning is responsible for all current and long-range planning for
development, redevelopment and preservation, and community development activities within the City.
The Department of Planning and Zoning is organized around four main divisions - Comprehensive
Planning, Community, Current Planning and Historic Preservation. All these divisions share one budget.
In addition, the Department also provides technical and direct assistance to other departments in the
furtherance of municipal objectives.
Mission:
To promote a sustainable city by preserving, protecting and enhancing the integrity, fabric and character
of the CityBits neighborhoods, business districts, historic core, and natural environment for the benefit of
current and future residents, businesses and visitors; to accommodate City development in a manner
consistent with municipal development objectives; to provide timely delivery of general and specialized
counsel and support to the City=s policy makers, officers, departments, agencies, boards, commissions
and committees; to provide housing, and support services to our low and moderate income citizens either
directly or by assisting agencies that provide these services; and to ensure that all planning processes
encourage public participation and involvement
Each division operates under a set of specific goals to support the departmental mission.
Services:
Department as a whole:
• Prepares necessary plans, studies, and programs to implement the City's Comprehensive Plan,
including coordination of the Capital Program and Budget.
• Administers and enforces the City's zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations.
• Plans and administers the City's Community Development Block Grant program.
• Oversees the City=s moderately priced dwelling unit program.
• Engages in special studies and projects impacting on future growth, development, redevelopment
and quality of life.
Community Development Division:
• Ensures efficient performance of the housing and community development activities of the City.
• Administers the City’s Community Development Block grant (CDBG), the Clay Street Community
Legacy Program, the Emergency Shelter Grant Program, the Rental Allowance Program, the
HOME Initiative Program and the Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit Program.
• Coordinates activities with nonprofit service providers, City departments, and agencies.
152
Department of Planning and Zoning
Historic Preservation Division:
• Processes applications for the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC).
• Ensures projects are developed in accordance with HPC approval(s).
• Enforces compliance with Historic District design guidelines and review process.
• Provides technical and administrative guidance to applicants in the Historic District to ensure
submission of complete applications.
• Coordinates interdepartmental project review and enforcement in the Historic District .
• Oversees archaeology and preservation requirements for development affecting landmarks
throughout the City.
• Manages all required Certified Local Government responsibilities including annual reporting,
commission training, Section 106 review, drafting & updating of administrative procedures, policies,
and design guidelines, ongoing survey and inventory work, preservation planning, and execution of
an educational program.
• Staffs and supports the Annapolis MainStreets program and the Historic Markers (Heritage)
Commission.
Current Planning Division:
• Maintains primary responsibility for departmental activities involved with processing various
applications.
• Staffs and supports various Boards and Commissions. Support includes:
Ensuring quarterly reporting to the State Critical Area Commission and participation in
quarterly Critical Area meetings and training workshops,
Overseeing communication and outreach to active, participatory community associations,
such as the Eastport Civic Association and the Murry Hill Residence Association,
• Staffs interdepartmental and mayoral appointed committees.
• Ensures all development meets the policies and aspirations expressed in the 2009 Annapolis
Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the Division must ensure compliance with the Land Use and
Economic Development Principles, Objectives and Policies.
Comprehensive Planning Division:
• Prepares, monitors and implements the Comprehensive Plan.
• Coordinates the annual Capital Programming and Budgeting process.
• Performs sector studies and neighborhood plans and manages public participation therein.
• Undertakes special studies and functional planning as needed.
153
Department of Planning and Zoning
• Manages traffic impact studies as part of the development review process.
• Provides liaison between city and county, regional, state and federal agencies (not including
community development, historic preservation and housing matters).
• Seeks grants in pursuit of long- and short-range planning priorities.
• Represent s the Mayor at the regional level, e.g the Baltimore Regional Transportation Board.
• Tracks legislation and supports those State-wide initiatives that enhance the ability of incorporated
cities to effectively compete and realize their long-term development goals.
• Provides technical assistance to other departments and Planning Department divisions as needed.
Goals & Objectives:
Community Development Division:
A. Provide decent housing.
o Assist homeless persons (or those at risk of becoming homeless) obtain affordable
housing; retain affordable housing stock; increase availability of affordable permanent
housing in standard condition for low income households; increase the supply of
supportive housing for persons with special needs.
B. Provide a suitable living environment.
o Improve the safety and livability of neighborhoods; increase access to quality public and
private facilities and services; reduce the isolation of income groups within areas through
spatial deconcentration of housing opportunities for lower income persons and
revitalization of deteriorating neighborhoods.
C. Expand economic opportunities by provision of public services concerned with employment; provide
access to capital and credit for activities that promote the long term economic and social viability of
the community; empower low income persons to reduce generational poverty in federally assisted
housing and public housing.
Historic Preservation Division:
D. Preserve the authentic character and promote quality stewardship of properties within the
Annapolis Historic District.
E. Promote historic preservation as integral to community revitalization, economic development, and
environmental sustainability.
F. Heighten awareness of the value of cultural heritage and historic preservation.
154
Department of Planning and Zoning
Current Planning Division:
G. Uphold the City’s character, promote a sustainable community, and advance land development
stewardship through skilled design review.
H. Promote urban design as an integral element to community revitalization, economic development,
and environmental sustainability.
I. Provide effective customer service through quality control an enhanced project management.
J. Review all development for compliance with the Zoning and Subdivision ordinances of the City as
well as State Laws that are implemented locally.
Comprehensive Planning Division:
K. Effective coordination of near-term and long range planning activities occurring in a variety of
settings, to include:
o Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, capital budgeting, grant-seeking,
sector planning, functional planning, development review, and inter-jurisdictional
planning.
L. Coordinate such activity to align with the three overarching goals of the current Comprehensive
Plan:
1. Preserve and Enhance Community Character
2. Maintain a Vibrant Economy
3. Promote a ‘Green’ Annapolis
Performance Measurements:
The Center for Performance Measurements (CPM) 101 Survey was completed by the City in October
2011. The CPM 101 survey measured inputs and outputs across City departments, services and
functions to perform analyses on the gathered data and compare our performance to that of other
jurisdictions nationwide.
The survey was completed using fiscal year 2011 data and the final CPM 101 Annual Data Report was
issued in August 2012. The final report is available upon request or it can be accessed online at:
http://www.ci.annapolis.md.us/Government/Reports/CPMReports2012.pdf
Fiscal year 2012 data will be submitted to the CPM in October 2012. The goal is to participate annually in
the survey so that trends in the City’s performance can be monitored and benchmarked, with adjustments
and budget decisions made according to performance. As the City becomes more accustomed to and
involved in the performance measurement process, the use of such metrics will have more influence on
budgeting practices. The process will begin during the fiscal year 2014 budget process, during which the
results of the fiscal year 2011 survey will begin to inform budgetary decisions.
Below is a compilation of the CPM questions which pertained to the Department of Planning and Zoning.
The goal for fiscal year 2013 is that those CPM measurements which the City is not currently monitoring
will be introduced into each department’s infrastructure for a more complete performance profile. In
particular, the customer satisfaction questions which the City could not answer for the fiscal year 2011
survey will be answered on the fiscal year 2012 survey. This is due to the City’s participation in the
National Citizen Survey which is purposefully coordinated with the CPM 101 Survey. The survey was
155
Department of Planning and Zoning
completed using fiscal year 2011 data and the final report was issued in August 2012. The final report
from the National Citizen Survey is available upon request or it can be accessed online at:
http://www.ci.annapolis.md.us/Government/Departments/Mayor/CityManager.aspx under “The National
Citizen Survey: Final Report.”
The CPM 101 questions/measurements which applied to the Department of Planning and Zoning
are as follows:
Jurisdiction Descriptors:
Residential population of the jurisdiction.
Total area in square miles of the jurisdiction (excluding any significant bodies of water).
Code Enforcement:
The following code enforcement questions were answered by a collecting data from both the
Department of Planning and Zoning and the Department of Neighborhood and Environmental
Programs.
Total number of hours paid to code enforcement staff.
Total expenditures for code enforcement: Could not answer in accordance with CPM
criteria. Expenditures dedicated solely to code enforcement are not delineated separately
from other DNEP expenditures.
Permits Services:
The following permitting questions were answered by a collecting data from both the Department of
Planning and Zoning and the Department of Neighborhood and Environmental Programs.
Total number of hours paid to permitting services staff.
Total expenditures for permitting services: Could not answer in accordance with CPM
criteria. Expenditures dedicated solely to permitting services are not delineated separately
from other DNEP expenditures.
Number of Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, or Don’t Know responses received from Land Use,
Planning and Zoning customer satisfaction surveys: No survey conducted, could not
answer.
As reported by the CPM in their final fiscal year 2011 report, the graphs on the following pages
reflect how the City compared to other jurisdictions across certain descriptors. Code
Enforcement results and Permit Services results are shown under the Department of
Neighborhood and Environmental Programs section of this document.
156
Department of Planning and Zoning
Jurisdiction Population
Cherryvale KS 2,374
New Baden IL 3,349
Lake Mills WI 5,735
Airway Heights WA 6,114
Islamorada Islands FL 6,119
Fox Point WI 6,665
Mahomet IL 7,258
Purcellville VA 7,727
Georgetown MA 8,100 Mean: 43,942 residents
Mason MI 8,252
Shelton WA 9,834
Baker City OR 9,890 Median: 23,819 residents
Lunenburg MA 10,086
Show Low AZ 11,058
Granby CT 11,300 City: 38,394 residents
Weston MA 11,478
Crestwood MO 11,912
Blue Ash OH 12,114
Lakeland TN 12,430
Coventry CT 12,435
Medway MA 13,877
Hopkinton MA 15,000
Ukiah CA 15,300
Goodlettsville TN 15,921
King William County VA 15,935
Tumwater WA 17,570
Snellville GA 18,242
Rolla MO 19,560
Libertyville IL 20,742
Peters Township PA 21,378
Barstow CA 22,639
Junction City KS 23,353
Ramsey MN 23,668
Belmont MA 23,819
Fredericksburg VA 24,286
Dedham MA 24,729
Sahuarita AZ 25,259
Greer SC 25,515
Monterey CA 27,810
Newburgh NY 28,866
Windsor CT 29,060
Dover NH 29,987
Algonquin IL 30,046
Accomack County VA 30,223
Salisbury MD 30,343
Andover MA 33,201
Dartmouth MA 34,412
Columbia TN 34,681
ANNAPOLIS, MD 38,394
Rohnert Park CA 41,194
Campbell County WY 46,133
Wauwatosa WI 46,396
Edina MN 47,941
Noblesville IN 51,969
Manhattan KS 52,135
New Braunfels TX 57,040
Delray Beach FL 60,831
Greenwich CT 61,171
Oshkosh WI 64,592
Rancho Cordova CA 65,502
Eau Claire WI 66,060
Lancaster County SC 76,652
O’Fallon MO 80,860
Sugar Land TX 84,511
Fort Lauderdale FL 165,521
Chula Vista CA 246,496
Louisville Metro Govt KY 741,096
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
157
Department of Planning and Zoning
Total Area (in Square Miles)
Cherryvale KS 2
New Baden IL 2
Fox Point WI 3
Purcellville VA 3
Crestwood MO 4
Lake Mills WI 4
Newburgh NY 4
Ukiah CA 4
Airway Heights WA 5
Belmont MA 5 Mean: 115 square miles
Mason MI 5
Islamorada Islands FL 6
Rohnert Park CA 6 Median: 16 square miles
Shelton WA 6
ANNAPOLIS, MD 7
Baker City OR 7 City: 7 square miles
Blue Ash OH 8
Monterey CA 8
Libertyville IL 9
Mahomet IL 9
Dedham MA 10
Snellville GA 10
Fredericksburg VA 11
Algonquin IL 12
Junction City KS 12
Medway MA 12
Rolla MO 12
Georgetown MA 13
Wauwatosa WI 13
Goodlettsville TN 14
Salisbury MD 14
Tumwater WA 14
Delray Beach FL 15
Edina MN 16
Weston MA 17
Manhattan KS 19
Peters Township PA 19
Greer SC 21
Lakeland TN 23
Oshkosh WI 24
Lunenburg MA 27
Ramsey MN 27
Dover NH 28
Hopkinton MA 28
Windsor CT 29
Columbia TN 30
O’Fallon MO 30
Sahuarita AZ 30
Andover MA 31
Noblesville IN 31
Eau Claire WI 32
Fort Lauderdale FL 33
Sugar Land TX 34
Coventry CT 37
Rancho Cordova CA 38
Granby CT 41
Barstow CA 42
Show Low AZ 47
Greenwich CT 48
Chula Vista CA 50
Dartmouth MA 64
King William County VA 275
Louisville Metro Govt KY 385
Accomack County VA 438
Lancaster County SC 549
Campbell County WY 4,797
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
158
Department of Planning and Zoning
Population Density (Residents per Square Mile)
Campbell County WY 10
King William County VA 58
Accomack County VA 69
Lancaster County SC 140
Show Low AZ 235
Granby CT 276
Coventry CT 336
Lunenburg MA 374
Hopkinton MA 536
Mean: 1,920 residents per sq. mile
Dartmouth MA 538
Barstow CA 539 Median: 1,572 residents per sq. mile
Lakeland TN 540
Georgetown MA 623
Weston MA 675 City: 5,485 residents per sq. mile
Mahomet IL 806
Sahuarita AZ 842
Ramsey MN 877
Windsor CT 1,002
Islamorada Islands FL 1,020
Dover NH 1,071
Andover MA 1,071
Peters Township PA 1,125
Goodlettsville TN 1,137
Columbia TN 1,156
Medway MA 1,156
Cherryvale KS 1,187
Greer SC 1,215
Airway Heights WA 1,223
Tumwater WA 1,255
Greenwich CT 1,274
Baker City OR 1,413
Lake Mills WI 1,434
Blue Ash OH 1,514
Rolla MO 1,630
Shelton WA 1,639
Mason MI 1,650
New Baden IL 1,675
Noblesville IN 1,676
Rancho Cordova CA 1,724
Snellville GA 1,824
Louisville Metro Govt KY 1,925
Junction City KS 1,946
Eau Claire WI 2,064
Salisbury MD 2,167
Fredericksburg VA 2,208
Fox Point WI 2,222
Libertyville IL 2,305
Dedham MA 2,473
Sugar Land TX 2,486
Algonquin IL 2,504
Purcellville VA 2,576
Oshkosh WI 2,691
O’Fallon MO 2,695
Manhattan KS 2,744
Crestwood MO 2,978
Edina MN 2,996
Monterey CA 3,476
Wauwatosa WI 3,569
Ukiah CA 3,825
Delray Beach FL 4,055
Belmont MA 4,764
Chula Vista CA 4,930
Fort Lauderdale FL 5,016
ANNAPOLIS, MD 5,485
Rohnert Park CA 6,866
Newburgh NY 7,217
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
159
Department of Planning and Zoning
Looking ahead: Additional performance measurements the Department of Planning and Zoning may
collect and evaluate are as follows. Since performance measurements are meant to track progress
toward a goal, the list letters tie the below performance measurements to the above-listed
departmental goals.
Community Development Division:
A. Provide Decent Housing:
Track number of new homes developed
Track number of homeownership opportunities created.
B. Provide a suitable living environment:
Track number of homes improved
C. Expand economic opportunities and empower low-income persons by provision of services
and activities:
Track number of homeless helped.
Track number of persons with special needs helped.
Track number of people helped with public services such as mentoring and job
skills preparation.
Input measurements: Track grants secured for programs
Track volunteers or interns secured for projects.
Historic Preservation Division:
D. Preserve the authentic character and promote quality stewardship of properties within the
Annapolis Historic District:
Track consultants engaged for HPC project review, inspections and survey work.
Track properties surveyed for update of NHL District.
Track number of monthly inspections completed.
Track number of violations brought into compliance.
MainStreets: track number of businesses inventoried.
E. Promote historic preservation as integral to community revitalization, economic
development, and environmental sustainability:
Track number of applicants to the Historic Property Tax Credit.
Tack number/value of tax credit applications.
MainStreets: track attendance at workshops.
MainStreets: track brochures produced for marketing/promoting MainStreets
businesses.
F. Heighten awareness of the value of cultural heritage and historic preservation:
Track partnerships/sponsorships secured for educational activities.
Track educational and planning projects completed.
Heritage Commission: track applications for historic markers/interpretive displays.
Heritage Commission: track historic markers approved and constructed.
Heritage Commission: track educational activities sponsored by Heritage
Commission.
Current Planning Division:
G & H. Promote a sustainable community and promote urban design:
Track partnerships and involvement with community associations.
Track citizen committee participation.
160
Department of Planning and Zoning
I. Provide effective customer service through quality control and enhanced project
management.
Track time to process development applications.
Track time spent by Planning and Zoning to process permits applications.
Track percentage of forms and documents made easily accessible to the public
Track number of Pre-Application Conference Committee (PACC) meetings hosted.
Track attendance of City agencies and the public in PACC meetings.
J. Review all development for compliance with the Zoning and Subdivision ordinances of the
City as well as State Laws that are implemented locally.
Track developments reviewed for compliance.
Track violations brought into compliance.
Comprehensive Planning Division:
No quantitative measurements proposed as a function of the qualitative nature of
the division’s work.
STAFFING SUMMARY BY POSITION : FISCAL YEAR 2013
Permanent Positions
Total FTE: 11
Planning and Zoning:
Planning Office Administrator .......................................................................................................... 1
Planning Director .............................................................................................................................. 1
Section Chief .................................................................................................................................... 3
Senior Planner ................................................................................................................................. 3
Planner ............................................................................................................................................ 1
Historic Preservation Assistant ........................................................................................................ 1
Community Development Administrator .......................................................................................... 1
Contractual and Temporary Positions
The Planning and Zoning Department has two general clerical contractual positions.
161
Department of Planning and Zoning
BUDGET SUMMARY
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel* $ 1,641,180 $ 1,873,170 $ 1,291,217 $ 1,478,080 $ 1,348,786 90.32%
Operating** 727,630 824,940 126,559 324,840 144,570 9.68%
Total $ 2,368,810 $ 2,698,110 $ 1,417,776 $ 1,802,920 $ 1,493,356 100%
% Change from Prior Year 13.90% -47.45% 27.17% -17.17%
* For FY 2013, personnel expenditures for departments or divisions under the General Fund do not reflect the expense of abolishing
furlough days. Instead the cost of furlough abolishment for General Fund departments w as calculated as a lump sum totaling $662,773.67
for the fiscal year (2013).
** FY 2013 fleet replacement costs w ere calculated by department. Operating expenditures as presented in this summary table include
this department's or division's fleet replacement costs. In various other presentations in this document, fleet replacement costs are
reported separately.
162
Police Department
163
Police Department
Fund Support: General Fund
Description:
The Annapolis Police Department is the primary law enforcement agency for the City of Annapolis. The
department is responsible for enforcing all applicable state, local, and traffic laws within the corporate
boundaries of the City. Each year, the department responds to an average of 42,000 calls for service and
investigates an average of 1,250 Part I crimes and 2,657 Part II crimes. In addition, the department
conducts numerous community outreach programs and crime prevention programs.
The department is comprised of three divisions and the Office of the Chief. The majority of the officers are
assigned to the Operations Division. This division includes the Patrol Section, Criminal Investigations
Section, and the Special Operations Section which encompasses the Traffic Unit, K-9 Unit, Vice and
Narcotics and the Flex Squads. The Administrative Division is responsible for fleet management, building
maintenance, evidence and property storage, budget, Uniform Crime Reports, payroll and purchasing.
The Community Affairs Section is also included in the Administrative Division. Within the Community
Affairs Section is the Hispanic Liaison, the ALERT Coordinator, the Neighborhood Enhancement Team,
the bicycle unit and JOINS, which is a juvenile diversion program. Finally, under the Administrative
Division are the Staff Inspections Unit and the Recruitment and Training Unit. Support Services is the last
division. This division includes Communications, Records, our Court Liaison, Special Events Coordinator,
Information Systems, Crime Laboratory and Auxiliary Officers. This division is staffed by civilians. Those
who directly report to the chief include the major, Internal Affairs, the Public Information Officer, the
Criminal Justice coordinator, the CSAFE coordinator, the Grant coordinator, the Maryland Coordination
and Analysis Center analyst, and Crime analysts.
Mission:
The Annapolis Police Department, in partnership with the community, is dedicated to preventing and
controlling crime and preserving the quality of life in Annapolis through firm, fair, and impartial law
enforcement strategies.
Goals & Objectives:
A. Provide a safe community by reducing crime.
• The department is concerned about all public safety issues.
• We address these issues through proper planning, responses and practice.
B. Improve traffic and pedestrian safety.
• The department recognizes traffic and pedestrian safety is a concern to our citizens and
elected officials.
• To ensure the greatest impact, we will use existing data and conventional and
unconventional methods to enforce existing laws.
C. Improve community outreach and communications.
• The department is recognizes the community is not only a great resource but a great
partner.
• We will use available tools and seek new methods of generating a public’s interest and
involvement with our agency.
164
Police Department
D. Maintain high professional standards.
• The department understands the necessity to have a well trained, professional and
courteous law enforcement agency.
• All complaints will be investigated in an impartial matter as the community deserves to be
treated with respect.
Performance Measurements:
The Center for Performance Measurements (CPM) 101 Survey was completed by the City in October
2011. The CPM 101 survey measured inputs and outputs across City departments, services and
functions to perform analyses on the gathered data and compare our performance to that of other
jurisdictions nationwide.
The survey was completed using fiscal year 2011 data and the final CPM 101 Annual Data Report was
issued in August 2012. The final report is available upon request or it can be accessed online at:
http://www.ci.annapolis.md.us/Government/Reports/CPMReports2012.pdf
Fiscal year 2012 data will be submitted to the CPM in October 2012. The goal is to participate annually in
the survey so that trends in the City’s performance can be monitored and benchmarked, with adjustments
and budget decisions made according to performance. As the City becomes more accustomed to and
involved in the performance measurement process, the use of such metrics will have more influence on
budgeting practices. The process will begin during the fiscal year 2014 budget process, during which the
results of the fiscal year 2011 survey will begin to inform budgetary decisions.
Below is a compilation of the CPM questions which pertained to the Police Department. The goal for
fiscal year 2013 is that those CPM measurements which the City is not currently monitoring will be
introduced into each department’s infrastructure for a more complete performance profile. In particular,
the customer satisfaction questions which the City could not answer for the fiscal year 2011 survey will be
answered on the fiscal year 2012 survey. This is due to the City’s participation in the National Citizen
Survey which is purposefully coordinated with the CPM 101 Survey. The survey was completed using
fiscal year 2011 data and the final report was issued in August 2012. The final report from the National
Citizen Survey is available upon request or it can be accessed online at:
http://www.ci.annapolis.md.us/Government/Departments/Mayor/CityManager.aspx under “The National
Citizen Survey: Final Report.”
The CPM 101 questions/measurements which applied to the Police Department are as follows:
Staffing and Expenditures:
Total number of hours paid to sworn staff.
Total operating and maintenance expenditures for police services.
Reported Crimes:
Number of UCR Part 1 Violent Crimes reported.
Number of UCR Part 1 Violent Crime cleared.
Number of UCR Part 1 Property Crimes reported.
Number of UCR Part 1 Property Crimes cleared.
DUIs and Accidents:
Number of injury-producing traffic accidents which occurred in the jurisdiction (the number
of accidents, not the number of injuries, was to be reported).
Number of DUI arrests made.
165
Police Department
Response Time:
Average response time, from receipt of top priority police telephone call to arrival of first
unit on scene, for “top priority” calls.
Complaints Against Personnel & Citizen Satisfaction:
Number of complaints against sworn personnel.
Number of “Very Safe,” “Safe,” “Neither Safe nor Unsafe,” “Unsafe,” “Very Unsafe,” and/or
“Don’t Know” responses received from citizens on a survey question which asked “How
safe do you feel in your neighborhood after dark?”: No survey conducted, could not answer.
Number of “Yes,” “No,” and/or “Don’t Remember/Don’t Know” responses received from
citizens on a survey question which asked “During the past 12 months, were you or anyone
in your household the victim of any crime?”: No survey conducted, could not answer.
Number of “Yes,” “No,” and/or “Don’t Remember/Don’t Know” responses received from
citizens on a survey question which asked, if you answered “yes” to being a victim of crime,
“did you report all of these crimes to police?”: No survey conducted, could not answer.
Risk Management:
Total number of accidents involving police and law enforcement vehicles.
Fleet Management:
Total vehicle maintenance expenditures (excluding accident/body damage repair) for ONLY
police and law enforcement vehicles.
Total number of miles driven by police and law enforcement vehicles: Could not answer
The following Fleet Management questions were answered by a collecting data from the
Public Works Department, the Planning and Zoning Department, the Police Department and
the Fire Department.
Total number of Police and Law Enforcement Vehicles.
Total number of ALL Vehicles and Heavy Equipment (including Police and Law
Enforcement).
Total vehicle maintenance expenditures (excluding accident/body damage repair) for ALL
Vehicles and Heavy Equipment (including Police and Law Enforcement): Could not
answer.
Number of Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, or Don’t Know responses received from fleet
maintenance customer satisfaction surveys: No survey conducted, could not answer.
As reported by the CPM in their final fiscal year 2011 report, the graphs on the following
pages reflect how the City’s Police Department compared to other jurisdictions across certain
input and efficiency measures. The Final CPM Report details some additional data and
analyses.
166
Police Department
Sworn Police Officers (Full-Time Equivalents) per Capita
Rancho Cordova CA 0.0009
Lancaster County SC 0.0009
Chula Vista CA 0.0010
Mahomet IL 0.0010
Ramsey MN 0.0010
Rohnert Park CA 0.0011
King William County VA 0.0011
Peters Township PA 0.0012 Mean: 0.0020 Officers
Coventry CT 0.0013
Granby CT 0.0013
O’Fallon MO 0.0013 Median: 0.0019 Officers
Edina MN 0.0014
Tumwater WA 0.0015
Mason MI 0.0015 City: 0.0029 Officers
Eau Claire WI 0.0015
Noblesville IN 0.0015
Medway MA 0.0015
Hopkinton MA 0.0015
Andover MA 0.0016
Baker City OR 0.0016
Dover NH 0.0016
Monterey CA 0.0016
Airway Heights WA 0.0017
Algonquin IL 0.0017
Lake Mills WI 0.0018
Belmont MA 0.0018
New Baden IL 0.0018
Sahuarita AZ 0.0018
Shelton WA 0.0018
Oshkosh WI 0.0019
Ukiah CA 0.0019
Dartmouth MA 0.0019
Weston MA 0.0019
Rolla MO 0.0020
Libertyville IL 0.0020
Georgetown MA 0.0020
Windsor CT 0.0020
Manhattan KS 0.0020
Junction City KS 0.0021
Snellville GA 0.0021
Wauwatosa WI 0.0022
Crestwood MO 0.0022
Sugar Land TX 0.0024
Dedham MA 0.0024
Greer SC 0.0024
Cherryvale KS 0.0024
Greenwich CT 0.0025
Fredericksburg VA 0.0025
Goodlettsville TN 0.0027
Fox Point WI 0.0027
Columbia TN 0.0028
Show Low AZ 0.0028
ANNAPOLIS, MD 0.0029
Newburgh NY 0.0031
Salisbury MD 0.0032
Fort Lauderdale FL 0.0032
Blue Ash OH 0.0033
Purcellville VA 0.0035
Delray Beach FL 0.0041
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
167
Police Department
Police Expenditures Per Capita
Goodlettsville TN $19
Lancaster County SC $57
Mahomet IL $95
King William County VA $104
Ramsey MN $112
New Baden IL $120
Peters Township PA $125
Cherryvale KS $127
Coventry CT $128
Hopkinton MA $129
Mean: $ 216
Columbia TN $134
Lunenburg MA $138 Median: $ 191
O’Fallon MO $141
Noblesville IN $141
Rolla MO $142 City: $ 375
Edina MN $149
Windsor CT $154
Baker City OR $164
Airway Heights WA $166 * In the CPM Final Report, the City's Police expenditures
Mason MI $166 per capita are reported as $29.87. This was caluclated
Medway MA $168 using total FY11 Police expenditures of $1,146,730.
Granby CT $168 However, this total expenditure figure excludes
Junction City KS $173 personnel costs. The CPM defined total Police
Manhattan KS $176 expenditures to include personnel costs. The total the
Oshkosh WI $179 Police department originally reported was $14,386,543.
Lake Mills WI $184 This is the correct total as it includes personnel costs as
Sugar Land TX $184 defined by the CPM. This graph uses the corrected total
Greer SC $188
of $14,386,543 to depict the City's expenditure per
Tumwater WA $194
Dartmouth MA
capita.
$194
Dover NH $194
Chula Vista CA $196
Snellville GA $197
Eau Claire WI $202
Andover MA $211
Sahuarita AZ $212
Purcellville VA $216
Dedham MA $222
Crestwood MO $224
Shelton WA $225
Rancho Cordova CA $231
Islamorada Islands FL $235
Belmont MA $239
Algonquin IL $250
Wauwatosa WI $269
Greenwich CT $286
Ukiah CA $292
Salisbury MD $309
Fredericksburg VA $323
Libertyville IL $328
Fox Point WI $356
ANNAPOLIS, MD $375
Show Low AZ $384
Delray Beach FL $404
Monterey CA $411
Newburgh NY $434
Blue Ash OH $449
Fort Lauderdale FL $531
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
168
Police Department
Police Expenditures per Part I Crime* Cleared
Goodlettsville TN $386
Lancaster County SC $3,510
Cherryvale KS $7,003
Columbia TN $8,454
Shelton WA $8,730
Ukiah CA $9,255
Salisbury MD $10,505 Mean: $ 45,152
Junction City KS $10,871
Rolla MO $10,915
Show Low AZ $11,984 Median: $ 22,292
Sahuarita AZ $12,667
Islamorada Islands FL $14,688 City: $ 40,987
Ramsey MN $14,799
Greer SC $15,545
Airway Heights WA $15,623
Snellville GA $16,241
Oshkosh WI $16,475
* UCR Part I crimes are murder, rape, robbery (armed &
Wauwatosa WI $16,764
unarmed), aggravated assault, larceny (theft), burglary
Fredericksburg VA $17,067
(commercial & residential), and auto theft .
Eau Claire WI $17,776
Manhattan KS $18,658
Crestwood MO $18,664 ** In the CPM Final Report, the City's total Police
Windsor CT $19,145 expenditures are reported as $1,146,730. However, this
Lunenburg MA $19,283 total excludes personnel costs. The CPM defined total
Noblesville IN $19,464 Police expenditures to include personnel costs. The total
O’Fallon MO $19,826 the Police Department originally reported was
Tumwater WA $20,772 $14,386,543. This is the correct total as it includes
Edina MN $22,292 personnel costs as defined by the CPM. This graph uses
Lake Mills WI $28,511 the corrected total of $14,386,543 to depict the City's
Blue Ash OH $29,098 expenditure per Part I crime cleared.
Sugar Land TX $30,344
Newburgh NY $31,843
New Baden IL $33,355
Libertyville IL $35,831
Chula Vista CA $37,296
ANNAPOLIS, MD $40,987
Monterey CA $42,337
Delray Beach FL $42,752
Coventry CT $43,052
Medway MA $47,440
Rancho Cordova CA $51,038
Mahomet IL $52,976
Fort Lauderdale FL $54,906
Dover NH $61,378
Baker City OR $62,250
Mason MI $62,417
Peters Township PA $65,187
Granby CT $67,984
Belmont MA $73,978
Fox Point WI $79,143
King William County VA $86,880
Andover MA $111,182
Greenwich CT $118,810
Hopkinton MA $138,222
Purcellville VA $556,790
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
169
Police Department
UCR Part I VIOLENT Crimes* REPORTED per 1000 population
Hopkinton MA 0
Baker City OR 0
Greenwich CT 0
Purcellville VA 0
Granby CT 1
King William County VA 1 Mean: 4 crimes (violent)
Medway MA 1
Crestwood MO 1
Sahuarita AZ 1 City: 5 crimes (violent)
Coventry CT 1
Libertyville IL 1
O’Fallon MO 1
Windsor CT 1
Belmont MA 1
Ramsey MN 1
Blue Ash OH 1
Dedham MA 1
Cherryvale KS 1 * UCR Part I Violent Crimes are murder, rape, robbery
Sugar Land TX 1 (armed & unarmed), and aggravated assault.
Dover NH 1
Edina MN 1
Georgetown MA 1
New Baden IL 1
Peters Township PA 1
Snellville GA 2
Mahomet IL 2
Lake Mills WI 2
New Braunfels TX 2
Eau Claire WI 2
Lunenburg MA 2
Mason MI 2
Andover MA 3
Algonquin IL 3
Chula Vista CA 3
Oshkosh WI 3
Airway Heights WA 3
Islamorada Islands FL 3
Lancaster County SC 3
Rancho Cordova CA 3
Manhattan KS 3
Noblesville IN 4
Fredericksburg VA 4
Rolla MO 4
Wauwatosa WI 5
Greer SC 5
ANNAPOLIS, MD 5
Rohnert Park CA 5
Monterey CA 6
Dartmouth MA 7
Junction City KS 7
Shelton WA 8
Columbia TN 8
Tumwater WA 8
Fort Lauderdale FL 9
Delray Beach FL 10
Salisbury MD 13
Ukiah CA 17
Newburgh NY 18
Show Low AZ 20
Goodlettsville TN 20
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
170
Police Department
UCR Part I VIOLENT Crimes REPORTED per Sworn Officer
Hopkinton MA 0.0
Baker City OR 0.1
Purcellville VA 0.1
Greenwich CT 0.1
Crestwood MO 0.3
Blue Ash OH 0.4
Sahuarita AZ 0.4
Libertyville IL 0.4
Medway MA 0.4 Mean: 2.0 crimes (violent)
Windsor CT 0.4
Granby CT 0.5
Cherryvale KS
City: 1.7 crimes (violent)
0.5
Dedham MA 0.5
King William County VA 0.6
Sugar Land TX 0.6
Belmont MA 0.6
Coventry CT 0.6
O’Fallon MO 0.6
Georgetown MA 0.7 * UCR Part I Violent Crimes are murder, rape, robbery
Snellville GA 0.7 (armed & unarmed), and aggravated assault.
Dover NH 0.8
New Baden IL 0.8
Edina MN 1.0
Lake Mills WI 1.0
Ramsey MN 1.0
Peters Township PA 1.2
Eau Claire WI 1.5
Oshkosh WI 1.5
Mason MI 1.5
Manhattan KS 1.5
Algonquin IL 1.6
Fredericksburg VA 1.6
Mahomet IL 1.6
Airway Heights WA 1.7
Andover MA 1.7
ANNAPOLIS, MD 1.7
Greer SC 2.0
Wauwatosa WI 2.1
Rolla MO 2.3
Delray Beach FL 2.4
Chula Vista CA 2.7
Noblesville IN 2.8
Fort Lauderdale FL 2.8
Columbia TN 3.0
Lancaster County SC 3.3
Rancho Cordova CA 3.4
Dartmouth MA 3.5
Junction City KS 3.6
Monterey CA 3.8
Salisbury MD 4.0
Shelton WA 4.1
Rohnert Park CA 4.6
Tumwater WA 5.8
Newburgh NY 5.8
Show Low AZ 7.1
Goodlettsville TN 7.6
Ukiah CA 8.7
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
171
Police Department
UCR Part I VIOLENT Crimes CLEARED per Sworn Officer
Hopkinton MA 0.0
Libertyville IL 0.1
Greenwich CT 0.1
Baker City OR 0.2
Sahuarita AZ 0.2
Blue Ash OH 0.2
Crestwood MO 0.3
Granby CT 0.3 Mean: 1.3 crimes cleared
Medway MA 0.3
Georgetown MA 0.3 Median: 0.9 crimes cleared
Belmont MA 0.4
Sugar Land TX 0.4
Windsor CT 0.4
City: 1.1 crimes cleared
Dover NH 0.4
Mason MI 0.5
Cherryvale KS 0.5
O’Fallon MO 0.5
Snellville GA 0.5
King William County VA 0.6 * UCR Part I Violent Crimes are murder, rape, robbery
Edina MN 0.6 (armed & unarmed), and aggravated assault.
Coventry CT 0.6
Ramsey MN 0.7
New Baden IL 0.8
Andover MA 0.9
Airway Heights WA 0.9
Peters Township PA 0.9
Lake Mills WI 0.9
Delray Beach FL 0.9
Mahomet IL 0.9
Eau Claire WI 1.0
Fredericksburg VA 1.0
Fort Lauderdale FL 1.0
Rolla MO 1.0
Manhattan KS 1.1
Chula Vista CA 1.1
Oshkosh WI 1.1
ANNAPOLIS, MD 1.1
Greer SC 1.2
Rancho Cordova CA 1.4
Wauwatosa WI 1.5
Noblesville IN 1.6
Columbia TN 1.7
Junction City KS 2.0
Monterey CA 2.4
Salisbury MD 2.5
Lancaster County SC 2.5
Shelton WA 2.9
Newburgh NY 3.2
Rohnert Park CA 3.6
Goodlettsville TN 4.0
Tumwater WA 4.3
Show Low AZ 5.5
Ukiah CA 7.6
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
172
Police Department
UCR Part I VIOLENT Crime Clearance Rate
Libertyville IL 18%
Mason MI 33%
Fort Lauderdale FL 35%
Delray Beach FL 37%
Rancho Cordova CA 40%
Chula Vista CA 41%
Rolla MO 43% Mean: 69 %
Georgetown MA 45%
Dover NH 50% Median: 64%
Andover MA 52%
New Braunfels TX 52%
Goodlettsville TN 53% City: 66%
Airway Heights WA 53%
Columbia TN 54%
Newburgh NY 55%
Lunenburg MA 55% * UCR Part I Violent Crimes are murder, rape, robbery
Sahuarita AZ 56% (armed & unarmed), and aggravated assault.
Junction City KS 57%
Granby CT 57%
Noblesville IN 57%
Greer SC 58%
Mahomet IL 58%
Fredericksburg VA 60%
Blue Ash OH 60%
Edina MN 60%
Salisbury MD 62%
Belmont MA 63%
Monterey CA 63%
Eau Claire WI 65%
ANNAPOLIS, MD 66%
Medway MA 67%
Ramsey MN 67%
Sugar Land TX 69%
Manhattan KS 70%
Wauwatosa WI 71%
Snellville GA 71%
Shelton WA 72%
Peters Township PA 72%
Islamorada Islands FL 72%
Tumwater WA 74%
Oshkosh WI 74%
Lancaster County SC 75%
Rohnert Park CA 78%
Show Low AZ 78%
Greenwich CT 78%
O’Fallon MO 81%
Ukiah CA 87%
Crestwood MO 88%
Windsor CT 88%
Coventry CT 90%
Lake Mills WI 90% ** Baker City shows over 100% due to crimes reported prior
Cherryvale KS 100% to FY 2011 (the survey year) that were cleared in FY 2011,
Hopkinton MA 100% such that only one violent crime was reported in FY 2011,
King William County VA 100%
New Baden IL 100%
Baker City OR 300%
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
173
Police Department
UCR Part I PROPERTY Crimes* REPORTED per 1000 population
Weston MA 5
King William County VA 6
Hopkinton MA 6
Greenwich CT 7
Peters Township PA 7
Purcellville VA 7
Georgetown MA 7
Andover MA 8
Medway MA 9 Mean: 28 crimes (property)
Fox Point WI 10
Mahomet IL 10
Granby CT 11
City: 28 crimes (property)
Belmont MA 12
Coventry CT 13
Lake Mills WI 13
Mason MI 15
O’Fallon MO 15
Edina MN 16
Dover NH 17 * UCR Part I property crimes are larceny (theft), burglary
Libertyville IL 17 (commercial & residential), and auto theft .
Sahuarita AZ 18
Algonquin IL 18
Sugar Land TX 18
Baker City OR 19
Noblesville IN 19
New Baden IL 20
Chula Vista CA 20
Rohnert Park CA 21
Windsor CT 22
Dedham MA 22
Tumwater WA 25
Ramsey MN 25
Oshkosh WI 26
Crestwood MO 27
ANNAPOLIS, MD 28
Rancho Cordova CA 29
Ukiah CA 29
Manhattan KS 29
Eau Claire WI 30
Airway Heights WA 30
Greer SC 31
Lancaster County SC 31
Junction City KS 32
Blue Ash OH 34
Dartmouth MA 34
New Braunfels TX 35
Lunenburg MA 35
Wauwatosa WI 39
Columbia TN 39
Show Low AZ 42
Rolla MO 42
Newburgh NY 43
Cherryvale KS 43
Monterey CA 45
Fredericksburg VA 45
Snellville GA 46
Delray Beach FL 53
Fort Lauderdale FL 61
Salisbury MD 61
Shelton WA 78
Goodlettsville TN 84
Islamorada Islands FL 96
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
174
Police Department
UCR Part I PROPERTY Crimes REPORTED per Sworn Officer
Purcellville VA 2.0
Greenwich CT 2.8
Weston MA 2.8
Georgetown MA 3.7
Fox Point WI 3.8
Hopkinton MA 4.0
Andover MA 4.9
King William County VA 5.0
Peters Township PA 5.9 Mean: 13.9 crimes (property)
Medway MA 6.0
Belmont MA 6.6
Sugar Land TX 7.5 City: 9.6 crimes (property)
Lake Mills WI 7.6
Granby CT 8.4
Libertyville IL 8.8
Dedham MA 9.0
ANNAPOLIS, MD 9.6
Sahuarita AZ 9.7
Mahomet IL 10.3
Blue Ash OH 10.4
Dover NH 10.4 * UCR Part I property crimes are larceny (theft), burglary
Coventry CT 10.4
Mason MI 10.4 (commercial & residential), and auto theft .
Algonquin IL 10.4
Windsor CT 10.9
New Baden IL 11.0
Edina MN 11.2
O’Fallon MO 11.4
Baker City OR 11.6
Crestwood MO 12.3
Greer SC 12.6
Delray Beach FL 13.1
Noblesville IN 13.1
Newburgh NY 13.9
Oshkosh WI 14.0
Columbia TN 14.0
Manhattan KS 14.4
Show Low AZ 15.0
Ukiah CA 15.2
Junction City KS 15.5
Tumwater WA 17.3
Wauwatosa WI 17.5
Cherryvale KS 17.7
Airway Heights WA 17.7
Fredericksburg VA 17.9
Dartmouth MA 17.9
Rohnert Park CA 18.7
Fort Lauderdale FL 18.9
Salisbury MD 19.3
Chula Vista CA 20.0
Eau Claire WI 20.3
Rolla MO 21.3
Snellville GA 22.4
Ramsey MN 24.7
Monterey CA 27.1
Goodlettsville TN 31.7
Rancho Cordova CA 32.3
Lancaster County SC 34.6
Shelton WA 42.3
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
175
Police Department
Q76.6: UCR Part I PROPERTY Crimes CLEARED per Sworn Officer
Purcellville VA 0.1
Weston MA 0.2
Georgetown MA 0.2
Andover MA 0.3
King William County VA 0.5
Hopkinton MA 0.6
Peters Township PA 0.7 Mean: 3.9 crimes cleared
Mahomet IL 0.8
Greenwich CT 0.8
New Baden IL
Median: 3.5 crimes cleared
1.2
Newburgh NY 1.2
Mason MI 1.3 City: 2.0 crimes cleared
Delray Beach FL 1.4
Baker City OR 1.4
Belmont MA 1.5
Dover NH 1.5
Granby CT 1.7
Fox Point WI 1.7
Coventry CT 1.8 * UCR Part I property crimes are larceny (theft), burglary
ANNAPOLIS, MD 2.0 (commercial & residential), and auto theft .
Fort Lauderdale FL 2.0
Medway MA 2.1
Tumwater WA 2.1
Sugar Land TX 2.2
Lake Mills WI 2.8
Noblesville IN 3.3
Monterey CA 3.5
Rohnert Park CA 3.5
Manhattan KS 3.5
Windsor CT 3.6
Rancho Cordova CA 3.7
Greer SC 3.8
Columbia TN 4.0
Edina MN 4.1
Chula Vista CA 4.2
Blue Ash OH 4.4
Libertyville IL 4.6
Oshkosh WI 4.7
O’Fallon MO 4.8
Crestwood MO 5.1
Snellville GA 5.3
Airway Heights WA 5.5
Rolla MO 5.6
Junction City KS 5.7
Wauwatosa WI 5.7
Show Low AZ 5.9
Fredericksburg VA 6.5
Ramsey MN 6.7
Salisbury MD 6.8
Eau Claire WI 6.8
Cherryvale KS 6.9
Ukiah CA 8.9
Sahuarita AZ 9.0
Shelton WA 11.1
Goodlettsville TN 14.1
Lancaster County SC 15.6
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
176
Police Department
UCR Part I PROPERTY Crime CLEARANCE Rate
Purcellville VA 5%
Andover MA 7%
Georgetown MA 7%
Mahomet IL 8%
Weston MA 8%
Newburgh NY 9%
King William County VA 10% Mean: 26%
New Baden IL 11%
Fort Lauderdale FL 11%
Delray Beach FL 11% Median: 25%
Rancho Cordova CA 11%
Peters Township PA 12%
Tumwater WA 12% City: 21%
Baker City OR 12%
Mason MI 13%
Monterey CA 13%
Islamorada Islands FL 14%
Hopkinton MA 15%
Dover NH 15% * UCR Part I property crimes are larceny (theft), burglary
Lunenburg MA 17% (commercial & residential), and auto theft .
Coventry CT 17%
Rohnert Park CA 19%
Granby CT 20%
Chula Vista CA 21%
ANNAPOLIS, MD 21%
Belmont MA 22%
Snellville GA 24%
New Braunfels TX 24%
Manhattan KS 25%
Noblesville IN 25%
Shelton WA 26%
Rolla MO 26%
Ramsey MN 27%
Columbia TN 29%
Sugar Land TX 29%
Greenwich CT 30%
Greer SC 30%
Airway Heights WA 31%
Wauwatosa WI 33%
Windsor CT 33%
Eau Claire WI 33%
Oshkosh WI 34%
Medway MA 35%
Salisbury MD 35%
Fredericksburg VA 36%
Lake Mills WI 36%
Junction City KS 37%
Edina MN 37%
Cherryvale KS 39%
Show Low AZ 40%
Crestwood MO 42%
O’Fallon MO 42%
Blue Ash OH 43%
Fox Point WI 44%
Goodlettsville TN 44%
Lancaster County SC 45%
Libertyville IL 52%
Ukiah CA 58%
Sahuarita AZ 93%
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
177
Police Department
POLICE FLEET QUESTIONS
Police & Law Enforcement Vehicles per 1,000 Population
Lakeland TN 0.00
Dover NH 0.30
Greenwich CT 0.33
Peters Township PA 0.33
Edina MN 0.33
Eau Claire WI 0.35
Algonquin IL 0.37
Coventry CT 0.40
Mean: 1.07 vehicles
Oshkosh WI 0.43
Dedham MA 0.44 Median: 0.90 vehicles
Belmont MA 0.46
Sugar Land TX 0.50
O’Fallon MO 0.52 City: 1.09 vehicles
Lake Mills WI 0.52
Granby CT 0.53
Fox Point WI 0.60
Windsor CT 0.62
Rancho Cordova CA 0.63
Libertyville IL 0.63
Mahomet IL 0.69
Weston MA 0.70
Baker City OR 0.71
Chula Vista CA 0.71
Mason MI 0.73
Ramsey MN 0.76
Monterey CA 0.79
Crestwood MO 0.84
Campbell County WY 0.87
Manhattan KS 0.88
New Baden IL 0.90
Dartmouth MA 0.90
Andover MA 0.90
Noblesville IN 0.92
Tumwater WA 0.97
Rohnert Park CA 0.97
King William County VA 1.00
Newburgh NY 1.04
ANNAPOLIS, MD 1.09
Ukiah CA 1.11
Medway MA 1.15
Blue Ash OH 1.16
Lunenburg MA 1.19
Fredericksburg VA 1.24
Purcellville VA 1.29
New Braunfels TX 1.40
Sahuarita AZ 1.50
Shelton WA 1.63
Lancaster County SC 1.63
Greer SC 1.65
Hopkinton MA 1.67
Rolla MO 1.69
Salisbury MD 1.75
Show Low AZ 1.90
Fort Lauderdale FL 1.96
Cherryvale KS 2.11
Delray Beach FL 2.12
Airway Heights WA 2.13
Columbia TN 2.19
Snellville GA 2.30
Islamorada Islands FL 2.78
Goodlettsville TN 2.95
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
178
Police Department
Expenditures per Vehicle for Police & Law Enforcement Vehicles
Airway Heights WA $462
Fox Point WI $639
Shelton WA $693
King William County VA $769
Lancaster County SC $798
Rolla MO $916
Mahomet IL $1,128
Greer SC $1,207 Mean: $ 2,707
Goodlettsville TN $1,219
Libertyville IL $1,221 Median: $ 2,267
Noblesville IN $1,240
Cherryvale KS $1,321
City: $ 1,378
ANNAPOLIS, MD $1,378
Purcellville VA $1,569
Lake Mills WI $1,643
Hopkinton MA $1,645
Fort Lauderdale FL $1,760
Crestwood MO $1,899
Manhattan KS $1,899
Fredericksburg VA $1,932
Baker City OR $1,979
Dover NH $2,025
Chula Vista CA $2,058
Ramsey MN $2,156
New Baden IL $2,267
Salisbury MD $2,377
Rohnert Park CA $2,509
Weston MA $2,729
Snellville GA $2,737
Dartmouth MA $2,766
Dedham MA $2,828
Mason MI $2,833
Newburgh NY $2,924
Islamorada Islands FL $2,980
Oshkosh WI $2,982
Delray Beach FL $3,197
Belmont MA $3,363
O’Fallon MO $3,633
Edina MN $3,809
Greenwich CT $3,831
Sugar Land TX $4,160
Blue Ash OH $4,269
Lunenburg MA $4,386
Peters Township PA $4,767
Windsor CT $5,473
Eau Claire WI $5,511
Rancho Cordova CA $7,321
Monterey CA $7,324
Algonquin IL $8,100
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
179
Police Department
Looking ahead: Additional performance measurements the Police Department may collect and
evaluate are as follows. Since performance measurements are meant to track progress toward a
goal, the list letters tie the below performance measurements to the above-listed departmental goals.
A. Provide a safe community by reducing crime.
Track number of reported crimes
Track number of calls for service
C. Improve community outreach and communications.
Track number of community engagement activities.
STAFFING SUMMARY BY POSITION : FISCAL YEAR 2013
Permanent Positions
Total FTE: 149
Office Associate II ............................................................................................................................ 1
Office Associate III ........................................................................................................................... 2
Police Administrative Clerk .............................................................................................................. 1
Police Records Specialist................................................................................................................. 5
Senior Purchasing Clerk .................................................................................................................. 1
Police Chief ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Police Major ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Police Captain .................................................................................................................................. 3
Police Lieutenant* ............................................................................................................................ 5
Police Sergeant .............................................................................................................................. 13
Police Corporal ............................................................................................................................... 11
Police Officer 1/C ........................................................................................................................... 51
Police Officer .................................................................................................................................. 33
Police Communications Operator II ................................................................................................. 3
Police Communications Operator .................................................................................................... 9
Police Records Coordinator ............................................................................................................. 1
Police Property Supervisor .............................................................................................................. 1
Police Planning Analyst.................................................................................................................... 1
Police Identification Specialist .......................................................................................................... 2
Meter Coll/Auto Maint. I.................................................................................................................... 1
Automotive Technician ..................................................................................................................... 1
Warrant Control Records Supervisor ............................................................................................... 1
Automation Administrator* ............................................................................................................... 1
* The Automation Administrator position is new for FY 2013 but comes at no cost. This is because the
Department will convert one Lieutenant position to the Automation Administrator position. The decrease
of 6 Lieutenant positions in FY 2012 to 5 for FY 2013 reflects this action.
NOTE: The Police Department was approved to reach 118 sworn personnel positions in FY 2013.
However, only 113 of those positions are approved to be General Fund supported while the other 5
positions are to be supported by the City’s newly-received grant from the Community Oriented Police
Services Office (COPS) Hiring Program. In terms of dollars, the Police personnel costs adopted for FY
2013 reflect the costs of supporting only 113 sworn personnel from the General Fund.
180
Police Department
Contractual and Temporary Positions
The Police Department has various temporary and/or contractual positions. These positions consist
primarily of School Crossing Guards, a Major Crimes Investigator, a Cold Case Investigator, a Maryland
Coordination and Analysis Center Analyst, a Special Events Coordinator, Community Services
Specialists, a Safe Streets Coordinator, a Crime Analyst, a Grant Coordinator, a Hispanic Liaison, an IT
Project Manager, an Executive Assistant, and a Communications Director.
Conversions:
Of these contractual or temporary positions, the following will be included in the January 1, 2013
conversion of contractual employees to permanent status (civil service or exempt):
1. Hispanic Liaison: Civil Service
2. Executive Assistant: Civil Service
This will bring the total full-time equivalent count for this department to 151 half-way through the
fiscal year.
BUDGET SUMMARY
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel* $ 14,876,880 $ 15,678,320 $ 14,567,513 $ 14,209,310 $ 13,719,541 90.47%
Operating** 1,571,400 1,632,000 1,377,018 1,200,180 1,445,606 9.53%
Capital Outlay 78,610 96,150 267,521 - - 0
Total $ 16,526,890 $ 17,406,470 $ 16,212,052 $ 15,409,490 $ 15,165,147 100%
% Change from Prior Year 5.32% -6.86% -4.95% -1.59%
* For FY 2013, personnel expenditures for departments or divisions under the General Fund do not reflect the expense of abolishing
furlough days. Instead the cost of furlough abolishment for General Fund departments w as calculated as a lump sum totaling
$662,773.67 for the fiscal year (2013).
** FY 2013 fleet replacement costs w ere calculated by department. Operating expenditures as presented in this summary table include
this department's or division's fleet replacement costs. In various other presentations in this document, fleet replacement costs are
reported separately.
*** In Fiscal Years 2009, 2010, and 2011, the Parking Operations Division w as under the Police Department. As such, Parking Operations
expenditures are included in FY 2009 - FY 2011 figures.
181
Fire Department
182
Fire Department
Fund Support: General Fund
Description:
The Annapolis Fire Department is an all-hazards emergency service agency which serves to provide
those who live, work, and play in Annapolis with a sense of safety and security that the structures they
visit or work in are safe. The Fire Department ensures reliable, competent, and professional assistance
to any person who is injured, ailing or encountering an emergency situation.
The Fire Department consists of an Operations Bureau and a Fire Marshal’s Office.
The Office of Emergency Management is a separate division which falls under the Fire Department. It is
detailed in its own division section in the following pages.
Operations Bureau:
The Operations Bureau provides staffing and equipment for an All Hazards Response to include fire,
emergency medical services, hazardous materials response and all other emergency and non emergency
incidents
Fire Marshal’s Office:
The mission is to preserve life from fire, explosion and other hazards through prevention, education, code
enforcement, and fire and explosion investigation, and to enforce the City Code, the State Fire Prevention
Code and the Fire Laws of Maryland. The Fire and Explosives Service unit operates the departments
nationally certified bomb squad.
Mission:
The Annapolis Fire Department exists to provide a safe environment for the community by minimizing the
impact of fire, disaster, hazardous conditions, illness and injury through information, public education,
quality emergency services and efficient utilization of resources.
Services:
Operations:
The following services are carried out by three engine companies, two truck companies, and three
advance life support paramedic units. The department utilizes a rescue/Haz-Mat squad dependent on
staffing from the Fire Engine Company at the Taylor Avenue Station, and a fireboat dependent on staffing
from the Eastport Station.
• Fire suppression.
• Emergency medical services.
• Technical rescue response.
183
Fire Department
Services (continued):
• Hazardous materials technical response.
• Response to weapons of mass destruction.
• Marine rescue/firefighting and explosive services.
Fire Marshal’s Office:
• Conducts fire investigations.
• Explosive detection and mitigation services.
• Fire prevention/life safety.
• Public education.
• Code enforcement support.
Goals & Objectives:
A. Ensure firefighter safety by developing strategies and implementing training programs.
Ensure compliance with NFPA 1500, Standard on Fire Department OSHA Program, and all
OSHA training requirements
B. Enhance public safety by minimizing the impact of fire, disaster, and hazardous conditions by
conducting fire safety inspections as required by the City Code and as recommended in national
fire protection standards.
C. Minimize the impact of illness and injury to the citizens of Annapolis and surrounding areas by
effective management of the Emergency Medical Services (EMS).
D. Develop and deliver public education programs in response to risk assessments and community-
targeted educational needs.
E. Create a diverse workforce through effective recruitment and opportunities for all employees
F. Conduct continued training and performance evaluation programs to provide for a highly trained
and professional workforce.
184
Fire Department
Performance Measurements:
The Center for Performance Measurements (CPM) 101 Survey was completed by the City in October
2011. The CPM 101 survey measured inputs and outputs across City departments, services and
functions to perform analyses on the gathered data and compare our performance to that of other
jurisdictions nationwide.
The survey was completed using fiscal year 2011 data and the final CPM 101 Annual Data Report was
issued in August 2012. The final report is available upon request or it can be accessed online at:
http://www.ci.annapolis.md.us/Government/Reports/CPMReports2012.pdf
Fiscal year 2012 data will be submitted to the CPM in October 2012. The goal is to participate annually in
the survey so that trends in the City’s performance can be monitored and benchmarked, with adjustments
and budget decisions made according to performance. As the City becomes more accustomed to and
involved in the performance measurement process, the use of such metrics will have more influence on
budgeting practices. The process will begin during the fiscal year 2014 budget process, during which the
results of the fiscal year 2011 survey will begin to inform budgetary decisions.
Below is a compilation of the CPM questions which pertained to the Fire Department. The goal for fiscal
year 2013 is that those CPM measurements which the City is not currently monitoring will be introduced
into each department’s infrastructure for a more complete performance profile. In particular, the customer
satisfaction questions which the City could not answer for the fiscal year 2011 survey will be answered on
the fiscal year 2012 survey. This is due to the City’s participation in the National Citizen Survey which is
purposefully coordinated with the CPM 101 Survey. The survey was completed using fiscal year 2011
data and the final report was issued in August 2012. The final report from the National Citizen Survey is
available upon request or it can be accessed online at:
http://www.ci.annapolis.md.us/Government/Departments/Mayor/CityManager.aspx under “The National
Citizen Survey: Final Report.”
The CPM 101 questions/measurements which applied to the Fire Department are as follows:
Structures:
Total number of residential, commercial and industrial structures in the jurisdiction.
Commercial and Industrial Inspections:
Percentage of commercial and industrial occupancies inspected.
False Alarms:
Total number of false alarms.
Staffing/Minimum Staffing:
Total number of hours paid to all staff who provided Fire Service or Emergency Medical
Service.
Total number of BUDGETED Fire and EMS staff (response to represent a “head count” so
the person who works full time and the person who works part time would each be counted
as one staff member).
Total number of BUDGETED volunteer and paid-on-call Fire and EMS staff.
Minimum staffing per in-service pumper/engine in the jurisdiction.
Expenditures:
Total expenditures for Fire and EMS activities (to include staff costs).
185
Fire Department
Fire and EMS Responses:
Total number of EMS responses.
Total number of structure fires.
Total number of fires (structure AND non-structure).
Fire Confinement:
Percentage of one- and two-family residential structure fires confined to the object or room
of origin.
Percentage of one- and two-family residential structure fires confined to the floor or
structure of origin.
Cardiac Care:
Percentage of patients in cardiac arrest from medical causes who were delivered to a
medical center with a pulse by the EMS staff: Could not answer, new EMS tracking system
which began in December 2011 will allow this data to be collected in the future.
Response Time:
Percentage of Fire calls responded to in 5 minutes or less, from conclusion of dispatch to
arrival on scene: This number is tracked and reported but is skewed by the mutual aid of
County emergency services.
Average response time for Fire calls, from conclusion of dispatch to arrival on scene: This
number is tracked and reported but is skewed by the mutual aid of County emergency
services.
As reported by the CPM in their final fiscal year 2011 report, the graphs on the following
pages reflect how the City’s Fire Department compared to other jurisdictions across certain
input and efficiency measures. The Final CPM Report details some additional data and
analyses.
186
Fire Department
Fire and EMS Hours Paid per Capita
Coventry CT
Coventry CT 0.00
King William County VA
William County VA 0.13
Ramsey MN
Ramsey MN 0.18
Windsor CT
Windsor CT 0.29
0.29
Lake Mills WI
Lake Mills WI 0.36
0.36
Granby CT
Granby CT 0.53
0.53
Mason MI
Mason MI 0.57
0.57
Rohnert Park CA
Rohnert Park CA 0.94
0.94
Mean: 3.97 hours
Airway Heights WA
Airway Heights WA 1.05
1.05
Lunenburg MA
LunenburgMA 1.09
1.09 City: 7.22 hours
Campbell County WY 1.17
Campbell County WY 1.17
Medway MA 1.27
Medway MA 1.27
Georgetown MA 1.39
Georgetown MA 1.39
Peters Township PA 1.43
Peters Township PA 1.43
Edina MN 1.44
Edina MN 1.44
Chula Vista CA 1.85
Chula Vista CA 1.85
Lancaster County SC 2.22
Lancaster County SC 2.22
Sugar Land TX 2.45
Sugar Land TX
Louisville Metro Govt KY 2.45
2.73
Accomack County KY
Louisville Metro GovtVA 2.73
2.73
Goodlettsville VA
Accomack CountyTN 2.73
2.92
Goodlettsville TN
Hopkinton MA 2.92
3.47
Hopkinton MA
Greer SC 3.47
3.47
Greer SC
Ukiah CA 3.47
3.55
UkiahOR
Baker City CA 3.55
3.76
Eau Claire OR
Baker City WI 3.76
4.06
Eau Claire WI
Greenwich CT 4.06
4.09
Greenwich CT
Manhattan KS 4.09
4.14
Manhattan KS
Salisbury MD 4.14
4.44
Salisbury MD
Dover NH 4.44
4.45
Dover WI
Oshkosh NH 4.45
4.58
Rolla WI
OshkoshMO 4.62
4.58
Baden IL
NewRolla MO 4.625.19
Libertyville IL
New Baden IL 5.20
5.19
Andover MA
Libertyville IL 5.21
5.20
Belmont MA
Andover MA 5.31
5.21
Belmont FL
Fort LauderdaleMA 5.32
5.31
Newburgh NY
Fort Lauderdale FL 5.41
5.32
Fredericksburg VA
Newburgh NY 5.56
5.41
Tumwater WA
Fredericksburg VA 5.61
5.56
Crestwood MO
Tumwater WA 5.89
5.61
Dedham MO
Crestwood MA 5.95
5.89
Dedham KS
Junction CityMA 6.18
5.95
Delray Beach KS
Junction City FL 6.24
6.18
Weston MA 6.48
Delray Beach FL 6.24
Noblesville IN 6.73
Weston MA 6.48
Cherryvale KS 6.77
Noblesville IN 6.73
ANNAPOLIS, MD 7.22
Cherryvale KS 6.77
Blue Ash OH 7.53
ANNAPOLIS, MD 7.22
Columbia TN 7.63
Blue Ash OH 7.53
Monterey CA 7.81
Columbia TN 7.63
Show Low AZ 8.47
Monterey FL
Islamorada Islands CA 7.81 13.36
Show Low AZ 8.47
Islamorada Islands FL 13.36
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
187
Fire Department
Fire & EMS Expenditures per Capita
Mason MI $26.40
King William County VA $29.12
Coventry CT $32.60
Georgetown MA $38.04
Medway MA $48.73
Granby CT $50.47
Lake Mills WI $56.21 Mean: $ 164.76
Windsor CT $58.97
Peters Township PA $65.14 City: $ 304.27
Lunenburg MA $65.41
Chula Vista CA $71.08
Lancaster County SC $72.80
Airway Heights WA $74.84
Goodlettsville TN $75.20
New Baden IL $75.76
Campbell County WY $82.78
Edina MN $88.56
Manhattan KS $91.85
Greer SC $101.44
Accomack County VA $103.82
Louisville Metro Govt KY $106.14
Sugar Land TX $112.71
Rolla MO $112.77
Junction City KS $115.63
Baker City OR $124.13
Eau Claire WI $141.50
Hopkinton MA $158.40
Columbia TN $169.04
Oshkosh WI $170.20
Dover NH $178.87
Ukiah CA $181.20
Cherryvale KS $184.66
Crestwood MO $192.80
Belmont MA $197.76
Salisbury MD $200.76
Andover MA $201.31
Fredericksburg VA $207.38
Dedham MA $215.05
Tumwater WA $224.51
Noblesville IN $231.56
Weston MA $236.05
Wauwatosa WI $256.36
Newburgh NY $276.74
Greenwich CT $277.66
Libertyville IL $289.98
Show Low AZ $300.51
ANNAPOLIS, MD $304.27
Blue Ash OH $323.00
Delray Beach FL $347.81
Fort Lauderdale FL $362.82
Monterey CA $402.09
Islamorada Islands FL $454.55
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
188
Fire Department
Fires (Structure & Non-Structure) per Capita
Delray Beach FL 0.0010
Chula Vista CA 0.0010
Edina MN 0.0013
Ramsey MN 0.0015
Manhattan KS 0.0017
Oshkosh WI 0.0017 Mean: 0.0048 fires
Wauwatosa WI 0.0019
Crestwood MO 0.0019
City: 0.0033 fires
Sugar Land TX 0.0020
Rohnert Park CA 0.0023
Eau Claire WI 0.0026
Baker City OR 0.0027
Greenwich CT 0.0028
Granby CT 0.0028
Airway Heights WA 0.0029
ANNAPOLIS, MD 0.0033
Hopkinton MA 0.0035
Medway MA 0.0037
Andover MA 0.0038
Fort Lauderdale FL 0.0039
Goodlettsville TN 0.0039
Rolla MO 0.0039
Coventry CT 0.0039
Windsor CT 0.0040
Mason MI 0.0040
Tumwater WA 0.0041
Weston MA 0.0044
Blue Ash OH 0.0045
Newburgh NY 0.0045
Noblesville IN 0.0045
Junction City KS 0.0047
Lancaster County SC 0.0047
Columbia TN 0.0048
Greer SC 0.0049
Monterey CA 0.0049
Lake Mills WI 0.0054
King William County VA 0.0055
Accomack County VA 0.0057
Belmont MA 0.0059
Campbell County WY 0.0061
Lunenburg MA 0.0063
Show Low AZ 0.0064
Islamorada Islands FL 0.0075
Dedham MA 0.0076
Georgetown MA 0.0077
Fredericksburg VA 0.0078
Peters Township PA 0.0080
Ukiah CA 0.0084
Salisbury MD 0.0091
Dover NH 0.0095
Libertyville IL 0.0096
Louisville Metro Govt KY 0.0111
Cherryvale KS 0.0118
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
189
Fire Department
False Alarms per Capita
King William County VA 0.003
Ramsey MN 0.004
Crestwood MO 0.005
Columbia TN 0.005
Noblesville IN 0.005 Mean: 0.019 false alarms
Lancaster County SC 0.005
Coventry CT 0.006
Cherryvale KS 0.007
City: 0.016 false alarms
Lake Mills WI 0.007
Mason MI 0.007
Ukiah CA 0.008
Oshkosh WI 0.008
Medway MA 0.008
Greer SC 0.008
Baker City OR 0.008
Junction City KS 0.009
Edina MN 0.009
Airway Heights WA 0.009
Campbell County WY 0.010
Lunenburg MA 0.010
Granby CT 0.011
Show Low AZ 0.013
Eau Claire WI 0.013
Manhattan KS 0.013
Chula Vista CA 0.014
Peters Township PA 0.014
Windsor CT 0.014
Wauwatosa WI 0.014
Accomack County VA 0.015
ANNAPOLIS, MD 0.016
Rolla MO 0.017
Rohnert Park CA 0.017
Salisbury MD 0.019
Tumwater WA 0.020
Hopkinton MA 0.022
Georgetown MA 0.022
Dedham MA 0.024
Andover MA 0.025
Dover NH 0.026
Sugar Land TX 0.027
Delray Beach FL 0.027
Belmont MA 0.027
Islamorada Islands FL 0.028
Goodlettsville TN 0.029
Blue Ash OH 0.033
Greenwich CT 0.036
Newburgh NY 0.036
Fredericksburg VA 0.037
Monterey CA 0.038
Weston MA 0.048
Libertyville IL 0.050
Fort Lauderdale FL 0.052
Dartmouth MA 0.078
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
190
Fire Department
EMS Responses per 1,000
Campbell County WY 21
Manhattan KS 21
Ramsey MN 24
Rolla MO 27
Sugar Land TX 44
Chula Vista CA 44
Rohnert Park CA 50
Medway MA 55
Georgetown MA 62
Fredericksburg VA 64
Columbia TN 65
Noblesville IN 66
Hopkinton MA 69
Coventry CT 74
Belmont MA 75
Edina MN 76
Andover MA 76
Lunenburg MA 77
Crestwood MO 81
Wauwatosa WI 89
Eau Claire WI 95
Weston MA 97
Peters Township PA 97
Dover NH 98
Granby CT 98
Greer SC 99
Libertyville IL 108
Ukiah CA 108
King William County VA 109
Goodlettsville TN 112
Junction City KS 114
Oshkosh WI 114
Windsor CT 119
Dedham MA 122
Airway Heights WA 125
Blue Ash OH 134
Baker City OR 137
Show Low AZ 142
Monterey CA 149
Islamorada Islands FL 149
Delray Beach FL 156
New Baden IL 169
Lancaster County SC 176
ANNAPOLIS, MD 177
Accomack County VA 180
Fort Lauderdale FL 183
Dartmouth MA 184
Tumwater WA 191
Cherryvale KS 230
Salisbury MD 246
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
191
Fire Department
Looking ahead: Additional performance measurements the Fire Department may collect and
evaluate are as follows. Since performance measurements are meant to track progress toward a
goal, the list letters tie the below performance measurements to the above-listed departmental goals.
A. Ensure firefighter safety by developing strategies and implementing training programs.
Track number of training hours completed by staff.
Track number of OSHA compliance training hours.
B. Enhance public safety by minimizing the impact of fire, disaster, and hazardous conditions
by conducting fire safety inspections as required by the City Code and as recommended in
national fire protection standards.
Track number of fire responses.
Track number of Explosive Response Team responses.
Track number of fire safety inspections completed.
Track number of fire hazard surveys completed.
Track number of plans reviewed by the Fire Marshals’ Office for compliance and
safety.
D. Develop and deliver public education programs in response to risk assessments and
community-targeted educational needs.
Track number of public education events hosted or participated in.
Other: Track collection rate for collection of EMS transport fees.
Track total number of all responses by Fire Department personnel.
192
Fire Department
STAFFING SUMMARY BY POSITION : FISCAL YEAR 2013
Permanent Positions
Total FTE: 131
Fire - Uniformed:
Fire Chief .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Deputy Fire Chief ............................................................................................................................. 2
Fire Battalion Chief........................................................................................................................... 6
Fire Captain ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Fire Lieutenant ............................................................................................................................... 18
Firefighter 1/C ................................................................................................................................ 31
Firefighter I - III ............................................................................................................................... 61
Note: Firefighter positions (1/C and I-III) vary based on the firefighters’ level of qualification and
certification. Fire Marshals are included in these counts.
Fire - Civilian:
Fire Inspector ................................................................................................................................... 1
Administrative Office Associate ....................................................................................................... 1
Fire Apparatus Maintenance Specialist ........................................................................................... 1
Office Associate IV ........................................................................................................................... 1
Office Associate III ........................................................................................................................... 1
Office of Emergency Preparedness and Risk Management (EPRM):
Office Associate IV ........................................................................................................................... 1
Contractual and Temporary Positions
The Fire Department has various temporary and/or contractual positions. These positions consist of a
Public Information Officer/Quartermaster and a part-time mechanic. The Office of Emergency
Preparedness and Risk Management (EPRM) has an Emergency Management Planner and a Risk
Analyst*
*The Risk Analyst is a new position for FY 2013 (it will be contractual for the first half of the fiscal year and
will then be included in the City-wide conversion of certain contractual employees to permanent status).
193
Fire Department
Conversions:
Of these contractual or temporary positions, the following will be included in the January 1, 2013
conversion of contractual employees to permanent status (civil service or exempt):
Fire Department:
1. Public Information Officer and Quartermaster: Exempt Status
Office of Emergency Preparedness and Risk Management (EPRM)
1. Emergency Management Planner (to be retitled Deputy Director of EPRM): Civil Service
2. Risk Analyst: (Civil Service)
This will bring the total full-time equivalent count for this department to 134 half-way through the
fiscal year.
BUDGET SUMMARY
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel* $ 11,878,800 $ 12,450,660 $ 11,056,483 $ 12,114,500 $ 12,335,751 90.60%
Operating** 1,245,220 1,212,670 820,333 875,840 1,279,704 9.40%
Capital Outlay 417,510 13,190 - - - 0
Total $ 13,541,530 $ 13,676,520 $ 11,876,816 $ 12,990,340 $ 13,615,455 100%
% Change from Prior Year 1.00% -13.16% 9.38% 4.81%
* For FY 2013, personnel expenditures for departments or divisions under the General Fund do not reflect the expense of abolishing
furlough days. Instead the cost of furlough abolishment for General Fund departments w as calculated as a lump sum totaling
$662,773.67 for the fiscal year (2013).
** FY 2013 fleet replacement costs w ere calculated by department. Operating expenditures as presented in this summary table include
this department's or division's fleet replacement costs. In various other presentations in this document, fleet replacement costs are
reported separately.
*** The Office of Emergency Management, now the Office of Emergency Preparedness and Risk Management, w as under the Mayor's
Office in FY 2009 and FY 2010, but came under the Fire Department starting in FY 2011
194
Fire Department
Division: Office of Emergency Preparedness and Risk Management
Effective Fiscal Year 2013, the City expanded the responsibilities of the Office of Emergency
Management to include risk management. The office is now named the Office of Emergency
Preparedness and Risk Management (EPRM).
Fund Support: General Fund
Description:
Provides comprehensive emergency management by addressing all phases of emergency preparedness
across all hazards, working with many partners to manage resources in disasters. Evaluates, monitors
and improves regulations, procedures, and activities relating to the safety of City employees and the
protection of City-owned property.
Mission:
The City of Annapolis Office of Emergency Preparedness & Risk Management provides vision, direction,
and subject matter expertise in order to coordinate the City’s all hazards emergency preparedness,
mitigation, response and recovery efforts and develop an overall culture of safety.
Services:
• Maintains daily awareness and notification of weather events and other threats that could disrupt
normal operations in the City.
• Provides City leadership with timely information necessary to make vital decisions before and
during emergencies
• Initiates emergency operations during emergency events (to include the activation of the
Emergency Operations Center and the coordination of all resources)
• Creates and updates plans to facilitate readiness and response operations.
• Continually assesses and improves the City’s response capabilities, the condition of City
infrastructure and the readiness of staff and the public.
• Conducts City-wide exercises and training sessions to ensure the readiness of City personnel.
• Provides support to City departments by supporting planning activities and by distributing acquired
grant funds to cover shortfalls in departmental budgets.
• Conducts community outreach to inform residents and businesses on how to prepare for
emergencies.
• Establishes policies and procedures to ensure the safety of City employees.
• Establishes policies and procedures for the protection of City-owned property.
195
Fire Department
Division: Office of Emergency Preparedness and Risk Management
Services (continued):
• Ensures proper reporting of incidents, injury, damage, or loss.
• Examines reports of incidents, injury, damage or loss, and any resulting claims against the City, in
order to identify and find solutions to procedural or systemic issues.
• The Director of Emergency Preparedness and Risk Management, having been selected by the
Mayor and appointed by the Governor, serves along with senior staff as a liaison to the State of
Maryland and the National Guard.
Accomplishments:
In 2011, the Office of Emergency Management:
• Responded to 52 potential natural or man–made threats.
• Issued approximately 55 Emergency Management Alerts to City Departments.
• Activated the Emergency Operations Center and the Joint Information Center 6 times for events
including extreme heat, snow, Hurricane Irene, multiple days of heavy rain, and the earthquake.
• Prevented liability to the City of approximately hundreds of thousands of dollars by completing or
updating the following plans. These plans are required by state and federal authorities and there
are severe fines and penalties for failure to comply. Tremendous liability to the City has been
prevented by completing the following plans:
1. Emergency Operations Plan
2. Dam #135 Emergency Action Plan
3. Critical Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment
4. Hazard Mitigation Plan
5. Public Works Snow Emergency Response Plan
6. Code Red Heat Alert Plan
7. Extreme Cold Weather Sheltering Plan
8. Flood Plan
9. Interoperability of Communication Technologies Initiative
• In the past two years, OEM’s grant funds have saved the City $460,500 in personnel costs, $1.1
million in equipment costs, and $12,500 in training costs.
Goals & Objectives:
A. Continue to work closely with City Departments and the public to ensure preparedness for man-
made or natural hazards that have potential to impact the City.
B. Coordinate City operations with the Mayor, the City Manager and department directors in the
Emergency Operations Center in the event of an emergency.
C. Facilitate the restoration of normalcy in the aftermath of an emergency.
196
Fire Department
Division: Office of Emergency Preparedness and Risk Management
D. Assist in maintaining public safety and the integrity of infrastructure.
E. Request and manage diminishing Homeland Security-related grants for the City. Serve as an
advocate for funds on behalf of the City.
Provide critical first responder equipment, training, exercises, and emergency
management personnel at partially subsidized cost to the City.
F. Prevent liability to the City by continuing to ensure compliance with state and federally regulated
emergency preparedness plans.
Performance Measurements:
The Center for Performance Measurements (CPM) 101 Survey was completed by the City in October
2011. The CPM 101 survey measured inputs and outputs across City departments, services and
functions to perform analyses on the gathered data and compare our performance to that of other
jurisdictions nationwide.
The survey was completed using fiscal year 2011 data and the final CPM 101 Annual Data Report was
issued in August 2012. The final report is available upon request or it can be accessed online at:
http://www.ci.annapolis.md.us/Government/Reports/CPMReports2012.pdf
Fiscal year 2012 data will be submitted to the CPM in October 2012. The goal is to participate annually in
the survey so that trends in the City’s performance can be monitored and benchmarked, with adjustments
and budget decisions made according to performance. As the City becomes more accustomed to and
involved in the performance measurement process, the use of such metrics will have more influence on
budgeting practices. The process will begin during the fiscal year 2014 budget process, during which the
results of the fiscal year 2011 survey will begin to inform budgetary decisions.
Below is a compilation of the CPM questions which pertained to the Office of Emergency Preparedness
and Risk Management. The goal for fiscal year 2013 is that those CPM measurements which the City is
not currently monitoring will be introduced into each department’s infrastructure for a more complete
performance profile. In particular, the customer satisfaction questions which the City could not answer for
the fiscal year 2011 survey will be answered on the fiscal year 2012 survey. This is due to the City’s
participation in the National Citizen Survey which is purposefully coordinated with the CPM 101 Survey.
The survey was completed using fiscal year 2011 data and the final report was issued in August 2012.
The final report from the National Citizen Survey is available upon request or it can be accessed online at:
http://www.ci.annapolis.md.us/Government/Departments/Mayor/CityManager.aspx under “The National
Citizen Survey: Final Report.”
The CPM 101 questions/measurements which applied to the Office of Emergency Preparedness
and Risk Management are as follows:
Risk Management:
Total expenditures for property losses, premiums, and other risk management activities.
Total number of accidents involving police and law enforcement vehicles in the fiscal year.
Total number of worker’s compensation claims filed in FY 2011.
Number of “Excellent,” “Good,” “Fair,” “Poor,” or “Don’t Know” responses received from
internal risk management customer satisfaction surveys: No survey conducted, could not
answer.
197
Fire Department
Division: Office of Emergency Preparedness and Risk Management
As reported by the CPM in their final fiscal year 2011 report, the graphs on the following pages
reflect how the City’s risk management activities compared to other jurisdictions across
certain input and efficiency measures. The Final CPM Report details some additional data and
analyses.
198
Fire Department
Division: Office of Emergency Preparedness and Risk Management
Total Expenditures for Property Losses, Premiums, and Other Risk
Management Activities
Cherryvale KS $31,252
Granby CT $38,619
Lakeland TN $42,132
King William County VA $60,397
Newburgh NY $67,391
New Baden IL $71,666
Mahomet IL $72,664
Dedham MA $91,320
Mason MI $106,955 Mean: $ 503,252
Crestwood MO $111,366
Purcellville VA $112,850
Peters Township PA $113,249 Median: $ 264,163
Fox Point WI $121,652
O’Fallon MO $123,551
Goodlettsville TN $124,028
City: $ 782,200
Medway MA $124,146
Lake Mills WI $136,493
Baker City OR $166,747
Sahuarita AZ $171,512
Snellville GA $180,000
Georgetown MA $180,004
Noblesville IN $182,037
Rancho Cordova CA $185,100
Lunenburg MA $200,090
Greer SC $214,438
Weston MA $234,031
Blue Ash OH $242,864
Eau Claire WI $250,970
Show Low AZ $274,163
Belmont MA $290,000
Coventry CT $298,993
Hopkinton MA $325,000
Junction City KS $334,697
Ramsey MN $347,189
Accomack County VA $355,563
Dover NH $357,675
Monterey CA $403,592
Columbia TN $404,819
Manhattan KS $409,769
Shelton WA $417,241
Islamorada Islands FL $427,560
Salisbury MD $486,028
Rohnert Park CA $529,070
Fredericksburg VA $603,626
Lancaster County SC $653,728
Oshkosh WI $738,789
Dartmouth MA $754,178
ANNAPOLIS, MD $782,200
Algonquin IL $794,858
Ukiah CA $889,775
Sugar Land TX $915,781
Chula Vista CA $1,219,298
Windsor CT $1,364,873
Campbell County WY $1,898,300
Fort Lauderdale FL $2,657,670
Delray Beach FL $2,929,418
Greenwich CT $3,063,962
* Greenwich, CT provides services to the Board of Education
* Expenditures for Other Risk Management Activities include personnel costs for staff directly involved in risk management activities,
contractor/consultant expenditures, and supplies used for risk managment operations.
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
199
Fire Department
Division: Office of Emergency Preparedness and Risk Management
Number of Worker's Compensations Claims Filed per
Jurisdiction Full-Time Equivalent
Noblesville IN 0.01
Rancho Cordova CA 0.03
Campbell County WY 0.04
New Baden IL 0.04
Shelton WA 0.05
Lake Mills WI 0.05
Blue Ash OH 0.05 Mean: 0.14 claims
Ramsey MN 0.05
Granby CT 0.05
Greer SC 0.05 Median: 0.12 claims
Weston MA 0.06
Tumwater WA 0.07 City: 0.12 claims
King William County VA 0.08
Edina MN 0.08
Hopkinton MA 0.08
Algonquin IL 0.08
Belmont MA 0.09
Sugar Land TX 0.09
Snellville GA 0.09
Oshkosh WI 0.09
Eau Claire WI 0.09
Delray Beach FL 0.10
Mason MI 0.10
Manhattan KS 0.10
Crestwood MO 0.11
Fredericksburg VA 0.11
Libertyville IL 0.12
Chula Vista CA 0.12
Show Low AZ 0.12
Columbia TN 0.12
Dover NH 0.12
ANNAPOLIS, MD 0.12
Goodlettsville TN 0.13
Sahuarita AZ 0.13
Purcellville VA 0.13
Fort Lauderdale FL 0.13
O’Fallon MO 0.13
Mahomet IL 0.13
Baker City OR 0.14
Lakeland TN 0.14
Monterey CA 0.14
Newburgh NY 0.14
Islamorada Islands FL 0.15
Cherryvale KS 0.15
Ukiah CA 0.16
Lancaster County SC 0.17
Lunenburg MA 0.17
Rohnert Park CA 0.20
Salisbury MD 0.27
Coventry CT 0.28
Peters Township PA 0.28
Medway MA 0.29
Dartmouth MA 0.29
Windsor CT 0.30
Junction City KS 0.39
Greenwich CT 1.01
* Greenwich, CT provides services to the Board of Education.
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
200
Fire Department
Division: Office of Emergency Preparedness and Risk Management
Looking ahead: Additional performance measurements the Office of Emergency Preparedness and
Risk Management may collect and evaluate are as follows. Since performance measurements are
meant to track progress toward a goal, the list letters tie the below performance measurements to the
above-listed departmental goals.
A. Continue to work closely with City Departments and the public to ensure preparedness for
man- made or natural hazards that have potential to impact the City.
Track the number of training sessions conducted for pertinent City staff.
Track staff attendance rate at training sessions.
Track the number of community outreach activities that serve to inform the public.
Track the number of Emergency Management Alerts issued to City Departments
and/or the public (compare in relation to the number of threats which faced the
City).
D. Assist in maintaining public safety and the integrity of infrastructure.
Track the number of natural or man-made threats which are responded to.
Track activations of the Emergency Operations Center and the Joint Information
Center in relation to actual threats which face the City.
E. Request and manage diminishing Homeland Security-related grants for the City. Serve as
an advocate for funds on behalf of the City.
Track the amount of grant funds received through OEM efforts and the
consequential cost savings to the City.
F. Prevent liability to the City by continuing to ensure compliance with state and federally
regulated emergency preparedness plans.
Track percentage of mandated plans which are completed satisfactorily.
201
Department of Neighborhood & Environmental Programs
202
Department of Neighborhood & Environmental Programs
Fund Support: General Fund
Description:
The Department of Neighborhood and Environmental Programs (DNEP), the quality of life department, is
made up of two divisions – Code Enforcement and Environmental Programs. Code Enforcement is
responsible for licensing, permitting, and performing inspections related to all facets of code enforcement
including, but not limited to, construction, rental housing, property maintenance, zoning and construction
trades. Environmental Programs is responsible for the enhancement of the environment through projects
and programs including but not limited to, urban forestry, wastewater pretreatment, sediment and erosion
control, environmental stewardship and sustainability programs.
Mission:
To maintain and improve the neighborhoods and environment of the City through innovative, consistent
and effective, environmental programs and code enforcement
Services:
• Permits and inspections of all construction of a cost of $500 or higher to promote safety and code
compliance.
• License and inspect all rental housing to ensure safe and sanitary living conditions.
• License all contractors and related construction trades doing business in the City.
• Inspect and enforce zoning regulations as set forth in the City Code.
• Permits, inspects and educates the waste water pretreatment of certain commercial
establishments.
• Regulates the sediment and erosion control program.
• Educates citizens about NPDESII and sediment and erosion control.
• Maintains and enhances the City’s urban forest.
• Promotes the sustainable Annapolis program.
• Regulates private solid waste collection.
Goals & Objectives:
Operating Objectives:
A. Maintaining a high quality of life for citizens via inspection and code enforcement functions which
promote the cleanliness of the City’s neighborhoods and the safety and quality of the built
environment.
B. Preserve and improve the natural environment through effective environmental programs.
203
Department of Neighborhood & Environmental Programs
Specific Goals:
C. Respond to 100% of code violation cases (housing code, nuisance building code, zoning code,
dangerous building code) within three business days.
Response is defined as (a) investigation and subsequent issuance of a compliance notice,
or (b) a citation for repeat violations or warranted cases, or (c) recording and closing a case
when no further enforcement is needed.
D. Initiate enforcement action on 100% of abandoned and/or boarded residential properties in FY13.
Enforcement action is defined as issuance of compliance notices, citations and court cases
when warranted.
E. Conduct initial DNEP plan review of 80% of permits within designated timeframes.
F. Increase the number of properties included in the stormwater credit fee program by 100% in FY13.
G. Respond to and initiate response to 100% of hazard trees under DNEP responsibility within 24
hours of report or discovery.
H. Inspect 100% of construction sites with sediment and erosion control permits.
I. Issue Notices of Violation to 100% of violators of discharge limits.
J. Conduct inspections and/or education visits to 100% of oil and grease violators with exceedances
over 400 mg/L.
K. Implement or propose to City Council 20% of budget neutral programs included in the Community
Action Plan.
L. Recertify 70% of expiring Certified Environmental Stewards expiring in FY13.
M. Increase Certified Environmental Stewards by 10% in FY13.
Performance Measurements:
The Center for Performance Measurements (CPM) 101 Survey was completed by the City in October
2011. The CPM 101 survey measured inputs and outputs across City departments, services and
functions to perform analyses on the gathered data and compare our performance to that of other
jurisdictions nationwide.
The survey was completed using fiscal year 2011 data and the final CPM 101 Annual Data Report was
issued in August 2012. The final report is available upon request or it can be accessed online at:
http://www.ci.annapolis.md.us/Government/Reports/CPMReports2012.pdf
Fiscal year 2012 data will be submitted to the CPM in October 2012. The goal is to participate annually in
the survey so that trends in the City’s performance can be monitored and benchmarked, with adjustments
and budget decisions made according to performance. As the City becomes more accustomed to and
involved in the performance measurement process, the use of such metrics will have more influence on
budgeting practices. The process will begin during the fiscal year 2014 budget process, during which the
results of the fiscal year 2011 survey will begin to inform budgetary decisions.
Below is a compilation of the CPM questions which pertained to the Department of Neighborhood and
Environmental Programs. The goal for fiscal year 2013 is that those CPM measurements which the City
is not currently monitoring will be introduced into each department’s infrastructure for a more complete
performance profile. In particular, the customer satisfaction questions which the City could not answer for
204
Department of Neighborhood & Environmental Programs
the fiscal year 2011 survey will be answered on the fiscal year 2012 survey. This is due to the City’s
participation in the National Citizen Survey which is purposefully coordinated with the CPM 101 Survey.
The survey was completed using fiscal year 2011 data and the final report was issued in August 2012.
The final report from the National Citizen Survey is available upon request or it can be accessed online at:
http://www.ci.annapolis.md.us/Government/Departments/Mayor/CityManager.aspx under “The National
Citizen Survey: Final Report.”
The CPM 101 questions/measurements which applied to the Department of Neighborhood and
Environmental Programs are as follows:
Code Enforcement:
Total number of code violations cases (to include all violations of housing codes, nuisance
building codes, zoning codes, dangerous building codes, etc.)
Total number of unresolved nuisance code violation cases on the books on the last day of
the fiscal year.
Number of nuisance code violations resolved through voluntary compliance.
Number of nuisance code violations resolved through forced compliance: Could not
answer, method of compliance not currently indicated when a case is resolved.
Number of abandoned and/or vacant residential properties in the jurisdiction: Could not
answer pursuant to CPM definition; only the number of foreclosures was recorded by
DNEP at the time.
Number of “Not a Problem,” “Minor Problem,” “Moderate Problem,” “Major Problem,” or
“Don’t Know” responses were received in response to a citizen satisfaction survey which
asked: “To what degree, if at all, are run down buildings, wed lots or junk vehicles a
problem in your city or county?”: No survey conducted, could not answer.
The following code enforcement questions were answered by collecting data from both the
Department of Neighborhood and Environmental Programs and the Department of Planning and
Zoning.
Total number of hours paid to code enforcement staff.
Total expenditures for code enforcement: Could not answer in accordance with CPM
criteria. Expenditures dedicated solely to code enforcement are not delineated separately
from other DNEP expenditures.
Permits Services:
Number of building permits issued.
Total valuation of the residential and commercial building permits issued.
Average processing time, in calendar days, for residential building permits.
The following permitting questions were answered by a collecting data from both the Department of
Neighborhood and Environmental Programs and the Department of Planning and Zoning.
Total number of hours paid to permitting services staff.
Total expenditures for permitting services: Could not answer in accordance with CPM
criteria. Expenditures dedicated solely to permitting services are not delineated separately
from other DNEP expenditures.
Number of “Excellent,” “Good,” “Fair,” “Poor,” or “Don’t Know” responses received from
Land Use, Planning and Zoning customer satisfaction surveys: No survey conducted, could
not answer.
As reported by the CPM in their final fiscal year 2011 report, the graphs on the following pages
reflect how the City’s Department of Neighborhood and Environmental Programs compared to
other jurisdictions across certain input and efficiency measures. The Final CPM Report
details some additional data and analyses.
205
Department of Neighborhood & Environmental Programs
CODE ENFORCEMENT MEASUREMENTS:
Code Violation Cases per 1,000 Population
Campbell County WY 0
Dartmouth MA 0
Georgetown MA 1
Tumwater WA 2
Sahuarita AZ 2
King William County VA 2
Granby CT 2
Andover MA 3 Mean: 36.1 cases
Medway MA 3
Mahomet IL 5 Median: 19.8 cases
Weston MA 5
Chula Vista CA 5 City: 53 cases
Belmont MA 5
Noblesville IN 6
Coventry CT 6
Libertyville IL 7
Peters Township PA 7
Windsor CT 8
Wauwatosa WI 8
Lancaster County SC 8
New Baden IL 10
Islamorada Islands FL 11
Dover NH 12
Show Low AZ 17
Baker City OR 19
Fredericksburg VA 20
O’Fallon MO 20
Louisville Metro Govt KY 20
Crestwood MO 20
Monterey CA 22
Blue Ash OH 23
Snellville GA 24
Eau Claire WI 26
Fox Point WI 27
Mason MI 27
Ukiah CA 29
Sugar Land TX 31
Oshkosh WI 33
Shelton WA 42
Rancho Cordova CA 42
Ramsey MN 44
Manhattan KS 44
Cherryvale KS 50
New Braunfels TX 50
Algonquin IL 53
ANNAPOLIS, MD 53
Columbia TN 64
Greer SC 84
Newburgh NY 92
Fort Lauderdale FL 123
Delray Beach FL 196
Airway Heights WA 206
Salisbury MD 292
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
206
Department of Neighborhood & Environmental Programs
Unresolved Nuisance Code Violation Cases on the Books
(at the End of the Fiscal Year)
Columbia TN 0
Dover NH 0
Georgetown MA 0
Islamorada Islands FL 0
New Baden IL 0
Cherryvale KS 1 Mean: 48 cases
Mahomet IL 1
Sahuarita AZ 1 City: 9 cases
Weston MA 1
Andover MA 2
Campbell County WY 2
Dartmouth MA 2
Fox Point WI 2
Medway MA 2
Peters Township PA 2
Salisbury MD 2
Blue Ash OH 3
Coventry CT 5
Eau Claire WI 5
Granby CT 5
Windsor CT 5
Baker City OR 8
Libertyville IL 8
ANNAPOLIS, MD 9
Crestwood MO 9
Fredericksburg VA 11
King William County VA 13
Belmont MA 17
Noblesville IN 17
Tumwater WA 20
Shelton WA 27
Greenwich CT 30
Ramsey MN 30
Airway Heights WA 32
Lancaster County SC 33
Delray Beach FL 35
Snellville GA 36
Mason MI 40
Monterey CA 46
Oshkosh WI 46
Newburgh NY 62
Manhattan KS 65
Ukiah CA 65
Fort Lauderdale FL 69
O’Fallon MO 78
New Braunfels TX 79
Greer SC 92
Wauwatosa WI 119
Sugar Land TX 433
Chula Vista CA 851
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
207
Department of Neighborhood & Environmental Programs
Code Enforcement Hours Paid per Capita
Dartmouth MA 0.027
Libertyville IL 0.038
Noblesville IN 0.040
Medway MA 0.041
Ukiah CA 0.069
Ramsey MN 0.069
Sugar Land TX 0.074
Mean: 0.241 hours
Windsor CT 0.076
Lunenburg MA 0.082
City: 0.684 hours
New Braunfels TX 0.085
Rolla MO 0.092
Snellville GA 0.094
Eau Claire WI 0.106
Mason MI 0.107
Mahomet IL 0.107
Greer SC 0.117
O’Fallon MO 0.121
Shelton WA 0.127
King William County VA 0.132
Fox Point WI 0.142
Granby CT 0.161
Rancho Cordova CA 0.162
Blue Ash OH 0.172
Crestwood MO 0.175
Algonquin IL 0.178
Fredericksburg VA 0.181
Chula Vista CA 0.197
Georgetown MA 0.225
Andover MA 0.228
Lancaster County SC 0.229
Delray Beach FL 0.239
Airway Heights WA 0.301
Louisville Metro Govt KY 0.321
Lakeland TN 0.330
Dover NH 0.406
Islamorada Islands FL 0.407
Dedham MA 0.412
Newburgh NY 0.415
Coventry CT 0.533
Fort Lauderdale FL 0.623
Salisbury MD 0.629
ANNAPOLIS, MD 0.684
Weston MA 1.419
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
208
Department of Neighborhood & Environmental Programs
PERMITTING MEASUREMENTS
Total Building Permits Issued per Capita
(Residential and Commercial Permits)
Cherryvale KS 0.004
Salisbury MD 0.005
Snellville GA 0.008
Manhattan KS 0.009
Columbia TN 0.011
Goodlettsville TN 0.011
Dover NH 0.012
Chula Vista CA 0.012
Rohnert Park CA 0.014 Mean: 0.048 permits
Lakeland TN 0.015
Peters Township PA 0.016
New Baden IL 0.019
City: 0.120 permits
Monterey CA 0.019
Crestwood MO 0.020
Airway Heights WA 0.020
Rolla MO 0.020
Mahomet IL 0.020
Baker City OR 0.021
Mason MI 0.021
Campbell County WY 0.022
Accomack County VA 0.024
Newburgh NY 0.026
Rancho Cordova CA 0.027
Show Low AZ 0.028
Oshkosh WI 0.029
Lunenburg MA 0.029
Ukiah CA 0.029
Sahuarita AZ 0.029
Greenwich CT 0.031
King William County VA 0.033
Medway MA 0.036
Tumwater WA 0.037
O’Fallon MO 0.041
Noblesville IN 0.041
Belmont MA 0.041
Andover MA 0.041
Dedham MA 0.043
Junction City KS 0.044
Eau Claire WI 0.048
Shelton WA 0.049
Lake Mills WI 0.050
Blue Ash OH 0.051
Lancaster County SC 0.052
Wauwatosa WI 0.054
Fox Point WI 0.054
Windsor CT 0.058
Dartmouth MA 0.060
Algonquin IL 0.061
Fredericksburg VA 0.067
Granby CT 0.068
Coventry CT 0.069
Georgetown MA 0.076
Greer SC 0.076
Libertyville IL 0.081
Delray Beach FL 0.084
Ramsey MN 0.102
Sugar Land TX 0.102
Hopkinton MA 0.113
ANNAPOLIS, MD 0.120
Fort Lauderdale FL 0.141
Edina MN 0.144
Weston MA 0.144
Islamorada Islands FL 0.164
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
209
Department of Neighborhood & Environmental Programs
Valuation of All Building Permits Issued per Capita
(Residential and Commercial Permits)
Georgetown MA $92
Newburgh NY $157
Cherryvale KS $203
Rohnert Park CA $290
New Baden IL $355
Goodlettsville TN $444 Mean: $ 1,653
Salisbury MD $557
Algonquin IL $562
Ukiah CA $587 City: $ 1,636
King William County VA $589
Granby CT $610
Columbia TN $611
Lancaster County SC $665
Crestwood MO $666
Accomack County VA $710
Lake Mills WI $720
O’Fallon MO $750
Chula Vista CA $765
Oshkosh WI $791
Ramsey MN $798
Airway Heights WA $890
Rolla MO $977
Coventry CT $1,024
Greer SC $1,035
Monterey CA $1,047
Lunenburg MA $1,096
Baker City OR $1,097
Fort Lauderdale FL $1,162
Wauwatosa WI $1,224
Fox Point WI $1,244
Rancho Cordova CA $1,265
Shelton WA $1,275
Dartmouth MA $1,425
Junction City KS $1,433
Mahomet IL $1,511
Snellville GA $1,542
Dover NH $1,582
Libertyville IL $1,618
ANNAPOLIS, MD $1,636
Windsor CT $1,678
Medway MA $1,700
Belmont MA $1,744
Sahuarita AZ $1,910
Dedham MA $1,933
Andover MA $2,186
Mason MI $2,186
Show Low AZ $2,208
Manhattan KS $2,280
Noblesville IN $2,527
Delray Beach FL $2,570
Peters Township PA $2,618
Eau Claire WI $2,668
Islamorada Islands FL $2,731
Tumwater WA $2,866
Hopkinton MA $2,928
Blue Ash OH $3,096
Edina MN $3,178
Fredericksburg VA $3,330
New Braunfels TX $3,617
Sugar Land TX $4,100
Greenwich CT $5,023
Weston MA $8,379
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
210
Department of Neighborhood & Environmental Programs
Permits Issued per Permitting Employee (Full-Time Equivalent)
Lakeland TN 10
Monterey CA 66
Baker City OR 67
Airway Heights WA 79
Show Low AZ 83
Snellville GA 112
Newburgh NY 131 Mean: 510 permits
Greenwich CT 142
Lunenburg MA 145 Median: 310 permits
Rolla MO 156
Ukiah CA 169 City: 680 permits
Salisbury MD 175
Noblesville IN 177
Dover NH 183
Islamorada Islands FL 185
Oshkosh WI 200
Rancho Cordova CA 212
Rohnert Park CA 245
Accomack County VA 258
Hopkinton MA 273
Andover MA 280
Dedham MA 280
Mahomet IL 294
Fox Point WI 310
Sahuarita AZ 310
Libertyville IL 313
Medway MA 326
Georgetown MA 383
Windsor CT 384
Coventry CT 393
Weston MA 407
O’Fallon MO 409
Shelton WA 410
Fort Lauderdale FL 475
Eau Claire WI 481
Delray Beach FL 582
Edina MN 675
ANNAPOLIS, MD 680
Dartmouth MA 816
King William County VA 863
Mason MI 875
Granby CT 882
Algonquin IL 936
Fredericksburg VA 1,197
Ramsey MN 1,201
Sugar Land TX 1,726
Greer SC 1,738
Lancaster County SC 2,109
Crestwood MO 2,172
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
211
Department of Neighborhood & Environmental Programs
Average processing time, in calendar days, for
residential building permits
Cherryvale KS 1
Goodlettsville TN 1
Lake Mills WI 1
Oshkosh WI 1
Rohnert Park CA 1
Rolla MO 1
Sahuarita AZ 1
Mean: 10 days
Salisbury MD 1
Windsor CT 1 City: 19 days
Crestwood MO 2
Fox Point WI 2
Georgetown MA 2
Greer SC 2
Junction City KS 2
O’Fallon MO 2
Accomack County VA 3
Andover MA 3
Dedham MA 3
Granby CT 3
Mahomet IL 3
Noblesville IN 3
Rancho Cordova CA 3
Eau Claire WI 4
Mason MI 4
Weston MA 4
Blue Ash OH 5
King William County VA 5
Lancaster County SC 5
Medway MA 5
New Braunfels TX 5
Ramsey MN 5
Sugar Land TX 5
Edina MN 6
Airway Heights WA 7
Libertyville IL 7
New Baden IL 7
Snellville GA 7
Manhattan KS 8
Fredericksburg VA 9
Hopkinton MA 9
Baker City OR 10
Campbell County WY 10
Coventry CT 10
Dartmouth MA 10
Peters Township PA 10
Ukiah CA 10
Islamorada Islands FL 14
Newburgh NY 14
Shelton WA 14
Dover NH 17
ANNAPOLIS, MD 19
Delray Beach FL 21
Tumwater WA 24
Monterey CA 30
Fort Lauderdale FL 54
Chula Vista CA 159
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
212
Department of Neighborhood & Environmental Programs
Looking ahead: Additional performance measurements the Department of Neighborhood and
Environmental Programs may collect and evaluate are as follows. Since performance measurements
are meant to track progress toward a goal, the list letters tie the below performance measurements to
the above-listed departmental goals.
C. Respond to 100% of code violation cases (housing code, nuisance building code, zoning
code, dangerous building code) within three business days.
Track response time (in business days) for code violation cases.
Track percentage of cases responded to within three business days.
D. Initiate enforcement action on 100% of abandoned and/or boarded residential properties.
Track number of abandoned or boarded residential properties
Track percentage of such properties on which enforcement action has been
initiated.
E. Conduct initial DNEP plan review of 80% of permits within designated timeframes.
Track percentage of permits reviewed within designated timeframes.
F. Increase the number of properties included in the stormwater credit fee program by 100%.
Track the number of properties included in the stormwater credit fee program.
G. Respond to and initiate response to 100% of hazard trees under DNEP responsibility within
24 hours of report or discovery.
Track number of hazard trees reported or discovered.
Track response time (in hours) to each hazard tree reported or discovered.
Track percentage of responses which occur in 24 hours or less of report or
discovery.
H. Inspect 100% of construction sites with sediment and erosion control permits.
Track number of construction sites with sediment and erosion control permits
Track percentage of such sites which are inspected.
I. Issue Notices of Violation to 100% of violators of discharge limits.
Track number of discharge-limit violators.
Track percentage of discharge-limit violators who are issued Notices of Violation.
J. Conduct inspections and/or education visits to 100% of oil and grease violators with
exceedances over 400 mg/L.
Track number of oil and grease violators with exceedances over 400mg/L.
Track percentage of such violators who inspected or given education visits.
K. Implement or propose to City Council 20% of budget-neutral programs included in the
Community Action Plan.
Track number of budget-neutral programs from the Community Action Plan which
are implemented.
Track number of budget-neutral programs from the Community Action Plan which
are proposed to City Council.
Track percentage of program implementation and program proposal based on
number of budget-neutral programs in the Community Action Plan.
L. Recertify 70% of expiring Certified Environmental Stewards expiring in FY13.
Track number of expiring Stewards.
Track number of expiring Stewards who are recertified.
M. Increase Certified Environmental Stewards by 10% in FY13.
Track number of Certified Stewards.
213
Department of Neighborhood & Environmental Programs
STAFFING SUMMARY BY POSITION : FISCAL YEAR 2013
Permanent Positions
Total FTE: 23
Director .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
Assistant to the Director ................................................................................................................................ 1
Administrative Office Associate ................................................................................................................... 1
Chief Code Enforcement ............................................................................................................................... 1
Chief Environmental Programs ..................................................................................................................... 1
Deputy Property Maintenance Inspector * .................................................................................................... 1
Senior Housing Inspector .............................................................................................................................. 1
Building Inspector .......................................................................................................................................... 2
Plumbing/Utility Inspector.............................................................................................................................. 1
Combination Inspector .................................................................................................................................. 1
Electrical Inspector ........................................................................................................................................ 1
Housing Inspector ......................................................................................................................................... 2
Permits Associate ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Life Safety/Mechanical Inspector .................................................................................................................. 1
Architectural Plans Reviewer ........................................................................................................................ 1
Environmental Program Coordinator ............................................................................................................ 1
Environmentalist ............................................................................................................................................ 1
Zoning Enforcement Officer .......................................................................................................................... 1
Permits Administrator .................................................................................................................................... 1
Environmental Compliance Inspector ........................................................................................................... 1
Stormwater Engineer * .................................................................................................................................. 1
*New position for FY 2013
Contractual and Temporary Positions
The Department of Neighborhood and Environmental Programs has various temporary and/or contractual
positions. The current funded positions consist of Temporary Inspectors and a General Clerical position.
Conversions:
Of these contractual or temporary positions, the following will be included in the January 1, 2013
conversion of contractual employees to permanent status (civil service or exempt):
1. Office Associate III: Civil Service
This will bring the total full-time equivalent count for this department to 24 half-way through the
fiscal year.
214
Department of Neighborhood & Environmental Programs
BUDGET SUMMARY
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel* $ 2,013,990 $ 2,167,670 $ 2,115,521 $ 2,087,390 $ 2,269,566 92.41%
Operating** 311,170 209,170 1,060,806 166,170 186,325 7.59%
Total $ 2,325,160 $ 2,376,840 $ 3,176,327 $ 2,253,560 $ 2,455,891 100%
% Change from Prior Year 2.22% 33.64% -29.05% 8.98%
* For FY 2013, personnel expenditures for departments or divisions under the General Fund do not reflect the expense of abolishing
furlough days. Instead the cost of furlough abolishment for General Fund departments w as calculated as a lump sum totaling
$662,773.67 for the fiscal year (2013).
215
Department of Public Works
216
Department of Public Works
Fund Support: Various Funds (General and Enterprise)
Description:
The Public Works Department provides services for the benefit, health, safety and welfare of the citizens
of Annapolis, and includes Administration; the Bureau of Engineering and Construction; Public Works
Services which includes Streets, Snow and Ice Removal, Traffic Control and Maintenance, Solid Waste,
and Fleet Maintenance Center; Public Works Utilities, which includes Wastewater Collection, Water
Distribution, and Stormwater Management; and the Water Supply and Treatment Facility. The Annapolis
Water Reclamation Facility is operated by Anne Arundel County, but is funded in partnership with the City
of Annapolis.
Mission:
To create a safe, clean and inviting urban living and working environment within the City by planning and
providing for systems, services, and skilled employees necessary to sustain this mission.
Services:
• Manage the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
• Operate and/or oversee the City’s solid waste system, including refuse, recycling, yard waste, and
bulky waste collection and disposal.
• Operate and maintain the water treatment plant, water distribution system, sewer collection system
and storm drain systems.
• Maintain the City’s transportation infrastructure, including streets, sidewalks, bike paths, signs,
traffic signals, and street lights.
• Manage the City-owned buildings and facilities.
Goals & Objectives:
Operating Objective: Operate the Department of Public Works in a manner that provides the residents of
Annapolis with an outstanding level of customer service by improving policies, procedures and
relationships; creating a safe work environment; enhancing our employees’ knowledge, skills and abilities;
and advancing the quality of our tools and equipment.
Goals:
A. Improve program and project management of the Capital Improvement Program.
B. Fully implement the results of the managed competition for the solid waste services.
C. Move ahead with the development of new water treatment capacity for the City.
D. Institute a planned, cost-effective approach for the recapitalization of the water distribution system
and sewer collection system.
E. Develop an efficient and cost-effective plan for recapitalizing the storm drain system in a manner
that compliments the natural environment.
217
Department of Public Works
F. Maintain a safe, high level-of-service transportation infrastructure system that supports vehicles,
cyclists and pedestrians.
G. Complete the study and development of a Facilities Asset Management Program.
Performance Measurements:
The Center for Performance Measurements (CPM) 101 Survey was completed by the City in October
2011. The CPM 101 survey measured inputs and outputs across City departments, services and
functions to perform analyses on the gathered data and compare our performance to that of other
jurisdictions nationwide.
The survey was completed using fiscal year 2011 data and the final CPM 101 Annual Data Report was
issued in August 2012. The final report is available upon request or it can be accessed online at:
http://www.ci.annapolis.md.us/Government/Reports/CPMReports2012.pdf
Fiscal year 2012 data will be submitted to the CPM in October 2012. The goal is to participate annually in
the survey so that trends in the City’s performance can be monitored and benchmarked, with adjustments
and budget decisions made according to performance. As the City becomes more accustomed to and
involved in the performance measurement process, the use of such metrics will have more influence on
budgeting practices. The process will begin during the fiscal year 2014 budget process, during which the
results of the fiscal year 2011 survey will begin to inform budgetary decisions.
Below is a compilation of the CPM questions which pertained to the Department of Public Works. The
goal for fiscal year 2013 is that those CPM measurements which the City is not currently monitoring will
be introduced into each department’s infrastructure for a more complete performance profile. In
particular, the customer satisfaction questions which the City could not answer for the fiscal year 2011
survey will be answered on the fiscal year 2012 survey. This is due to the City’s participation in the
National Citizen Survey which is purposefully coordinated with the CPM 101 Survey. The survey was
completed using fiscal year 2011 data and the final report was issued in August 2012. The final report
from the National Citizen Survey is available upon request or it can be accessed online at:
http://www.ci.annapolis.md.us/Government/Departments/Mayor/CityManager.aspx under “The National
Citizen Survey: Final Report.”
The CPM 101 questions/measurements which applied to the Department of Public Works are as
follows:
Facilities Management:
Total square footage of City-owned facilities.
Total expenditures for custodial services for the City-owned facilities.
Number of Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, or Don’t Know responses received from facilities
management customer satisfaction surveys: No survey conducted, could not answer.
Fleet Management:
The following Fleet Management questions were answered by collecting data from the
Public Works Department, the Planning and Zoning Department, the Police Department and
the Fire Department.
Total number of Police and Law Enforcement Vehicles.
Total number of ALL Vehicles and Heavy Equipment (including Police and Law
Enforcement).
Total vehicle maintenance expenditures for ALL Vehicles and Heavy Equipment (including
Police and Law Enforcement): Could not answer.
Number of Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, or Don’t Know responses received from fleet
maintenance customer satisfaction surveys: No survey conducted, could not answer.
218
Department of Public Works
Highways and Roads:
Total number of paved lane miles
Total number of paved lane miles assessed
Total number of paved lane miles rated satisfactory of better: Could not answer.
Total expenditures for the rehabilitation of paved lane miles.
Average number of working days to repair a pothole: Could not answer
Number of Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, or Don’t Know responses received from street
repair customer satisfaction surveys: No survey conducted, could not answer.
Solid Waste:
Total number of residential refuse collection accounts.
Total number of residential recycling collection accounts.
Total number of tons of refuse collected from residential accounts.
Total number of tons of recyclable material collected from residential accounts.
Total expenditures for residential refuse collection.
Total expenditures for residential recycling collection.
Number of Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, or Don’t Know responses received from garbage
collection customer satisfaction surveys: No survey conducted, could not answer.
Number of Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, or Don’t Know responses received from recycling
collection customer satisfaction surveys: No survey conducted, could not answer.
The performance results specific to individual divisions of the Department of Public Works are
presented in the following sections as part of each division’s summary.
Looking ahead: Additional performance measurements the Department of Public Works may collect
and evaluate are as follows. Since performance measurements are meant to track progress toward a
goal, the list letters tie the below performance measurements to the above-listed departmental goals.
A. Mission Statement (a): Create a safe, clean and inviting urban living and working
environment within the City.
Facilities:
Track percentage of City facilities with an updated condition assessment.
Track percentage of facilities with preventative maintenance programs established.
Sewer:
Track number of sanitary sewer overflows.
Track number of sanitary sewer spills reaching public waters.
Track miles of sewer mains replaced or rehabilitated.
Track miles of sewer mains cleaned.
Solid Waster/Refuse:
Track diversion rate of recycled materials from disposal.
Stormwater:
Track percentage of storm drains and structures cleaned monthly.
Streets:
Track percentage of lane miles with remaining service life of 10 years or more.
Track percentage of street miles resurfaced
Track percentage of streets swept each month
219
Department of Public Works
Water Treatment:
Track number of primary Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) violations.
Track percentage of planned Water Treatment Plant preventive maintenance
activities performed.
B. Mission Statement (b): Create a safe work environment for employees and enhance
employees’ knowledge, skills and abilities.
Track number of recordable injuries.
Track number of preventable vehicle accidents.
Track percentage of employees provided in-service training.
C. Operating Objective: Operate the Department of Public Works in a manner that provides
the residents of Annapolis an outstanding level of customer service.
Facilities:
Track average time to respond to both emergency and routine requests.
Solid Waste/Refuse:
Track number of complaints received.
Streets:
Track average time to repair a pothole.
Track average time to investigate sidewalk hazard and average time to make
permanent repairs to sidewalk hazards.
Water Distribution:
Track average time to investigate and repair service leaks.
Track average time to respond to water main breaks.
Track average number of days to investigate and respond to customer requests.
All:
Track customer satisfaction through survey. Correlate satisfaction to the results of
the above measures.
D. Goal A: Improve program and project management of the Capital Improvement Program.
Track percentage of CIP projects completed within 10% of their baseline schedule.
Track percentage of CIP projects for which soft costs are less than 15%.
220
Department of Public Works
STAFFING SUMMARY BY POSITION : FISCAL YEAR 2013
Permanent Positions
Total FTE: 106
Administration:
Director of Public Works .................................................................................................................. 1
Assistant to Public Works Director ................................................................................................... 1
Administrative Office Associate ....................................................................................................... 1
Accounting Associate II .................................................................................................................... 1
Office Associate IV .......................................................................................................................... 1
Public Works Analyst ...................................................................................................................... 1
Bureau of Engineering and Construction:
Civil Engineer II ................................................................................................................................ 5
Public Works Inspector .................................................................................................................... 1
Computer Draftsperson ................................................................................................................... 1
Streets:
Superintendent - Public Works Services.......................................................................................... 1
Public Works Supervisor .................................................................................................................. 1
Mason I............................................................................................................................................. 1
Mason II ........................................................................................................................................... 1
Equipment Operator III ..................................................................................................................... 2
Equipment Operator II ...................................................................................................................... 3
Equipment Operator I ..................................................................................................................... 11
Office Associate IV ........................................................................................................................... 1
Public Works Dispatcher .................................................................................................................. 1
Public Works Maintenance Worker I ................................................................................................ 4
Snow and Ice Removal:
All overtime
Traffic Control and Maintenance:
Sign Technician ................................................................................................................................ 1
Traffic Technician I ........................................................................................................................... 1
Public Works Maintenance Worker II ............................................................................................... 1
Fleet Maintenance Center:
Garage Supervisor ........................................................................................................................... 1
Automotive Technician ..................................................................................................................... 3
Custodian ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Facilities / General Government Buildings:
Senior Maintenance Technician ....................................................................................................... 1
221
Department of Public Works
Water Supply and Treatment Facility:
Water Plant Superintendent ............................................................................................................. 1
Assistant Water Plant Superintendent ............................................................................................. 1
Water Plant Operator IV ................................................................................................................... 5
Utilities Mechanic II .......................................................................................................................... 2
Water Plant Technician III ................................................................................................................. 1
Instrumentation Technician .............................................................................................................. 1
Equipment Operator II ...................................................................................................................... 1
PW Maintenance Worker I ............................................................................................................... 1
Water Distribution:
Superintendent - Public Works Utilities ............................................................................................ 1
Utility Supervisor .............................................................................................................................. 2
Utility Mechanic III ............................................................................................................................ 1
Underground Utility Locator I ........................................................................................................... 1
Office Associate IV ........................................................................................................................... 1
Meter Technician II........................................................................................................................... 2
Meter Technician I............................................................................................................................ 1
Equipment Operator I ....................................................................................................................... 2
Equipment Operator II ...................................................................................................................... 2
Equipment Operator III ..................................................................................................................... 1
Wastewater Collection:
Utility Supervisor .............................................................................................................................. 1
Utility Mechanic III ............................................................................................................................ 1
Utility Mechanic II ............................................................................................................................. 1
Equipment Operator II ...................................................................................................................... 1
Equipment Operator I ....................................................................................................................... 2
Stormwater Management:
Equipment Operator III ..................................................................................................................... 1
Equipment Operator I ....................................................................................................................... 1
PW Maintenance Worker I ............................................................................................................... 1
Solid Waste:
Public Works Supervisor .................................................................................................................. 2
Public Works Maintenance Worker I ................................................................................................ 3
Public Works Maintenance Worker II ............................................................................................... 2
Equipment Operator II ...................................................................................................................... 8
Equipment Operator I ....................................................................................................................... 7
222
Department of Public Works
Contractual and Temporary Positions
The Public Works Department has various temporary and/or contractual positions. These positions
consist of temporary laborers, a contractual facilities engineer, and a contractual facilities manager.
Conversions:
Of these contractual or temporary positions, the following will be included in the January 1, 2013
conversion of contractual employees to permanent status (civil service or exempt):
General Government Buildings:
1. Facilities Maintenance Supervisor: Civil Service
2. Facilities Maintenance Engineer II: Civil Service
This will bring the total full-time equivalent count for this department to 108 half-way through the
fiscal year.
223
Department of Public Works
BUDGET SUMMARY: ALL DIVISIONS
General Fund Divisions:
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Administration* $ 603,900 $ 605,270 $ 612,288 $ 695,880 $ 833,775 12.00%
Engineering & Construction 1,000,550 1,115,160 752,906 778,710 837,925 12.06%
Streets 2,930,180 2,913,370 2,354,445 2,719,390 2,839,919 40.86%
Snow & Ice 113,990 849,790 125,050 96,700 88,150 1.27%
Traffic Control & Maint'nce 259,230 253,240 201,757 326,700 281,264 4.05%
Fleet Maintenance 529,500 548,000 428,062 392,670 539,471 7.76%
General Gov't Buildings 1,612,235 1,961,330 1,412,458 1,466,340 1,529,994 22.01%
Total $ 7,049,585 $ 8,246,160 $ 5,886,966 $ 6,476,390 $ 6,950,499 100%
% Change from Prior Year 16.97% -28.61% 10.01% 7.32%
* All FY13 Fleet Replacement Program costs for the Public Works General Fund divisions are included in the adopted operating expenses of
the Administration Division.
** FY 2013 personnel expenditures for departments or divisions under the General Fund do not reflect the expense of abolishing furlough
days. Instead the cost of furlough abolishment for General Fund departments w as calculated as a lump sum totaling $662,773.67 for the
fiscal year (2013).
*** Non-allocated expenses are not listed here as they charged to the General Fund collectively (as opposed to per department/division).
224
Department of Public Works
Enterprise Divisions:
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Water Fund* $ 3,227,830 $ 3,269,400 $ 4,966,776 $ 3,434,860 $ 3,808,626 19.74%
Wastewater Fund* 2,286,770 4,495,000 7,330,977 4,076,890 4,236,537 21.95%
Market House 698,610 321,680 171,670 10,000 136,700 0.71%
Stormwater Management 271,880 330,350 595,487 269,850 280,080 1.45%
Solid Waste* 2,334,070 2,355,650 3,269,154 2,434,090 2,133,277 11.06%
Sidewalk Revolving - - - - 277,444 1.44%
Non-Allocated ** 3,392,480 7,545,880 5,926,240 8,109,050 8,382,866 43.44%
Furlough Abolishment - - - - 41,380 0.21%
Total $ 12,211,640 $ 18,317,960 $ 22,260,304 $ 18,334,740 $ 19,296,910 100%
% Change from Prior Year 50.00% 21.52% -17.63% 5.25%
* FY 2013 adopted budget for this fund includes Fleet Replacement Program costs
** Non-Allocated expenses include debt service, depreciation, and interfund transfers. Non-allocated expenses are charged to each
enterprise fund but are charged to the General Fund collectively (as opposed to per department).
225
Department of Public Works
Division: Administration
Fund Support: General Fund
Description:
Responsible for providing overall management and policy guidelines for the department. Provides
administrative support to the department.
Services:
• Provides overall management and policy guidelines governing Public Works and its employees.
• Provides administrative support for the department, purchasing for operations and Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) projects, payroll processing, personnel issues, training administration,
web design and maintenance, etc.
• Provides customer service to the City’s residents and commercial businesses.
• Maintains Public Works website to include information related to each division, various programs,
schedules and processes. Also provides alerts for emergency information related to Public Works.
• Plans and coordinates employee recognition and public education events.
• Represents the department at community meetings, City Council meetings, and City Commissions
& Board meetings.
BUDGET SUMMARY
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel* $ 568,500 $ 560,720 $ 594,536 $ 671,290 $ 685,320 82.19%
Operating** 35,400 44,550 17,752 24,590 148,455 17.81%
Total $ 603,900 $ 605,270 $ 612,288 $ 695,880 $ 833,775 100%
% Change from Prior Year 0.23% 1.16% 13.65% 19.82%
* For FY 2013, personnel expenditures for departments or divisions under the General Fund do not reflect the expense of abolishing
furlough days. Instead the cost of furlough abolishment for General Fund departments w as calculated as a lump sum totaling $662,773.67
for the fiscal year (2013).
** All FY 2013 Fleet Replacement Program costs for the General Fund divisons of Public Works are reflected under the Administration
Division's adopted operating expenditures.
226
Department of Public Works
Division: Engineering and Construction
Fund Support: General Fund
Description:
Responsible for the project management engineering and inspection of all Public Works projects and
provides supervision and administration of Capital Improvement Program projects. Maintains construction
and utilities records. Responsible for review of subdivision plans and utility inspections.
Services:
• Provides project management services for Capital and large-scale Operations and Maintenance
projects.
• Prepares Capital Improvement Budget requests for the department.
• Provides in-house engineering for minor projects and supervises engineering consultants.
• Provides program management for City’s repaving/rehabilitation program.
• Provides program management for City’s sidewalk rehabilitation program.
• Maintains records of all property, buildings, utilities, roads, parks, and other public improvements
owned or controlled by the City.
• Provides plat maps for builders, contractors and the general public.
• Manages City’s closed landfill.
• Updates and sells City maps.
• Provides stormwater management and other right-of-way services associated with grading and
other permits.
BUDGET SUMMARY
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel* $ 911,560 $ 1,044,400 $ 642,868 $ 693,080 $ 752,295 89.78%
Operating 88,990 70,760 110,038 85,630 85,630 10.22%
Total $ 1,000,550 $ 1,115,160 $ 752,906 $ 778,710 $ 837,925 100%
% Change from Prior Year 11.45% -32.48% 3.43% 7.60%
* For FY 2013, personnel expenditures for departments or divisions under the General Fund do not reflect the expense of abolishing
furlough days. Instead the cost of furlough abolishment for General Fund departments w as calculated as a lump sum totaling $662,773.67
for the fiscal year (2013).
227
Department of Public Works
Division: Streets (Formerly “Roadways”)
Fund Support: General Fund
Description:
Responsible for street cleaning, grass & weed cutting, loose litter collection, street-side refuse container
collection, leaf collection, minor area rehabilitation and maintenance of roadways and city-owned
sidewalks, storm drains and other public infrastructure.
Services:
• Provides street sweeping and flushing.
• Maintains in a clean and sanitary condition the City Dock, Market Square, Main Street, Maryland
Avenue and harbor waters, keeps the downtown areas clean for tourists and residents.
• Empties street-side refuse containers.
• Collects loose litter from public roads.
• Collects leaves in fall season.
• Cuts weeds and grass on City rights-of-ways and specified areas.
• Performs small area roadway reconstruction and pothole repair.
• Maintains city-owned street lights in Annapolis Historic District and along West Street to Westgate
Circle. Also coordinates with Baltimore Gas & Electric (BGE) for repairs and replacements of BGE
owned street lights.
• Manages and performs the snow and ice removal program.
• Performs minor repairs to sidewalks and curbs.
• Supports residential refuse with bulk refuse pick-up services.
• Maintains bike lanes in conjunction with traffic calming.
• Manages City fuel inventory for entire City fleet (including monitoring inventory levels and
reordering).
• Calculates fuel cost distribution to all City departments which includes administering the State fuel
tax program.
228
Department of Public Works
Division: Streets (Formerly “Roadways”)
BUDGET SUMMARY
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel* $ 1,852,660 $ 1,967,150 $ 1,634,267 $ 1,734,210 $ 1,854,739 65.31%
Operating 1,077,520 946,220 720,178 985,180 985,180 34.69%
Total $ 2,930,180 $ 2,913,370 $ 2,354,445 $ 2,719,390 $ 2,839,919 100%
% Change from Prior Year -0.57% -19.18% 15.50% 4.43%
* For FY 2013, personnel expenditures for departments or divisions under the General Fund do not reflect the expense of abolishing
furlough days. Instead the cost of furlough abolishment for General Fund departments w as calculated as a lump sum totaling $662,773.67
for the fiscal year (2013).
CPM Results:
As reported by the CPM in their final fiscal year 2011 report, the graph on the following page
reflects how the City’s road rehabilitation expenditures compared to other jurisdictions. The
Final CPM Report details some additional data and analyses.
229
Department of Public Works
Division: Streets (Formerly “Roadways”)
Expenditure for Rehab per Paved Lane Mile
Islamorada Islands FL $25
Airway Heights WA $72
ANNAPOLIS, MD $153
Shelton WA $422
Delray Beach FL $558
Lakeland TN $631 Mean: $ 5,739
Junction City KS $664
Fort Lauderdale FL $899 City: $ 153
Sahuarita AZ $1,042
Show Low AZ $1,149
Sugar Land TX $1,162
Oshkosh WI $1,331
Fredericksburg VA $1,352
Lake Mills WI $1,643
New Baden IL $1,814
Weston MA $1,850
Ramsey MN $1,941
Edina MN $1,943
Andover MA $2,008
Dartmouth MA $2,095
Lancaster County SC $2,151
Columbia TN $2,256
Greer SC $2,312
Goodlettsville TN $2,336
Libertyville IL $2,581
Fox Point WI $2,776
Granby CT $2,822
Rancho Cordova CA $2,846
O’Fallon MO $3,159
Dover NH $3,400
Crestwood MO $3,626
Newburgh NY $3,956
Eau Claire WI $4,056
Rolla MO $4,099
Snellville GA $4,180
Manhattan KS $4,286
Coventry CT $4,286
Noblesville IN $4,321
Windsor CT $5,129
Purcellville VA $5,153
Peters Township PA $5,950
Belmont MA $7,501
Chula Vista CA $7,634
Blue Ash OH $8,250
Dedham MA $9,368
Mahomet IL $11,191
Greenwich CT $127,366
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
230
Department of Public Works
Division: Snow and Ice Removal
Fund Support: General Fund
Description:
Responsible for the removal of snow and ice from public roadways.
Services:
• Keeps all public streets clear of snow through plowing and removal of snow to off-site locations
when necessary.
• Provides for ice control on public streets by spreading salt and sand.
BUDGET SUMMARY
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel* $ 50,400 $ 153,280 $ 17,632 $ 46,900 $ 38,350 43.51%
Operating 63,590 696,510 107,418 49,800 49,800 56.49%
Total $ 113,990 $ 849,790 $ 125,050 $ 96,700 $ 88,150 100%
% Change from Prior Year 645.50% -85.28% -22.67% -8.84%
* For FY 2013, personnel expenditures for departments or divisions under the General Fund do not reflect the expense of abolishing
furlough days. Instead the cost of furlough abolishment for General Fund departments w as calculated as a lump sum totaling $662,773.67
for the fiscal year (2013).
231
Department of Public Works
Division: Traffic Control and Maintenance
Fund Support: General Fund
Description:
Responsible for the installation and maintenance of traffic regulatory devices, traffic signals and signs,
line striping and directional signs.
Services:
• Installs and repairs traffic signs.
• Performs engineering studies for changing traffic patterns.
• Initiates engineering studies to modify existing traffic operations.
• Installs and repairs traffic signals.
• Maintains thermo-plastic and paint lane striping.
• Provides traffic advisory signs for special events.
• Provides traffic volume studies using tube counters.
BUDGET SUMMARY
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel* $ 176,250 $ 206,020 $ 182,386 $ 260,870 $ 214,834 76.38%
Operating 82,980 47,220 19,371 65,830 66,430 23.62%
Total $ 259,230 $ 253,240 $ 201,757 $ 326,700 $ 281,264 100%
% Change from Prior Year -2.31% -20.33% 61.93% -13.91%
* For FY 2013, personnel expenditures for departments or divisions under the General Fund do not reflect the expense of abolishing
furlough days. Instead the cost of furlough abolishment for General Fund departments w as calculated as a lump sum totaling $662,773.67
for the fiscal year (2013).
232
Department of Public Works
Division: Fleet Maintenance Center
Fund Support: General Fund
Description:
Responsible for providing preventive maintenance and repair services for the Public Works, the
Department of Neighborhood and Environmental Programs, and the Recreation and Parks Department
vehicles.
Services:
• Provides vehicle and equipment maintenance and repairs.
• Provides automated diesel and gasoline fuel dispensing system for entire City fleet including Police,
Fire, etc.
• Calculates fuel cost distribution to all City departments.
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel* $ 439,600 $ 462,340 $ 365,055 $ 286,040 $ 432,241 80.12%
Operating 89,900 85,660 63,007 106,630 107,230 19.88%
Total $ 529,500 $ 548,000 $ 428,062 $ 392,670 $ 539,471 100%
% Change from Prior Year 3.49% -21.89% -8.27% 37.39%
* For FY 2013, personnel expenditures for departments or divisions under the General Fund do not reflect the expense of abolishing
furlough days. Instead the cost of furlough abolishment for General Fund departments w as calculated as a lump sum totaling $662,773.67
for the fiscal year (2013).
CPM Results:
As reported by the CPM in their final fiscal year 2011 report, the graphs on the following pages
reflect how the City’s Fleet Maintenance compared to other jurisdictions across certain input and
efficiency measures. The Final CPM Report details some additional data and analyses.
Due to the City’s lack of a consolidated fleet management operation, expenditure data for all
vehicles and equipment could not be determined (expenditure data for police vehicles alone could
be determined due to the smaller nature of police vehicle operations). The city’s undertaking of
and FY 2013 funding of a new Fleet Management Program aims to consolidate fleet operations so
that performance indicators, such as those tapped by the CPM, can be properly tracked and used.
The CPM Fleet Management questions which pertained specifically to police vehicles are
presented in the Police Department section of this document.
233
Department of Public Works
Division: Fleet Maintenance Center
Number of ALL Vehicles and Heavy Equipment
Lakeland TN 24
Mahomet IL 32
Crestwood MO 35
Cherryvale KS 36
Mason MI 36
Fox Point WI 40
Purcellville VA 41
Islamorada Islands FL 46
New Baden IL 47 Mean: 192 vehicles
Peters Township PA 47
King William County VA 52
Airway Heights WA 55 City: 341 vehicles
Rancho Cordova CA 56
Granby CT 63
Hopkinton MA 63
Dedham MA 68
Coventry CT 74
Goodlettsville TN 78
Baker City OR 85
Lunenburg MA 88
Lake Mills WI 91
Sahuarita AZ 97
Libertyville IL 98
Ramsey MN 99
Weston MA 102
Medway MA 103
Tumwater WA 105
Blue Ash OH 108
Snellville GA 109
Shelton WA 114
Greer SC 143
Dover NH 152
Algonquin IL 154
Andover MA 158
Fredericksburg VA 159
Salisbury MD 163
Rolla MO 167
Belmont MA 181
Rohnert Park CA 185
Newburgh NY 186
Manhattan KS 192
Show Low AZ 206
Windsor CT 223
Dartmouth MA 226
Monterey CA 241
Ukiah CA 243
O’Fallon MO 245
Campbell County WY 269
Eau Claire WI 304
New Braunfels TX 309
Oshkosh WI 312
Columbia TN 313
Edina MN 326
ANNAPOLIS, MD 341
Wauwatosa WI 343
Greenwich CT 344
Chula Vista CA 387
Sugar Land TX 393
Noblesville IN 399
Lancaster County SC 431
Delray Beach FL 590
Fort Lauderdale FL 1,506
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
234
Department of Public Works
Division: Facilities / General Government Buildings
Fund Support: General Fund
Description:
Responsible for the supervision of the City’s buildings and maintenance of all City-owned and leased
facilities.
Services:
• Provides building operations and maintenance for all City buildings.
• Provides an environmentally comfortable climate for employees to perform their daily tasks.
• Protects and enhances the City's facility assets by proper preventative maintenance.
• Oversees construction projects.
BUDGET SUMMARY
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel* $ 330,412 $ 320,440 $ 255,491 $ 302,120 $ 335,693 21.94%
Operating 1,272,178 1,640,890 1,156,967 1,164,220 1,194,301 78.06%
Total $ 1,602,590 $ 1,961,330 $ 1,412,458 $ 1,466,340 $ 1,529,994 100%
% Change from Prior Year 22.39% -27.98% 3.81% 4.34%
* For FY 2013, personnel expenditures for departments or divisions under the General Fund do not reflect the expense of abolishing
furlough days. Instead the cost of furlough abolishment for General Fund departments w as calculated as a lump sum totaling $662,773.67
for the fiscal year (2013).
CPM Results:
As reported by the CPM in their final fiscal year 2011 report, the graphs on the following pages
reflect how the City’s facilities operations compared to other jurisdictions. The Final CPM
Report details some additional data and analyses.
235
Department of Public Works
Division: Facilities / General Government Buildings
Total Number of Square Feet of Jurisdiction-Operated Facilities
Lakeland TN 17,250
Fox Point WI 20,487
Libertyville IL 28,300
Cherryvale KS 30,040
Ukiah CA 31,126
New Baden IL 32,000
Mahomet IL 36,006
Mason MI 39,190 Mean: 335,217 square feet
Purcellville VA 39,439
Islamorada Islands FL 41,461
Crestwood MO 56,098 City: 253,599 square feet
King William County VA 57,500
Snellville GA 58,082
Medway MA 66,211
Coventry CT 68,144
Granby CT 70,121
Sahuarita AZ 70,647
Belmont MA 87,617
Hopkinton MA 92,000
Shelton WA 99,572
Goodlettsville TN 103,088
Tumwater WA 105,251
Baker City OR 108,196
Lake Mills WI 115,588
Greer SC 133,065
Peters Township PA 133,245
Rancho Cordova CA 133,348
Accomack County VA 148,336
Ramsey MN 159,628
Rolla MO 160,000
Show Low AZ 186,525
Dartmouth MA 221,046
Eau Claire WI 243,930
ANNAPOLIS, MD 253,599
Newburgh NY 253,765
O’Fallon MO 254,660
Windsor CT 257,200
Lancaster County SC 265,395
Rohnert Park CA 279,573
Dover NH 293,020
Fredericksburg VA 300,482
Wauwatosa WI 302,250
Georgetown MA 304,383
Weston MA 304,742
Blue Ash OH 306,323
Lunenburg MA 353,051
Monterey CA 445,000
Salisbury MD 454,410
Sugar Land TX 575,774
Greenwich CT 743,488
Campbell County WY 758,029
Delray Beach FL 846,804
Dedham MA 878,610
Chula Vista CA 1,013,706
Fort Lauderdale FL 1,495,679
Andover MA 2,574,892
Louisville Metro Govt KY 2,600,000
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
236
Department of Public Works
Division: Facilities / General Government Buildings
Custodial Expenditures per Square Foot of Facilities
New Baden IL $0.10
Fort Lauderdale FL $0.11
Cherryvale KS $0.16
Baker City OR $0.19
Salisbury MD $0.23
Delray Beach FL $0.25 Mean: $ 1.22
Rohnert Park CA $0.35
Libertyville IL $0.36 CIty: $ 1.04
Dedham MA $0.36
Coventry CT $0.39
Islamorada Islands FL $0.42
Mahomet IL $0.47
Andover MA $0.52
Snellville GA $0.55
Peters Township PA $0.59
Tumwater WA $0.64
Windsor CT $0.64
Dover NH $0.65
Blue Ash OH $0.70
Weston MA $0.72
Mason MI $0.80
Hopkinton MA $0.81
Greer SC $0.85
Newburgh NY $0.88
Crestwood MO $0.93
Goodlettsville TN $0.95
Purcellville VA $0.98
Lancaster County SC $1.01
ANNAPOLIS, MD $1.04
Dartmouth MA $1.08
Ramsey MN $1.11
King William County VA $1.21
O’Fallon MO $1.32
Sahuarita AZ $1.33
Georgetown MA $1.33
Lakeland TN $1.42
Accomack County VA $1.61
Shelton WA $1.80
Rolla MO $1.94
Monterey CA $1.97
Chula Vista CA $2.07
Medway MA $2.08
Fox Point WI $2.41
Eau Claire WI $2.73
Wauwatosa WI $2.93
Belmont MA $3.56
Ukiah CA $8.62
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
237
Department of Public Works
Division: Water Supply and Treatment
Fund Support: Water Fund
Description:
Responsible for the production, storage and initial distribution of all potable water for City customers.
Services:
• Pumps groundwater from various wells.
• Treats water by filtering and chemical treatment, primarily for iron removal and stabilization.
• Ensures safety and compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act which includes tests for lead and
bacteria.
• Produces an adequate supply of water to meet customer and fire flow demand.
• Manages the City’s dam.
•
BUDGET SUMMARY
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel* $ 1,145,330 $ 1,178,290 $ 1,029,065 $ 1,161,690 $ 1,262,383 56.61%
Operating 770,310 814,280 683,261 766,730 967,730 43.39%
Total $ 1,915,640 $ 1,992,570 $ 1,712,326 $ 1,928,420 $ 2,230,113 100%
% Change from Prior Year 4.02% -14.06% 12.62% 15.64%
* FY 2013 adopted personnel expenses for this fund includes furlough abolishment costs.
238
Department of Public Works
Division: Water Distribution
Fund Support: Water Fund
Description:
Responsible for operating, maintaining and repairing the City's water distribution system.
Services:
• Install and repair water mains.
• Install and repair water service lines.
• Read and record water meters for billing by the Finance Department.
• Supervise the installation of new water mains.
• Supervise the chlorination of new mains.
• Inspect and pressure-test the installation of mains in new developments.
• Execute turn-off and turn-on water services as directed by the Finance Department.
• Install and repair fire hydrants.
• Locate water main and service lines for contractors.
• Investigate water bill protests.
BUDGET SUMMARY
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel $ 791,880 $ 850,380 $ 926,004 $ 1,158,910 $ 1,168,072 72.43%
Operating* 440,100 409,900 341,984 347,530 444,537 27.57%
Capital Outlay 80,210 16,550 - - - 0
Total $ 1,312,190 $ 1,276,830 $ 1,267,988 $ 1,506,440 $ 1,612,609 100%
% Change from Prior Year -2.69% -0.69% 18.81% 7.05%
* FY 2013 adopted operating expenditures for this fund includes Fleet Replacement Program costs.
239
Department of Public Works
Division: Annapolis Water Reclamation Facility
Fund Support: Sewer Fund
Description:
The Annapolis Wastewater Reclamation Facility is owned jointly by the City and County but is operated
by the County. The City pays a pro-rated portion of the operating expenses based on percentage of total
flow.
Services:
• Provides treatment of all wastewater from City customers.
BUDGET SUMMARY
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0
Operating* 714,940 3,031,070 3,090,670 3,100,000 3,100,000 100.00%
Total $ 714,940 $ 3,031,070 $ 3,090,670 $ 3,100,000 $ 3,100,000 100%
% Change from Prior Year 323.96% 1.97% 0.30% 0.00%
* All operating expenditures are contract services.
240
Department of Public Works
Division: Wastewater Collection
Fund Support: Sewer Fund
Description:
Responsible for repairing and maintaining the sewage conveyance system from its point of origin to the
Annapolis Wastewater Reclamation Facility.
Services:
• Cleans approximately 1/3 of 125 miles of sewage conveyance system on a 3 year cycle.
• Repairs and maintains 25 sewage pumping stations.
• Installs new and repairs old sewer-to-house connections.
• Provides emergency sewer back-up service, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
• Locates sewer mains and service lines for contractors.
BUDGET SUMMARY
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel* $ 766,740 $ 755,010 $ 635,764 $ 436,450 $ 525,026 45.90%
Operating** 805,090 708,920 545,694 540,440 618,795 54.10%
Total $ 1,571,830 $ 1,463,930 $ 1,181,458 $ 976,890 $ 1,143,821 100%
% Change from Prior Year -6.86% -19.30% -17.31% 17.09%
* FY 2013 adopted personnel expenses for this fund includes furlough abolishment costs.
** FY 2013 adopted operating expenditures for this fund includes Fleet Replacement Program costs.
241
Department of Public Works
Division: Stormwater Management
Fund Support: Stormwater Fund
Description:
Responsible for the maintenance of public storm drainage systems including pipes, inlets, manholes,
drainage ways, and stormwater management facilities.
Services:
• Cleans and repairs drainage systems which includes removal of leaves, snow and debris from
storm drain inlets. Also provides vacuuming of debris from storm drain pipes.
• Maintains public stormwater management facilities.
• Contracts for assistance when required.
BUDGET SUMMARY
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel $ 177,270 $ 169,740 $ 237,325 $ 190,850 $ 201,080 71.79%
Operating 94,610 160,610 82,550 79,000 79,000 28.21%
Total $ 271,880 $ 330,350 $ 319,875 $ 269,850 $ 280,080 100%
% Change from Prior Year 21.51% -3.17% -15.64% 3.79%
242
Department of Public Works
Division: Solid Waste
Fund Support: Refuse Fund
Description:
Responsible for the collection and transportation of solid waste and yard trimmings from 8,600 residential
households to a disposal site.
Services:
• Oversee the City’s solid waste system, including refuse, recycling, and bulky waste collection and
disposal.
• Fiscal year 2013 brought the privatization of Solid Waste services.
The decision to privatize solid waste collection was informed by results from the National Citizen Survey
which asked a question specific to contracting solid waste services as a cost-saving measure. The solid
waste privatization question and responses as reported by the National Citizen Survey are shown below.
Thirty-three percent of respondents strongly supported privatization as a cost-saving measure and 33%
somewhat supported it. Please see the “Guiding Factors” section of this document for more information
on the National Citizen Survey.
National Citizen Survey Cost-Saving Question (custom question for the City):
The National Citizen Survey™ by National Research Center, Inc.
243
Department of Public Works
Division: Solid Waste
BUDGET SUMMARY
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total (FY
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted 13)
Personnel $ 1,299,460 $ 1,333,270 $ 1,168,558 $ 1,370,040 $ 619,045 34.00%
Operating* 767,130 757,820 683,049 794,690 1,201,665 66.00%
Total $ 2,066,590 $ 2,091,090 $ 1,851,607 $ 2,164,730 $ 1,820,710 100%
% Change from Prior Year 1.19% -11.45% 16.91% -15.89%
* FY 2013 adopted operating expenditures for this fund includes Fleet Replacement Program costs.
CPM Results:
As reported by the CPM in their final fiscal year 2011 report, the graphs on the following pages
reflect how the City’s solid waste operations compared to other jurisdictions. The Final CPM
Report details some additional data and analyses.
244
Department of Public Works
Division: Solid Waste
245
Department of Public Works
Division: Solid Waste
246
Department of Public Works
Division: Solid Waste
247
Department of Public Works
Division: Solid Waste
248
Department of Public Works
Division: Curbside Recycling
Fund Support: Refuse Fund
Description:
Responsible for ensuring the curbside collection of bottles, cans, plastic bottles and newspapers.
Services:
• Provides for curbside collection of mixed recyclables.
Hires contractor through competitive bidding process to collect recyclables.
BUDGET SUMMARY
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total (FY
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted 13)
Personnel $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0
Operating 267,480 264,560 257,862 269,360 312,567 100.00%
Total $ 267,480 $ 264,560 $ 257,862 $ 269,360 $ 312,567 100%
% Change from Prior Year -1.09% -2.53% 4.46% 16.04%
249
Department of Public Works
Division: Market House
Fund Support: Market Fund
Description:
During FY11, Public Works was assigned the responsibility of managing the Market House which was
open for a six month trial from July 11, 2011 to December 31, 2011. Market House will re-open on a
permanent basis in 2013.
Services:
• Hire and provide oversight to the Market House business manager.
• Manage the day-to-day operations of the Market House and its fund.
BUDGET SUMMARY
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0
Operating 6,870 20,120 35,047 10,000 136,700 100.00%
Capital Outlay 691,740 301,560 - - - 0
Total $ 698,610 $ 321,680 $ 35,047 $ 10,000 $ 136,700 100%
% Change from Prior Year -53.95% -89.11% -71.47% 1267.00%
250
Department of Public Works
Division: Sidewalk
Fund Support: Sidewalk Revolving Fund
The Sidewalk Revolving Fund is a new fund for FY2013. The costs of the repair and maintenance of
sidewalks will be charged to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget but the personnel costs
associated with the responsibility are attributed to this Sidewalk Revolving Fund. This Sidewalk Fund
is a revolving fund such that tax revenue will be transferred from the General Fund into this Sidewalk
Fund to pay for only those personnel costs associated with sidewalk repair and maintenance. This
tax revenue will be a constant source of revenue from year to year to ensure necessary sidewalk
repair is properly funded. Additionally, residents may elect to contribute to the Sidewalk Fund in order
to accelerate improvement of the sidewalk abutting their property.
The decision to keep sidewalk improvement the responsibility of the City was made, in part, due to
results from the National Citizen Survey which asked a question specific to sidewalk improvement.
The sidewalk question and responses as reported by the National Citizen Survey are shown below.
Twenty-two percent of respondents strongly supported a raise in the real estate tax in support of
keeping sidewalk maintenance the City’s responsibility and 28% of respondents somewhat supported
it. Please see the “Guiding Factors” section of this document for more information on the National
Citizen Survey.
Description:
Public Works will take on the increased responsibility of sidewalk replacement and repair as these
necessary improvements have been specially funded for FY 2013.
Services:
• Replace, repair and maintain sidewalks throughout the City.
251
Department of Public Works
Division: Sidewalk
National Citizen Survey Sidewalk Maintenance Question (custom question for the City):
The National Citizen Survey™ by National Research Center, Inc.
BUDGET SUMMARY
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 277,444 100.00%
Total $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 277,444 100%
% Change from Prior Year not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable
* The Sidew alk Revolving Fund is a new fund for FY2013. All expenditures in the Operating Budget are personnel costs.
252
Recreation and Parks Department
253
Recreation and Parks Department
Fund Support: General Fund
Description:
The Recreation and Parks Department provides “quality of life” elements for City residents and visitors.
The department operates and maintains three multi-purpose indoor facilities: the Pip Moyer Recreation
Center at Truxtun Park, the Stanton Center on West Washington Street, and the Annapolis Walk
Community Building on Belle Drive. It also maintains approximately 200 acres of open space, park land,
and athletic fields at Truxtun Park, Bates Athletic Complex, Back Creek Nature Park, Wiley H. Bates High
School, Spa Creek Conservancy, Annapolis Sports Complex (behind Germantown School), Spa Creek
Trail, Poplar Trail, Kingsport Community Park, and twenty neighborhood mini-parks. Furthermore, the
department assists with the maintenance at the United States Naval Academy (USNA) Marine-Corps
Stadium walking trail. User fees are charged for the rental of the Department's facilities and for
participation in the various programs and activities conducted by its full- and part-time staff.
The Harbormaster’s Office (Dock) is also a division of the Recreation and Parks Department.
Mission:
Enrich the quality of life for Annapolis-area residents and advocate for healthy, active living by offering
quality recreational programs and community facilities within an array of parks and natural open spaces.
Services:
• Offers enjoyable and affordable leisure-time activities for the citizens of Annapolis which promote
learning, wellness, and community pride. This includes:
• Adult Athletic Programs
• Aquatic Programs (swim team, learn to swim and Masters’ programs)
• Cultural Classes
• Family Oriented Special Events
• Organized Summer Enrichment Camps
• Summer Day Camps
• Health and Fitness Programs
• Youth Athletic Programs
• Maintains open spaces, parks and trails, ball fields, playgrounds and recreation centers.
• Playground safety inspections
• Athletic Field maintenance
• Grass mowing
• Park trash removal
• Playground equipment repair
• Swimming Pool maintenance
Public Boat Launch maintenance
254
Recreation and Parks Department
• Stanton Community Center: serves as a community resource, as many community organizations’
offices are housed in this building.
• Recreational and cultural enrichment opportunities for children and adults.
• Resource center for families in need of support, and human services including health,
medical, therapeutic, and counseling services.
• Community gathering, meeting, and social space for rental.
• Latchkey Program: Offers affordable child care for parents in the City of Annapolis and provides
before school and after school care from 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.
Goals & Objectives:
A. Maintain and improve the condition of park facilities and increase the use of environmentally
friendly maintenance practices.
B. Improve public awareness and increase enrollment in all recreation department offerings.
• Conduct Community Wide Survey to determine level and scope of service warranted.
• Ensure cost-recovery model for programs and services at the Pip Moyer Recreation Center.
C. Improve operations, funding opportunities, and awareness about the programs and services offered
to the community at Stanton Community Center.
D. Establish a modern operation/business model for the Recreation and Parks Department to ensure
long-term sustainability with limited tax support (i.e. obtain and secure alternative funding sources).
Performance Measurements:
The Center for Performance Measurements (CPM) 101 Survey was completed by the City in October
2011. The CPM 101 survey measured inputs and outputs across City departments, services and
functions to perform analyses on the gathered data and compare our performance to that of other
jurisdictions nationwide.
The survey was completed using fiscal year 2011 data and the final CPM 101 Annual Data Report was
issued in August 2012. The final report is available upon request or it can be accessed online at:
http://www.ci.annapolis.md.us/Government/Reports/CPMReports2012.pdf
Fiscal year 2012 data will be submitted to the CPM in October 2012. The goal is to participate annually in
the survey so that trends in the City’s performance can be monitored and benchmarked, with adjustments
and budget decisions made according to performance. As the City becomes more accustomed to and
involved in the performance measurement process, the use of such metrics will have more influence on
budgeting practices. The process will begin during the fiscal year 2014 budget process, during which the
results of the fiscal year 2011 survey will begin to inform budgetary decisions.
Below is a compilation of the CPM questions which pertained to the Recreation and Parks Department.
The goal for fiscal year 2013 is that those CPM measurements which the City is not currently monitoring
will be introduced into each department’s infrastructure for a more complete performance profile. In
particular, the customer satisfaction questions which the City could not answer for the fiscal year 2011
survey will be answered on the fiscal year 2012 survey. This is due to the City’s participation in the
255
Recreation and Parks Department
National Citizen Survey which is purposefully coordinated with the CPM 101 Survey. The survey was
completed using fiscal year 2011 data and the final report was issued in August 2012. The final report
from the National Citizen Survey is available upon request or it can be accessed online at:
http://www.ci.annapolis.md.us/Government/Departments/Mayor/CityManager.aspx under “The National
Citizen Survey: Final Report.”
The CPM 101 questions/measurements which applied to the Recreation and Parks Department are
as follows (there were no CPM questions pertaining to Harbormaster operations):
Total park acreage in the jurisdiction
Total number of hours paid to parks and recreation staff: Could not answer
Total parks and recreation expenditures (excluding golf expenditures and specialized
facility expenditures)
Total parks and recreation revenues (excluding golf expenditures and specialized facility
expenditures)
Percentage of lesson programs and camp programs that were filled to capacity.
Number of Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, or Don’t Know responses received from quality of
parks customer satisfaction surveys: No survey conducted, could not answer.
Number of Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, or Don’t Know responses received from quality of
recreation programs and classes customer satisfaction surveys: No survey conducted,
could not answer.
As reported by the CPM in their final fiscal year 2011 report, the graphs on the following pages
reflect how the City’s Recreation and Parks Department compared to other jurisdictions
across certain input and efficiency measures. The Final CPM Report details some additional
data and analyses.
256
Recreation and Parks Department
Parks and Recreation Revenue per Capita
Baker City OR $0.00
Ramsey MN $0.35
Fox Point WI $0.40
Lake Mills WI $0.62
Cherryvale KS $0.93
Mason MI $0.97
Oshkosh WI $1.41
Mean: $ 22.24
Columbia TN $1.61
Newburgh NY $2.72 City: $ 43.49
Delray Beach FL $3.24
Medway MA $3.33
Algonquin IL $3.54
Shelton WA $3.71
Purcellville VA $3.88
Dedham MA $4.17
Sugar Land TX $4.85
Dartmouth MA $5.48
Sahuarita AZ $5.57
Chula Vista CA $6.32
Wauwatosa WI $6.80
Edina MN $7.25
Show Low AZ $7.64
Lakeland TN $7.69
Noblesville IN $7.90
Tumwater WA $8.61
Airway Heights WA $8.63
New Braunfels TX $8.73
King William County VA $9.36
Junction City KS $9.71
Lancaster County SC $9.98
Peters Township PA $10.12
New Baden IL $10.26
Snellville GA $10.75
Greer SC $10.91
Goodlettsville TN $11.96
Eau Claire WI $12.06
Manhattan KS $12.48
Fort Lauderdale FL $18.38
Windsor CT $20.04
Fredericksburg VA $20.38
Coventry CT $24.83
Islamorada Islands FL $27.03
Hopkinton MA $28.33
Granby CT $28.88
Andover MA $29.04
Belmont MA $30.92
Ukiah CA $34.90
Libertyville IL $39.21
ANNAPOLIS, MD $43.49
Crestwood MO $45.13
Mahomet IL $50.30
Dover NH $51.78
Rolla MO $53.20
Campbell County WY $54.06
Greenwich CT $68.55
Weston MA $74.58
O’Fallon MO $84.57
Blue Ash OH $86.47
Monterey CA $173.91
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
257
Recreation and Parks Department
Parks & Recreation Revenues per Acre*
Cherryvale KS $25
Ramsey MN $26
Lake Mills WI $27
Mason MI $86
Fox Point WI $127
Columbia TN $155
Show Low AZ $188 Mean: $ 3,091
Edina MN $224
Oshkosh WI $271
Sugar Land TX $326
City: $ 8,349
Delray Beach FL $359
Medway MA $432
Dartmouth MA $455
Fredericksburg VA $464
Peters Township PA $488
Noblesville IN $492
Airway Heights WA $561
Windsor CT $681
Algonquin IL $687
Lakeland TN $758
Eau Claire WI $770
Purcellville VA $811
Coventry CT $936
Goodlettsville TN $943
Newburgh NY $969
New Baden IL $981
Manhattan KS $1,019
Tumwater WA $1,022
Junction City KS $1,122
Shelton WA $1,177
Snellville GA $1,203
New Braunfels TX $1,293
Sahuarita AZ $1,314
Dedham MA $1,807
Greer SC $1,988
Islamorada Islands FL $2,469
Libertyville IL $2,557 * Per the CPM Survey, acreage reported includes only those parks that
Lancaster County SC $2,647 a jurisdiction operates and maintains (inlcuding cemetary acreage) but
Chula Vista CA $3,003 EXCLUDES wilderness parks and designated open spaces for which
Greenwich CT $3,054 the jurisdiction does NOT expend any labor or money to maintain. This
Mahomet IL $3,120 also EXCLUDES golf courses and acreage for specialized facilities
King William County VA $3,391 such as swimming pools and skate parks.
Rolla MO $4,081
Weston MA $4,136
Fort Lauderdale FL $4,383
Crestwood MO $4,480
Ukiah CA $4,767
Wauwatosa WI $5,260
Campbell County WY $7,146
Dover NH $7,359
Blue Ash OH $7,646
ANNAPOLIS, MD $8,349
Belmont MA $8,565
Granby CT $8,589
Hopkinton MA $10,119
Monterey CA $15,020
Andover MA $16,343
O’Fallon MO $18,582
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
258
Recreation and Parks Department
Parks & Recreation Expenditures per Capita
Fox Point WI $3
Purcellville VA $6
Dartmouth MA $8
Medway MA $11
Baker City OR $12
Mason MI $13
Coventry CT $14 Mean: $ 61
King William County VA $15
Andover MA $17
Wauwatosa WI $17 City: $ 95
Lancaster County SC $20
Dedham MA $21
New Baden IL $22
Lakeland TN $23
Cherryvale KS $24
Newburgh NY $25
Noblesville IN $29
Hopkinton MA $30
Ramsey MN $31
Oshkosh WI $34
Chula Vista CA $34
Ukiah CA $34
Peters Township PA $35
Snellville GA $35
Shelton WA $36
Junction City KS $36
Mahomet IL $38
New Braunfels TX $41
Airway Heights WA $41
Columbia TN $42
Sahuarita AZ $44
Show Low AZ $51
Salisbury MD $56
Sugar Land TX $57
O’Fallon MO $57
Greer SC $61
Granby CT $62
Eau Claire WI $64
Edina MN $65
Lake Mills WI $67
Manhattan KS $73
Goodlettsville TN $74
Tumwater WA $76
Crestwood MO $80
Dover NH $80
Libertyville IL $89
Fort Lauderdale FL $91
Windsor CT $93
ANNAPOLIS, MD $95
Campbell County WY $96
Rolla MO $97
Islamorada Islands FL $112
Weston MA $121
Delray Beach FL $122
Greenwich CT $148
Monterey CA $317
Blue Ash OH $371
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
259
Recreation and Parks Department
Parks & Recreation Expenditures per Acre*
Coventry CT $546
Cherryvale KS $666
Dartmouth MA $696
Fox Point WI $879
Mason MI $1,113
Purcellville VA $1,217
Show Low AZ $1,256
Medway MA $1,425
Peters Township PA $1,685
Mean; $ 7,654
Noblesville IN $1,825
Edina MN $2,016 Median: $ 5,975
New Baden IL $2,114
Lakeland TN $2,261
Ramsey MN $2,294
City: $ 18,161
Mahomet IL $2,380
Airway Heights WA $2,680
Lake Mills WI $2,910
Windsor CT $3,162
Sugar Land TX $3,822
Snellville GA $3,949
Columbia TN $4,082
Eau Claire WI $4,111
Junction City KS $4,180
Ukiah CA $4,604
Lancaster County SC $5,285
King William County VA $5,545
Libertyville IL $5,815
Goodlettsville TN $5,857 * Per the CPM Survey, acreage reported includes only those parks
Manhattan KS $5,975 that a jurisdiction operates and maintains (inlcuding cemetary
New Braunfels TX $6,054 acreage) but EXCLUDES wilderness parks and designated open
Oshkosh WI $6,423 spaces for which the jurisdiction does NOT expend any labor or
Greenwich CT money to maintain. This also EXCLUDES golf courses and acreage
$6,608
for specialized facilities such as swimming pools and skate parks.
Weston MA $6,688
Baker City OR $7,215
Rolla MO $7,472
Crestwood MO $7,909
Newburgh NY $8,779
Tumwater WA $9,007
Dedham MA $9,302
Andover MA $9,497
Islamorada Islands FL $10,208
Sahuarita AZ $10,408
Hopkinton MA $10,714
Greer SC $11,158
Shelton WA $11,306
Dover NH $11,402
O’Fallon MO $12,573
Campbell County WY $12,706
Wauwatosa WI $13,075
Delray Beach FL $13,495
Salisbury MD $15,424
Chula Vista CA $15,934
ANNAPOLIS, MD $18,161
Granby CT $18,495
Fort Lauderdale FL $21,815
Monterey CA $27,343
Blue Ash OH $32,775
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
260
Recreation and Parks Department
Percentage of Lessons & Camps Filled to Capacity
Baker City OR 0%
Granby CT 0%
Peters Township PA 0%
Ramsey MN 0%
Mean: 48%
Shelton WA 0%
Goodlettsville TN 6%
Weston MA
Median: 50%
9%
Fredericksburg VA 13%
Snellville GA 15%
City: 20%
Airway Heights WA 20%
ANNAPOLIS, MD 20%
Crestwood MO 20%
Andover MA 22%
Algonquin IL 24%
Delray Beach FL 25%
O’Fallon MO 26%
Chula Vista CA 28%
Edina MN 29%
Dedham MA 47%
Columbia TN 50%
Dartmouth MA 50%
Islamorada Islands FL 50%
Rolla MO 50%
Sahuarita AZ 52%
Greer SC 55%
Fort Lauderdale FL 57%
Junction City KS 60%
King William County VA 64%
Coventry CT 66%
Rohnert Park CA 68%
Libertyville IL 70%
Ukiah CA 70%
New Braunfels TX 72%
Campbell County WY 75%
Windsor CT 75%
Lancaster County SC 80%
Manhattan KS 80%
Eau Claire WI 83%
Hopkinton MA 85%
Blue Ash OH 86%
Mahomet IL 90%
Dover NH 95%
New Baden IL 95%
Sugar Land TX 95%
Newburgh NY 100%
Data source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement 101 FY 2011 Annual Data Set
261
Recreation and Parks Department
Looking ahead: Additional performance measurements the Recreation and Parks Department may
collect and evaluate are as follows. Since performance measurements are meant to track progress
toward a goal, the list letters tie the below performance measurements to the above-listed
departmental goals.
Track percentage of cancelled classes.
STAFFING SUMMARY BY POSITION: FISCAL YEAR 2013
Permanent Positions
Total FTE: 18
Recreation:
Recreation Leader I.......................................................................................................................... 2
Parks Administrator .......................................................................................................................... 1
Recreation Maintenance Worker ..................................................................................................... 8
Park Foreman .................................................................................................................................. 1
Stanton Center Recreation Manager ............................................................................................... 1
Recreation Center Operations:
Director of Recreation and Parks ..................................................................................................... 1
Recreation Program Supervisor ....................................................................................................... 1
Recreation Sports Supervisor .......................................................................................................... 1
Recreation Leader II......................................................................................................................... 1
Recreation Office Administrator……………………………………………………………………………1
Contractual and Temporary Positions
The Recreation and Parks Department has several temporary and/or contractual positions. These
positions consist primarily of a Facility Supervisor, Horticulturist, General Clerical positions, Recreation
Assistants, Dance Instructor, Health/Aquatics Coordinator, Marketing/Membership Coordinator, Custodial
Workers, Recreation and Parks General Temps, and Latchkey General Temps.
Conversions:
Of these contractual or temporary positions, the following will be included in the January 1, 2013
conversion of contractual employees to permanent status (civil service or exempt):
Roger “Pip” Moyer Recreation Center (PMRC) Division:
1. Facility Supervisor: Civil Service
2. Marketing/Membership Coordinator: Civil Service
3. Front Desk Supervisor: Civil Service
4. Dance and Fitness Coordinator: Civil Service
This will bring the total full-time equivalent count for this department to 22 half-way through the
fiscal year.
262
Recreation and Parks Department
BUDGET SUMMARY
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel* $ 2,443,460 $ 2,766,860 $ 2,928,288 $ 2,954,060 $ 3,055,594 74.04%
Operating 880,390 844,500 939,757 1,071,450 1,071,240 25.96%
Capital Outlay - - 12,420 - - 0
Total $ 3,323,850 $ 3,611,360 $ 3,880,465 $ 4,025,510 $ 4,126,834 100%
% Change from Prior Year 8.65% 7.45% 3.74% 2.52%
* For FY 2013, personnel expenditures for departments or divisions under the General Fund do not reflect the expense of abolishing
furlough days. Instead the cost of furlough abolishment for General Fund departments w as calculated as a lump sum totaling $662,773.67
for the fiscal year (2013).
** FY 2013 fleet replacement costs w ere calculated by department. Operating expenditures as presented in this summary table include
this department's or division's fleet replacement costs. In various other presentations in this document, fleet replacement costs are
reported separately.
263
Recreation and Parks Department
Division: Harbormaster / Dock
Fund Support: Dock Enterprise Fund
Description:
Responsible for the safe and efficient management and control of all City waterways.
Mission:
To manage fair, safe, and efficient use of the City’s waterways and maritime assets in a courteous and
self-sustaining manner for the recreational benefit of City residents and visitors. To promote economic
growth and viability of the City’s merchants, marine industries, and business community. To facilitate and
assist in special events deemed important to the City.
Services:
• Assures safe conditions in City waterways.
• Provides transient boats with safe and convenient mooring buoys and dock space at fair and
competitive rates.
• Manages and ensures safety of annual permit private mooring buoys.
• Administers maritime leases.
• Maintains and administers the City Dock area.
• Supervises anchoring and mooring throughout City waters.
• Provides laundry, showers, and restrooms for boaters.
• Provides boaters with information relative to businesses, services, restaurants, and tourist
attractions in the City.
• Promotes cleaner public waterways by providing mobile sewage pump-out facilities for boaters, and
by serving as a repository for Maryland Natural Resources Department’s (MDNR) oyster-bed
seeding program.
• Promotes public waterway safety, and assists in special events at the harbor.
• Assists vessels in distress and with medical emergencies whenever possible.
264
Recreation and Parks Department
Division: Harbormaster / Dock
Goals & Objectives:
A. Maintain waterways and waterfront assets.
• Inspect and maintain all public moorings.
• Operate City pump-out boat program with federal and state funding.
• Operate offices, fee collections, and services to moorings and docks, as well as residents, 7
days per week, 0830-1630 November to April, 0830-1900 to mid-May, 0830-2100 mid-May to
October, and 0830-1800 to November 1.
• Enhance revenues by increasing services and efficiency of fee collections.
• Maintain City annual mooring permit program.
B. Enforce City laws.
• Respond to complaints from residents and boaters as well as directives from Mayor
pertaining to possible violations.
• Educate for compliance and assist in planning and execution of special events.
• Counsel residents and visitors on matters relating to prudent maritime practices and
interfacing with various agencies and laws.
• Set up signs, buoys, public transient moorings, and other navigational aids which enhance
compliance with laws and safe practices.
• Keep harbor clear of derelict, sunken, and abandoned vessels.
C. Improve customer experience when interfacing with the Office of the Harbormaster.
• Employ personnel that provide pleasant service to citizens and customers.
• Plan, formulate, and execute consistent, fair policies and enforcement techniques.
D. Assist with security and safety of special events; assist in planning of special events.
• Planning and coordination for regular annual special events and major holiday rushes such
as the Maryland Maritime Heritage Festival, Blue Angels, Memorial Day Weekend, Build-a-
th
Boat contest, 4 of July, Labor Day Weekend, Boat Shows, Tug of War, and Lights Parade.
Performance Measurements:
Looking Ahead: While there were no CPM questions pertaining to Harbormaster operations,
performance measurements the Harbormaster/Dock may collect and evaluate are as follows:
Service: Ensure waterway safety and provide assistance to water vehicles in distress.
Track accidents involving City employees and/or property.
Track boater collisions/accidents observed and reported by City employees.
Track incidents reported and handled by Harbormaster’s Office.
Goals A. and B: Maintain waterways and waterfront assets, and enforce City laws.
Track warnings issued.
Track warnings cured.
Track warnings pending appeal before the Board of Port Wardens.
Track collection notices issued.
265
Recreation and Parks Department
Division: Harbormaster / Dock
Goals A. and B (Continued): Maintain waterways and waterfront assets, and enforce City laws.
Track collection notices paid.
Track civil citations issued.
Track civil citations reported to State Court.
Track boats and dinghies impounded.
Track boats and dinghies reclaimed by owner.
Track boats and dinghies sent to destructive disposal.
STAFFING SUMMARY BY POSITION: FISCAL YEAR 2013
Permanent Positions
Total FTE: 3
Harbormaster ................................................................................................................................................ 1
Assistant Harbormaster, Operations ............................................................................................................. 1
Harbor Office Administrator........................................................................................................................... 1
Contractual and Temporary Positions
The office of the Harbormaster has various temporary positions. These positions consist primarily of
seasonal Dock Assistants and temporary Assistant Harbormasters.
BUDGET SUMMARY
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel $ 423,840 $ 406,410 $ 344,710 $ 358,060 $ 353,818 31.69%
Operating 155,740 237,360 320,138 129,800 141,205 12.65%
Non-Allocated* 938,240 3,785,700 563,441 768,070 621,549 55.67%
Total $ 1,517,820 $ 4,429,470 $ 1,228,289 $ 1,255,930 $ 1,116,572 100%
% Change from Prior Year 191.83% -72.27% 2.25% -11.10%
* Non-Allocated expenses include debt service, depreciation, and interfund transfers. Non-allocated expenses are charged to each
enterprise fund but are charged to the General Fund collectively (as opposed to per department).
** FY 2013 fleet replacement costs w ere calculated by department. Operating expenditures as presented in this summary table include
this department's or division's fleet replacement costs. In various other presentations in this document, fleet replacement costs are
reported separately.
266
Department of Transportation
267
Department of Transportation
Fund Support: Transportation Fund, Parking Fund, and General Fund
Description:
The Annapolis Department of Transportation provides public transportation services, regulates private
transportation services, and manages the City’s transportation planning program.
Mission:
To secure financing, operate efficiently, and coordinate advocacy for the coherent, reliable and safe
public transportation system in Annapolis and surrounding Anne Arundel County which can effectively
meet primary, alternative and multimodal transportation needs of the City’s residents, visitors and
workforce and which supports the economic viability of the City’s business community. To provide
comprehensive transportation planning and analysis with the City’s land use policies for improved mobility
at a satisfactory level of service with minimal community disruption and environmental impact.
Goals & Objectives:
A. Improve the mobility options for the entire city: residents, visitors and employees alike.
B. Alter the long-ingrained mindset of parking downtown and violating the City’s parking codes.
• Introduce competitive parking rates, enhance the Circulator transit service and increase on-
street parking enforcement.
C. Diversify funding sources for transit, parking and transportation projects.
D. Maintain/enhance/expand the quality of services provided to the community.
• Train and improve staff.
• Improve maintenance of service vehicles.
E. Increase community awareness and use of transit through support of vital community programs.
F. Provide Comprehensive Transportation Planning and Analyses.
G. Support mobility through increased on-street parking regulation enforcement.
H. Promote the use of City off-street parking facilities including the Circulator service.
I. Promote the use of alternative forms of personal transportation, building upon the City’s Bicycle
Master Plan.
J. Achieve on-time performance in transit service delivery of 92%.
K. Reduce customer complaints by 20%.
268
Department of Transportation
L. Increase transit farebox recovery (total farebox receipts with respect to total service cost) to 35% or
more.
M. Reduce transit vehicular accidents by 50% per 100,000 miles of service
N. Achieve a pay-to-platform ratio of 98%. Pay-to-platform is a ratio of comparing standard
(scheduled) time for transit operators to their actual time spent during revenue service.
Performance Measurements:
The Center for Performance Measurements (CPM) 101 Survey was completed by the City in October
2011. The CPM 101 survey measured inputs and outputs across City departments, services and
functions to perform analyses on the gathered data and compare our performance to that of other
jurisdictions nationwide.
The survey was completed using fiscal year 2011 data and the final CPM 101 Annual Data Report was
issued in August 2012. The final report is available upon request or it can be accessed online at:
http://www.ci.annapolis.md.us/Government/Reports/CPMReports2012.pdf
Fiscal year 2012 data will be submitted to the CPM in October 2012. The goal is to participate annually in
the survey so that trends in the City’s performance can be monitored and benchmarked, with adjustments
and budget decisions made according to performance. As the City becomes more accustomed to and
involved in the performance measurement process, the use of such metrics will have more influence on
budgeting practices. The process will begin during the fiscal year 2014 budget process, during which the
results of the fiscal year 2011 survey will begin to inform budgetary decisions.
There were no CPM survey questions which pertained directly to the services provided by the
Department of Transportation. However, in looking ahead, performance measurements the Department
of Transportation may collect and evaluate in-house are as follows. Since performance measurements
are meant to track progress toward a goal, the list letters tie the below performance measurements to the
above-listed divison goals.
A. Improve the mobility options for the entire city: residents, visitors and employees alike.
Track number of miles served.
Track number of passenger trips.
Track passenger trips per mile/hour.
C. Diversify funding sources for transit, parking and transportation projects.
Track monthly advertising revenue.
Track advertising revenue per bus/bus shelter.
Track grant revenue.
Track ridership revenue.
Track average daily revenue per parking space.
Track average daily parking turnover.
D. Improve maintenance of service vehicles to maintain/enhance/expand the quality of
services provided to the community.
Track number of vehicle hours.
Track operating cost per hour/mile/rider/vehicle
Track maintenance schedule
269
Department of Transportation
G. Support mobility through increased on-street parking regulation enforcement.
Track number of daily vehicles parked.
Track number of parking citation daily/monthly.
H. Promote the use of alternative forms of personal transportation, building upon the City’s
Bicycle Master Plan
Track number of bicycle racks
Track number of shared use paths
Track number of bike lanes
J. Achieve on-time performance in transit service delivery of 92%
Track on-time service performance.
K. Reduce customer complaints by 20%.
Track customer service complaints.
L. Increase transit farebox recovery (total farebox receipts with respect to total service costs)
to 35% or more.
Track farebox recovery ratio.
STAFFING SUMMARY BY POSITION : FISCAL YEAR 2013
Permanent Positions
Total FTE: 50
Administration:
Transportation Planner ......................................................................................................................... 1
Accounting Associate II ........................................................................................................................ 1
Administrative Office Associate ............................................................................................................ 1
Director of Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 1
Transportation Inspector ....................................................................................................................... 1
Transit Supervision and Vehicle Operators:
Transportation Supervisor ..................................................................................................................... 3
Transportation Specialist ...................................................................................................................... 1
Bus Driver II ........................................................................................................................................ 15
Bus Driver I ......................................................................................................................................... 15
Maintenance:
Fleet Specialist ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Fleet Technician I .................................................................................................................................. 1
Fleet Technician II ................................................................................................................................. 1
Parking Operations:
Parking Enforcement Officer I ............................................................................................................... 6
Parking Enforcement Officer II .............................................................................................................. 1
Meter Collector/Auto Maintenance II .................................................................................................... 1
270
Department of Transportation
Contractual and Temporary Positions
The Department of Transportation has various temporary and/or contractual positions. These positions
consist primarily of a Mobility & Parking Specialist, Bus Driver Trainees, Part-Time Bus Drivers, a Parking
Meter Collecter I, and Fleet Maintenance Technicians.
Conversions:
Of these contractual or temporary positions, the following will be included in the January 1, 2013
conversion of contractual employees to permanent status (civil service or exempt):
Administrative Division:
1. Mobility and Parking Specialist: Civil Service
Parking Operations Division
1. Parking Meter Collector I: Civil Service
This will bring the total full-time equivalent count for this department to 52 half-way through the
fiscal year.
BUDGET SUMMARY: ALL DIVISIONS
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Administration $ 661,120 $ 723,410 $ 557,878 $ 693,890 $ 552,252 5.70%
Vehicle Operations* 3,154,690 3,285,530 2,733,559 2,525,930 1,167,906 12.06%
Maintenance 553,950 447,470 499,446 733,220 762,146 7.87%
Parking 1,855,160 1,821,580 1,688,302 1,775,630 2,088,000 21.56%
Non-Allocated ** 1,229,485 4,140,392 1,766,256 3,362,635 5,059,878 52.24%
Furlough Abolishment - - - - 55,383 0.57%
Total $ 7,454,405 $ 10,418,382 $ 7,245,442 $ 9,091,305 $ 9,685,566 100%
% Change from Prior Year 39.76% -30.46% 25.48% 6.54%
* All FY 2013 Fleet Replacement Program costs for the Department of Transportation are included in the adopted operating expenses of
the Vehicle Operations Division.
** Non-Allocated expenses include debt service, depreciation, and interfund transfers. Non-allocated expenses are charged to each
enterprise fund but are charged to the General Fund collectively (as opposed to per department).
271
Department of Transportation
Division: Administration
Fund Support: Transportation Fund
Description:
Responsible for transportation planning; valet parking regulation; transit operational planning and service
management; transportation grants management; taxi-industry regulation; pedi-service regulation; and
planning, right-of-way acquisition, design and engineering, and construction of multi-modal projects.
Services:
Transportation Planning:
• Implementation of transit service enhancements and expansion plan.
• Implement transportation policy recommendations in the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
• Enforcement of Adequate Public Facility standards for non-motorized and vehicular transportation.
• Review of Traffic Impacts of Proposed Development.
• Update guidelines for traffic impact analysis as necessary.
• Regional planning: review, update and implement City’s Unified Planning Work Program and
budget; preparation of quarterly reports and invoices.
Compliance with State of Maryland and Federal Government Regulations:
• Grants.
• Procurement - Dept/Purchasing.
• Transit Operations/ Training.
• Fleet Maintenance Performance/ Procedures.
• Public Outreach and Participation - Dept/Mayor’s office.
• National Transit Database Reporting.
• Drug and Alcohol Testing Program.
• Title VI, EEO, DBE.
Marketing and Communications:
• Public Information and Outreach - Dept/Mayor’s office.
• Development of Publications, Graphics, Promotional Materials, Advertisements.
• Website Management.
• Customer Service.
• Management of Bus and Shelter Advertising Program.
Financial Management:
• Grants Management and Oversight.
• Procurement for Capital Projects.
• Budgeting and Account Management.
• Accounts Payable.
272
Department of Transportation
Division: Administration
Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning and Parking Management:
• Engineering (Safe Routes, Infrastructure and Facility Design).
• Education (Safety Instruction, Equipment Giveaways, SHARROW Programs).
• Encouragement (Bike to Work, Safe Routes to School Program, Other Events).
• Enforcement (Give/Get Respect Campaign, Coordination with APD).
• Evaluation & Planning (Master Plan, Bicycle Map, Data Collection and Analysis).
• Representation for City’s Transportation Board and City’s Parking Advisory Commission.
• Representation for Baltimore Metropolitan Council Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Group,
Baltimore Metropolitan Council Technical Committee.
• Administers and provides oversight on the drafting and enforcement of regulations related to
alternative transportation and parking.
• Develops and provides oversight for contract services related to transportation and parking.
• Analyzes and compares the effectiveness and efficiency of parking and alternative transportation
pricing programs and prepares draft reports for administration.
• Administers and provides oversight on the drafting and enforcement of regulations related to
alternative transportation and parking.
Taxi and Valet Parking Regulation:
• Licensing.
• Inspections.
• Oversight and Compliance Enforcement.
• Communications with Taxi Operators.
• Pedicab Licensing and Oversight.
• Horse and Carriage Operation Licensing and Oversight.
Greyhound Intercity Bus Service:
• Customer Service.
• Ticket Sales.
• Package Handling.
• Accounting and Reporting.
Personnel Management:
• Plans, supervises and coordinates the activities of the department subject to the direction of the
Mayor and Council.
• Internal Communication.
• Scheduling - Transit Supervisors.
• Payroll.
• Performance reviews.
• Disciplinary action.
• Union Relations.
273
Department of Transportation
Division: Administration
.
BUDGET SUMMARY:
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel* $ 570,190 $ 639,700 $ 451,370 $ 593,690 $ 430,996 78.04%
Operating 90,930 83,710 $ 106,508 100,200 $ 121,256 21.96%
Total $ 661,120 $ 723,410 $ 557,878 $ 693,890 $ 552,252 100%
% Change from Prior Year 9.42% -22.88% 24.38% -20.41%
* For FY 2013, personnel expenditures for the separate divisions of the Department of Transportation do not reflect the expense of
abolishing furlough days. Instead the cost of furlough abolishment for the department as a w hole w as calculated as a lump sum totaling
$55,383.47. This total is reflected under the all-divison budget summary in this section of the document.
** All FY 2013 Fleet Replacement Program costs for the Department of Transportation are included in the adopted operating expenses of
the Vehicle Operations Division.
274
Department of Transportation
Division: Vehicle Operations
Fund Support: Transportation Fund
Description:
Responsible for operating an effective and efficient public transit system in accordance with all state and
federal regulations.
Services:
• Operation of Circulator system (State and City), Fixed Routes (Red, Yellow, Green, Orange, Gold,
Brown, Purple), Para-transit services.
• Dispatching and ADA scheduling.
• Driver training/staff development.
• Safety compliance and quality control.
• Accident investigation.
BUDGET SUMMARY:
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel* $ 2,476,710 $ 2,646,970 $ 2,210,652 $ 2,060,430 $ 956,879 81.93%
Operating 677,980 638,560 522,908 465,500 211,027 18.07%
Total $ 3,154,690 $ 3,285,530 $ 2,733,559 $ 2,525,930 $ 1,167,906 100%
% Change from Prior Year 4.15% -16.80% -7.60% -53.76%
* For FY 2013, personnel expenditures for the separate divisions of the Department of Transportation do not reflect the expense of
abolishing furlough days. Instead the cost of furlough abolishment for the department as a w hole w as calculated as a lump sum totaling
$55,383.47. This total is reflected under the all-divison budget summary in this section of the document.
** All FY 2013 Fleet Replacement Program costs for the Department of Transportation are included in the adopted operating expenses of
the Vehicle Operations Division.
275
Department of Transportation
Division: Fleet Maintenance
Fund Support: Transportation Fund
Description:
Maintain and repair transportation and support vehicles, facilities and equipment.
Services:
• Preventive maintenance and repairs (23 transit buses (15 active), 4 support).
• Inventory management.
• Recordkeeping.
• Software management.
BUDGET SUMMARY:
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel* $ 519,450 $ 421,230 $ 312,833 $ 311,410 $ 366,224 48.05%
Operating 34,500 26,240 186,614 421,810 395,922 51.95%
Total $ 553,950 $ 447,470 $ 499,446 $ 733,220 $ 762,146 100%
% Change from Prior Year -19.22% 11.62% 46.81% 3.95%
* For FY 2013, personnel expenditures for the separate divisions of the Department of Transportation do not reflect the expense of
abolishing furlough days. Instead the cost of furlough abolishment for the department as a w hole w as calculated as a lump sum totaling
$55,383.47. This total is reflected under the all-divison budget summary in this section of the document.
** All FY 2013 Fleet Replacement Program costs for the Department of Transportation are included in the adopted operating expenses of
the Vehicle Operations Division.
276
Department of Transportation
Division: Parking
The Off-Street Parking Fund is now entitled the Parking Fund. This reflects the fact that Parking
Operations has been combined with Off-Street Parking. Parking Operations encompasses all on-
street parking responsibilities such as parking meter collections and parking enforcement (citations).
Previously, Parking Operations was under the direction of the Department of Transportation but the
division’s revenues and expenses were appropriated in the General Fund. In FY 2013, all Parking
Operations revenues were combined with Off-Street Parking Fund revenues and Parking Operations
expenses were moved to the Transportation Fund. For presentation purposes, all Parking
Operations expenses are shown below in combination with Off-Street Parking expenses.
Fund Support: Parking Enterprise Fund
Description:
Manage the municipal off-street parking facilities: Gotts Court, Hillman and Knighton Garages; Donner,
Fawcett, Larkin and South Street surface lots. Enforce City parking regulations and maintain parking
meters.
Services:
• Administer the contractual agreement for management and operation of the three garages and
four surface lots.
• Assess building systems and ensure safe and efficient operations of those building systems.
• Coordinate major repairs of all facilities and work under the CIP affecting the garages and lots.
• Coordinate other off-street parking programs and events with management staff.
• Perform long term planning to meet forecasted growth and to coordinate with transportation
efforts.
• Patrol metered spaces in the downtown area and enforce violations.
• Patrol and enforce residential parking restrictions
• Collect parking meter revenue
• Assist in planning and control of parking for special events.
• Customer service
277
Department of Transportation
Division: Parking
Goals:
• Promote utilization and cost-effectiveness of parking facilities.
• Enforce municipal parking contract and regulations.
• Enhance efficacy and usefullness of financial reporting and patron data management.
• Help coordinate on-street parking payment and collections methods.
• Enforce all municipal parking codes.
• Safeguard municipal receipts.
BUDGET SUMMARY:
% of
Budget Summary FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
Actual Actual Actual Adopted Adopted (FY 13)
Personnel* $ 592,420 $ 532,200 $ 476,224 $ 513,610 $ 527,958 25.29%
Operating 1,262,740 1,274,380 1,210,578 1,262,020 1,560,042 74.71%
Capital Outlay (Garages) 0 15,000 1,500 421,810 0 0
Total $ 1,855,160 $ 1,821,580 $ 1,688,302 $ 2,197,440 $ 2,088,000 100%
% Change from Prior Year -1.81% -7.32% 30.16% -4.98%
* For FY 2013, personnel expenditures for the separate divisions of the Department of Transportation do not reflect the expense of
abolishing furlough days. Instead the cost of furlough abolishment for the department as a w hole w as calculated as a lump sum totaling
$55,383.47. This total is reflected under the all-divison budget summary in this section of the document.
** All FY 2013 Fleet Replacement Program costs for the Department of Transportation are included in the adopted operating expenses of
the Vehicle Operations Division.
278
Appendix A: Finance Committee Report with Financial Advisory Commission Report
FY 2013 Budget Report of
The Finance Committee
of the Annapolis City Council
May 29, 2012
Finance Committee Members
Alderman Ross Arnett III, Ward 8, Chairman
Alderwoman Sheila Finlayson, Ward 4
Alderman Richard E. Israel, Ward 1
Appendix A - 1
Appendix A: Finance Committee Report with Financial Advisory Commission Report
FY2013 Budget Report of Finance Committee of Annapolis City Council
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
FINANCE COMMITTEE BUDGET STATEMENT 5
REPORT STRUCTURE 7
NEW SPENDING 8
New Spending detail: Grants and other Not-for-Profit Donations 11
New Spending Detail: Conversions 12
PROPOSED OFFSETS 13
FEE SCHEDULE 14
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 15
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART 18
LONG TERM SOLUTIONS AND OTHER REPORT ISSUES 19
2
Appendix A - 2
Appendix A: Finance Committee Report with Financial Advisory Commission Report
Executive Summary
The Finance Committee has reviewed the Mayor’s Proposed Budget and, with extensive
and invaluable help from the Finance Director, his staff, the City Manager, the Director
of Human Resources, all of the Department Heads, Virginia Burke, and especially Hilary
Raftovich and Maria Muñiz; we make the following summary recommendations to our
colleagues on the City Council.
Our primary recommendations are as follows:
• No increase in property tax revenues over the fiscal year 2012 level
• Only parking revenues and transit revenues (to include grants) will be used to
support Department of Transportation expenses. No subsidies of transit
operations from the General Fund ($861,438). To include the transfer in parking
revenues by $540,000.00 to the general fund and further to move those funds
from the general fund to the transportation budget.
• Contract out solid waste collection and redeploy or otherwise compensate affected
staff
• A City contribution to the Police and Fire Pension of 8.5% of salaries
($1,575,000)
• An appropriation of $875,000 to the OPEB Fund
• An appropriation of $600,000 to the Sidewalk Improvement Fund from bond
funds and $277,444 from the General Fund.
• Elimination of furlough days (pending agreement to contract by police)
• Approve one new hire and the expansion of an existing part time position, of the
twelve new positions proposed by the Mayor. (reducing proposed new spending
by $664,770.00)
• An enhancement of $414,540.61 to the Fleet Replacement Fund ($321,431 less
than in the Mayor’s proposed budget).
• 21 Contract Employee conversions to begin on January 1, 2013 ($142,623)
(delaying these proposed conversions by six months will save $132,377)
• An increase of funding for AEDC of $15,000 ($75,000.00 less than proposed)
• Allow excess revenue from speed cameras to fall to General Fund balance
including the support of Pension Funds.
• Operating enhancements to departmental budgets as recommended in the table in
Section One of this Report ($637,352.00 versus the $851,076 proposed in the
Mayor’s budget yielding $213,715.00 in reduced spending)
• The committee recommends some changes in the organizational chart to better
facilitate city business under the guidance of the City Manager.
Appendix A - 3
Appendix A: Finance Committee Report with Financial Advisory Commission Report
FY2013 Budget Report of Finance Committee of Annapolis City Council
The Committee supports the Fee Schedule as proposed in R-7-12. We support the
administration’s ongoing efforts to make the fees commensurate to the expenses in the
enterprise funds as required by Code. As this Committee is recommending the
contracting out of solid waste services, the fees should be amended to reflect the new
lower costs. These cost savings will increase over time and thus the fees should decrease
with them.
Finally, there is some question about the priority of the projects in the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP). With the new emphasis on City Dock Revitalization, the
committee believes more immediate action should be taken with the replacement of the
Hillman Garage and control of the monthly flooding on Compromise and Dock Streets.
4
Appendix A - 4
Appendix A: Finance Committee Report with Financial Advisory Commission Report
FY2013 Budget Report of Finance Committee of Annapolis City Council
Finance Committee Budget Statement
Budgets are by their nature a balancing act between competing objectives. Budgeters
must satisfy the need to keep taxes and fees low, while maintaining service levels
acceptable to constituents. In addition, prudence dictates that a surplus of revenues over
spending be achieved. For the fiscal year 2013 Budget the surplus must be big enough to
both provide a hedge against unforeseen expenses and to continue to restore the general
fund reserve. In addition, for fiscal year 2013 the budget must begin to address, in a
serious way, several long-term liabilities that have been left unattended for too long and
which threaten in a very real way the financial viability of the City finances.
In his State of the City address the Mayor noted three fiscal priorities: a structurally
balanced budget; restored fund balance[s]; and fully funded long-term liabilities. He
noted that in fiscal 2011 and 2012 there was a balanced approach, using spending cuts
and revenue increases. In his view, both types of actions “were necessary to stop deficit
spending, and restore structural balance to the budget.” For fiscal year 2013 the Mayor
proposes to maintain a balanced budget, continue to restore fund balances, and increase
funding for long-term liabilities; all while still providing value and quality service for
constituents.
The Finance Committee concurs with the Mayor’s budget objectives, but proposes a
somewhat different approach. We recommend holding property tax revenues to the fiscal
2012 level, a modest increase in some fees, and some reductions in current operating
costs to enable a significant increase in monies devoted to the reduction of long term
liabilities such as pension, retiree health, and infrastructure (including sidewalk repair) all
of which have been underfunded for many years. All of these recommendations are
consistent with the Mayor’s Budget, but with a different emphasis.
The City Council Finance Committee has met 22 times since the introduction of the
Mayor’s Budget on March 12, 2012. We have met with all of the City Departments, some
more than once, and have been provided with a large volume of information by the
Finance and Human Resources Departments.
In terms of recommendations, the Finance Committee has decided to start with Budget
Ordinance O-8-12, as introduced by the Mayor that calls for a tax rate of fifty-six cents
($.56) on each one hundred dollars ($100.00) of assessable property in the City of
Annapolis as of the end of June 30, 2013. The Mayor’s Budget calls for a property tax
increase of approximately $.10 on each one hundred dollars. This includes $.07 to bring
tax revenue to level due to decreased property tax assessments and an additional property
tax increase of $.0283 to cover proposed increases in spending over fiscal 2012 levels.
5
Appendix A - 5
Appendix A: Finance Committee Report with Financial Advisory Commission Report
FY2013 Budget Report of Finance Committee of Annapolis City Council
The Committee is concerned about increasing the tax rate up to levy, and does not
recommend the additional $.0283 of additional tax increase, but the Committee does
favor several spending increases in the Mayor’s budget, as will follow.
In general the Committee finds favor with any spending that addresses restoring fund
balances, reducing debt, and funding liabilities. The Mayor proposes new spending for
fleet replacement, creating a revolving fund for such replacement rather than borrowing
to purchase new vehicles. Sidewalk repair is a long standing liability for the City and a
public safety issue for residents, business and visitors (we need to begin the process of
bringing our sidewalks up to code). The City has been negligent in its obligation to the
Police and Fire Pension Plan. The pension is underfunded by over $21+ million and we
must restart payments into the pension fund. Even more egregious is our unfunded
liability for retiree health benefits (OPEB), now estimated by our actuaries as a deficit of
$46+ million and growing steadily. Finally, the Committee supports the Administration’s
plans to address the huge unfunded liability for City infrastructure such as water, sewer
pipe and storm drain systems, buildings and roads -- a liability estimated to be $120
million.
Further, the Administration proposes to raise several fees this year, to introduce a new
parking ticket system [automated license plate recognition], and new speeding cameras in
school zones that will issue automatic fines. The Committee has mixed opinions on the
cost benefit of these new fees and fines.
6
Appendix A - 6
Appendix A: Finance Committee Report with Financial Advisory Commission Report
FY2013 Budget Report of Finance Committee of Annapolis City Council
Report Structure
This report contains the Finance Committee’s proposed changes to the Mayor’s budget.
The changes in expenses and revenues are contained in the attached proforma (equaling a
balanced budget as required by law). Proposed changes to the text of the Budget
Ordinance, CIP Ordinance or Fee Resolution are stated as “proposed amendments”
throughout the document.
The proforma as submitted has been reviewed and approved by the Finance Department
and the proposed legislative amendments reviewed by the Office of Law.
With the exception of recommendations noted in the following report, the Committee
accepts the Mayor’s Budget as presented in O-8-12 and the Proforma Budget Analysis as
of March 12, 2012.
7
Appendix A - 7
Appendix A: Finance Committee Report with Financial Advisory Commission Report
FY2013 Budget Report of Finance Committee of Annapolis City Council
New Spending
The Finance Committee reviewed the Mayor’s proposed $5,160,943.55 of new spending.
The Committee supported $3,423,812.09 of that spending including the restoration of
furlough days (as outlined in the pending union contracts), funding for sidewalks, fleet
replacement, and some fire department upgrades that have been long deferred. The
committee believes that the Mayor did not allocate enough new spending to OPEB (Other
Post Employment Benefits, or retiree medical coverage) and Police and Fire pension.
These are long term issues that need to be dealt with for the sake of our employees as
well as the City’s long term financial health. The Committee recommends $834,000.00
in additional new spending towards the pension and $675,000.00 in additional new
spending towards OPEB. This brings the recommended new spending of the committee
to almost level with the Mayors suggestions but prioritizes programs that will contribute
to the financial health of the City and in the long term will save the city money. The new
spending recommendations of the Mayor and the Committee are detailed below:
Item Mayor’s Budget Committee Difference
Recommends
General Fund
New Hires (12) $0.00
Finance (2) $182,250.00 $91,125.00 ($91,125.00)
Deputy prop maint $57,880.00 $0.00 ($57,880.00)
Stormwater Eng. $86,820.00 $0.00 ($86,820.00)
Police* $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Harbormaster $76,685.00 $0.00 ($76,685.00)
ADOT Deputy $138,690.00 $0.00 ($138,690.00)
Law (2) $152,820.00 $0.00 ($152,820.00)
City Manager Asst.* $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
REC acct clerk $60,750.00 $0.00 ($60,750.00)
Camera Operator $16,200.00 $16,200.00 $0.00
Total New Staff $772,095.00 $107,325.00 ($664,770.00)
Fleet Replacement
General Fund $593,350.61 $493,350.61 ($100,000.00)
Water Fund $93,425.09 $93,425.00 ($0.09)
Sewer Fund $77,360.25 $77,360.00 ($0.25)
Transportation Fund $182,180.90 $36,000.00 ($146,180.90)
Dock Fund $11,905.37 $11,905.00 ($0.37)
8
Appendix A - 8
Appendix A: Finance Committee Report with Financial Advisory Commission Report
FY2013 Budget Report of Finance Committee of Annapolis City Council
Refuse Fund $77,750.00 $2,500.00 ($75,250.00)
Stormwater Fund $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total (less 300k level-
funded) $735,972.22 $414,540.61 ($321,431.61)
Furlough by Fund
General Fund Employees $662,773.67 $662,773.67 $0.00
Enter. Fund Employees $103,035.66 $105,753.81 $2,718.15
Total by Fund $765,809.33 $768,527.48 $2,718.15
Conversions $275,000.00 $142,623.00 ($132,377.00)
Pension $741,000.00 $1,575,000.00 $834,000.00
OPEB $200,000.00 $875,000.00 $675,000.00
AEDC $90,000.00 $15,000.00 ($75,000.00)
MBE
Main St. & Arts Dist. $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $0.00
Community Grants $45,000.00 $45,000.00 $0.00
Sidewalks $600,000.00 $277,444.00 ($322,556.00)
Whitmore Park $10,000.00 $0.00 ($10,000.00)
Maryland Hall $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $0.00
Sailing Hall of Fame $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $0.00
Mayor’s Office $0.00
Boards & Comm. $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $0.00
Legal Ads $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $0.00
Law training $8,500.00 $0.00 ($8,500.00)
Finance
(Services) $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $0.00
MIT (MUNIS) $56,630.00 $56,630.00 $0.00
HR
exams & Services $40,500.00 $40,500.00 $0.00
P&Z $0.00
Pro. Cert $2,060.00 $2,060.00 $0.00
CDBG Legal $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $0.00
Hist. Markers $5,000.00 $0.00 ($5,000.00)
HPA Inventory $1,000.00 $0.00 ($1,000.00)
Police $0.00
Maint. & Supply $35,000.00 $0.00 ($35,000.00)
R&M $10,500.00 $0.00 ($10,500.00)
9
Appendix A - 9
Appendix A: Finance Committee Report with Financial Advisory Commission Report
FY2013 Budget Report of Finance Committee of Annapolis City Council
Fire $0.00
EMS supplies $71,500.00 $71,500.00 $0.00
cell phones/wireless $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $0.00
Air cards/laptops $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $0.00
fleet maintenance $45,000.00 $45,000.00 $0.00
Vehicle Repeater $53,000.00 $53,000.00 $0.00
Tiburon $43,500.00 $43,500.00 $0.00
Public Works $0.00
radios $5,986.00 $5,986.00 $0.00
roadways PT emp. $102,515.00 $0.00 ($102,515.00)
flags/curb paint $12,500.00 $0.00 ($12,500.00)
water dist. OT $25,376.00 $25,376.00 $0.00
wastewater OT $3,700.00 $3,700.00 $0.00
Water Plant Maint. $200,000.00 $200,000.00 $0.00
Recs & Parks $0.00
radios $3,900.00 $3,900.00 $0.00
Transportation $0.00
training (req) $12,700.00 $2,000.00 ($10,700.00)
passenger survey $20,000.00 $0.00 ($20,000.00)
marketing $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $0.00
ALPR $8,000.00 $0.00 ($8,000.00)
total of proposed new
spending $5,160,943.55 $4,932,812.09 ($228,131.46)
* new positions that are approved but require no new funding
10
Appendix A - 10
Appendix A: Finance Committee Report with Financial Advisory Commission Report
FY2013 Budget Report of Finance Committee of Annapolis City Council
New Spending detail: Grants and other Not-for-Profit Donations
The Committee supports the recommendations of the advisory committee on allocations
of the Community Grant funds with the adjustments outlined in the following chart.
Finance
FY 2013 Committees Committee
Shaded Grants Are Required Matching Funds Suggested Suggested
Funds Requested Allocations Allocations
Four Rivers Heritage Area 91 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000
Annap. Youth Services Bureau 84 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
St. Philips Family Life Center 96.6 $10,000 $6,800 $5,000
Heritage Baptist Church 94.3 $5,000 $3,400 $2,500
Art Walk 94 $9,000 $6,120 $5,000
Anne Arundel County Volunteer
Center 93.3 $5,000 $3,400 $2,500
Box of Rain 93 $5,000 $3,400 $2,500
Creating Communities 91.6 $2,500 $1,700 $1,500
Paint Annapolis 2013/ Plein Air 91.3 $2,700 $1,835 $1,500
The Arc 91 $5,000 $3,400 $2,500
Seeds 4 Success 90.3 $16,000 $10,880 $9,000
Maritime Museum 90.3 $30,000 $20,400 $15,000
Gems & Jewels 88.3 $20,000 $13,600 $10,000
Boys & Girls Club 87.6 $5,962 $4,185 $4,500
Bay Theater Company 85.6 $3,500 $2,380 $2,000
Light House 85.3 $10,000 $6,800 $8,000
Arts Council 80 $30,000 $20,400 $15,000
Historic Annapolis Foundation 77.6 $10,000 $6,800 $5,000
We Care and Friends 75.6 $40,000 $27,200 $30,500
Chesapeake Children's Museum 74.6 $10,000 $6,800 $5,000
Center of Help 73 $15,000 $10,200 $5,000
Kunte Kinte-Alex Haley
Foundation 68.3 $7,500 $5,100 $7,000
OIC Job Readiness 68 $15,000 $10,200 $11,000
Archeology in Annapolis 66.6 $35,000 $0 $16,000
Mt. Olive Community Dev. Corp 46.6 $12,000 $0 $9,000
Total Dollars Awarded $379,162 $250,000 $250,000
11
Appendix A - 11
Appendix A: Finance Committee Report with Financial Advisory Commission Report
FY2013 Budget Report of Finance Committee of Annapolis City Council
New Spending Detail: Conversions
The Committee concurs with the findings of the 2010 Contract Employment
Commission. We believe that contract positions should be reviewed and if deemed to be
critical long term positions be converted to either Civil Service or Exempt positions.
There is a cost to these conversions and in these challenging times we recommend
converting 21 employees (of 71 candidates) half way through this fiscal year. The
selections were made both on the basis of longevity and of critical nature of the work
function. The Committee also recommends that the list will be reviewed annually by the
Finance Committee for additional candidates for conversion over the next 2 fiscal years.
The Civil Service conversions have been reviewed and accepted by the Civil Service
Board as well. The Civil Service positions we recommend for conversion in FY 2013
are:
4429 MIT Specialist
4541 GIS Coordinator
4610 MIT Administrative Support Analyst
4650 GIS Technician
4782 Parking Meter Collection
5008 Mobility and Parking Specialist
5063 Front Desk Supervisor
5064 Facility Supervisor
5065 Marketing/Membership Coordinator
5083 Council Associate
4971 Facilities Maintenance Engineer II
2685 Dance and Fitness Coordinator
4887 Administrative Office Associate
4895 Office Associate III
5198 Facilities Maintenance Supervisor
0000 Deputy Director of Emergency Preparedness and Risk Management
4925 Hispanic Liaison
0000 Risk Analyst
The recommended conversions to the Exempt Service are as follows:
3177 Community Relations Specialist
3856 PIO and Quartermaster
4921 Assistant City Attorney
12
Appendix A - 12
Appendix A: Finance Committee Report with Financial Advisory Commission Report
Proposed Offsets
The Finance Committee discussed a variety of ways to offset the proposed spending and
lighten the burden on the tax payer. There was discussion of the privatization of various
city functions. This committee is recommending the privatization of refuse collection.
This recommendation is contingent on finding new positions for all the employees that
would be displaced, either with by filling jobs with the City or through employment with
the refuse contractor. This recommendation will result in significant annual savings in
the refuse fees paid by residents amounting to almost $1.8 million in each year of the 7
year contract. There will likely be some offsetting new spending in the general fund and
slightly smaller savings in the refuse fee in FY2013 budget as there will be expenses
associated with the transition. The Committee thanks the Human Resources Director, the
City Manager, the Director of Public Works, and AFSCME for their work to make this a
successful outcome for both the City workers and the fee paying residents.
We are recommending that the city review other operational efficiencies as appropriate
but the Committee is not recommending any other functions for privatization this fiscal
year.
This Committee is recommending a surplus of revenues over expenditures in the General
Fund of $4,882,053, slightly larger than that in the Mayor’s budget. This surplus is need
to continue to restore the General Fund reserve balance and reduce the city’s dependence
on short-term borrowing to maintain cashflow for day to day operations. We also
recommend the Enterprise Fund surplus of just over $1,013,747 in the Mayor’s budget.
That surplus will be used largely to finalize the restoration of reserve balances for these
Funds.
The committee is recommending the cutting of the $861,437.77 proposed subsidy to the
transportation department from the general fund, including the transfer in parking
revenues by $540,000.00 to the general fund and further to move those funds from the
general fund to the transportation budget. The Transportation Department is confident
that it can function solely on transit and parking receipts and revenues and grant funding.
Appendix A - 13
Appendix A: Finance Committee Report with Financial Advisory Commission Report
FY2013 Budget Report of Finance Committee of Annapolis City Council
Fee Schedule
The Committee supports the administration’s ongoing efforts to make the fee charges to
users commensurate to the expenses in the enterprise funds.
As this Committee is recommending the contracting out of solid waste services the fees
should be amended to reflect the new lower costs. These savings will increase after the
first transition year and thus the fees should decrease with them.
The committee offers the following amendment to the Fee Resolution:
R-7-12, Fee Schedule
Page 1, Line 16, after fees, insert: "as modified by the amendments of the City Council."
The Committee requests that staff review the current Package Goods Liquor License fees
to see if there can be a graduated fee based on the percentage of the store dedicated to
alcohol sales. The committee requests a fiscal impact be assessed for this proposed
change.
The Committee also requests a review of the “overnight” charges and times for Knighton
and Park Place garage and the consideration of changing the start time from 8:00 pm to
4:00 pm either for all users or only for hospitality industry employees.
These two fee changes will be revisited and voted on by the Committee in October.
14
Appendix A - 14
Appendix A: Finance Committee Report with Financial Advisory Commission Report
FY2013 Budget Report of Finance Committee of Annapolis City Council
Capital Improvement Program
With regard to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the Committee has the following
overarching recommendations. At the beginning of the process the City Council should
be consulted on the projects to be included in the CIP before the Capital Working
Committee and Capital Programming Committee meet to evaluate and score the project
priorities. Also, though dramatic improvements have been made in the CIP project rating
system, it still needs more improvement, especially so that scoring is financially
meaningful. The Committee also found that the evaluation and design costs as budgeted
in the CIP seem excessively high, and these cost estimates should be reevaluated with an
eye towards reduction.
In terms of this year’s proposed CIP the Committee recommends three changes. First the
committee recommends reconsideration of the timing for the Hillman Garage
replacement. The committee recommends that the assessment should begin as soon as
possible to assist with City Dock Revitalization planning. We are recommending moving
the study and design phases in to the FY2013 and FY2014 budgets to enable construction
to begin in FY2015
The committee recommends funding $600,000 in sidewalk repairs in FY2013 from bond
funds and adding $218,000 in funding from the general fund to cover the costs of staff
moved from the Refuse fund.
Finally, the committee recommends that project 728, Flood Control Infrastructure be
placed on the schedule but not funded in the FY2013 Budget to allow staff time to
complete internal evaluations before committing new funding amounts. This project
should also be considered in cooperation with the City Dock Revitalization planning.
The amended CIP pages are attached and will be submitted as amendments to R-9-12
FY2013 CIP.
15
Appendix A - 15
Appendix A: Finance Committee Report with Financial Advisory Commission Report
FY2013 Budget Report of Finance Committee of Annapolis City Council
16
Appendix A - 16
Appendix A: Finance Committee Report with Financial Advisory Commission Report
FY2013 Budget Report of Finance Committee of Annapolis City Council
17
Appendix A - 17
Appendix A: Finance Committee Report with Financial Advisory Commission Report
Capital Improvement Program – Proposed FY13-FY18
Project Detail
Project Title Project Number: T4/MUNIS Initiating Department
Flood Control Infrastructure 728 / TBD DNEP
Asset Category Asset Number Priority Score
Project Description
The study “Flood Mitigation Strategies for the City of
Annapolis: City Dock and Eastport Area” was completed
in 2011. The study identified structural options for
protecting property in flood threatened areas and provided
preliminary estimates of design and construction costs
associated with structural protection measures. A
framework for a regulatory response to flooding was
completed in the same timeframe.
Regulatory or Legal Mandates Operational Necessity
Prior Funding Non-City sources of funding
FY13 Budget commitment allows project stage: Project Years Total Project Budget
No funds requested in FY13.
Budget 5-Year Capital Plan
FY13 -
Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed FY18
Appropriation Schedule FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 Total
Land Acquisition
Design Costs
Construction Costs
Construction Project Mgmt
IT Costs
Furniture/Fixtures/Equipment
Legal Fees
Contingencies
Total
Funding Schedule
Bond funds
Operating funds
Other
Total
Debt Analysis
Borrowing Term Average Annual Debt Average Tax Rate
FY13-FY18 Total (Years) Service Impact
New Page
Proposed Finance Committee revision May 21, 2012
Appendix A - 18
Appendix A: Finance Committee Report with Financial Advisory Commission Report
Project Detail
Project Title Project Number Initiating Department
Kingsport Park TBD Recreation & Parks
Asset Category Asset Number Priority Score
Parks/Rec. facilities/Open Space 44
Project Description
This project will complete the development of the Kingsport
Park, a 3 2-acre parcel donated to the City as part of the
Kingsport residential development. The project will include
a 10-car off street parking area, pathway, small linear field,
community garden plots, security lighting, water,
landscaping and a park sign. Some preliminary design has
been completed, but will need to be updated. First year
project funds will finalize the park design and programming
with input from residents of surrounding communities.
Once finalized, grant funds are expected to defray or offset
construction costs in subsequent years.
Regulatory or Legal Mandates Operational Necessity
No Meets the essential recreation and park services for the
community. Anticipate small increase in operating costs
(~$500 annually) after project is completed.
Prior Funding Non-City sources of funding
None Application to Potential: DNR will be made in summer of
2012 (Community Parks and Playground program). City
match of $25,000 (15% of total) is factored into project
budget.
FY13 Budget commitment allows project stage: Project Years Total Project Budget
Design, Construction FY13 – FY14 172,875
Budget 5-Year Capital Plan
FY13 -
Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed FY18
Appropriation Schedule FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 Total
Land Acquisition
Design Costs 2,500 2,500
Construction Costs 145,000 145,000 145,000
Construction Project Mgmt 7,250 7,250 7,250
IT Costs
Furniture/Fixtures/Equipment
Legal Fees
Contingencies 18,125 12,500 5,625 18,125
Total 172,875 15,000 157,875 0 0 0 0 172,875
Funding Schedule
Bond funds 25,931 15,000 10,931 25,931
Operating funds
Other 146,944 146,944 146,944
Total 172,875 15,000 157,875 172,875
Debt Analysis
Average Annual Debt Average Tax Rate
FY13 Total Borrowing Term (Years) Service Impact
25,931 5 5,915 0.01
Page 22
Draft Revision prepared May 30, 2012
Appendix A - 19
Appendix A: Finance Committee Report with Financial Advisory Commission Report
FY2013 Budget Report of Finance Committee of Annapolis City Council
Organizational Chart
The committee proposes the following changes in the Organizational chart.
We recommend moving the MBE function from the Mayors Office to the City Manager’s
office. We recommend adding the Assistant City Manager and City Council Liaison to
the City Manager’s office. Finally we recommend moving the Office of law from
supervision of the Mayor to the Supervision of the City Manager to make it consistent
with all the other city departments and to enable the City Manager to better direct
interdepartmental work.
The amended chart is as follows:
18
Appendix A - 20
Appendix A: Finance Committee Report with Financial Advisory Commission Report
FY2013 Budget Report of Finance Committee of Annapolis City Council
Long Term Solutions and Other Report Issues
Financial Accounting: While the proforma certainly contains all of the detail needed to
evaluate the budget, it lacks ease of understanding. Many important policy decisions are
implied by the numbers rather than being made explicit. An example is the so called
“Constant Levy” policy that can only be detected by noting that the property tax revenue
for FY 12 and 13 are the same amount in each year. This is a huge policy change left to
be inferred. While the committee commends the Finance Director and staff on their diligence
and commitment to fiscal responsibility, we believe that additional information is needed to aid in
making policy decisions. For example, the Committee and other members of the City council find
a need for some summary level data and charts that precede the great level of budget detail in the
Proforma. Also need for the future is a summary of policy decisions that are implicit in the
budget detail.
For this year’s budget, the Committee believes that the estimates for Automatic License
Plate Recognition System and Speed Camera fines for the first year can be raised, based
on the experience of other governmental entities in Maryland. Also, the practice of
excluding grant money from the proforma is probably good accounting practice, but it
hurts the ability to make policy evaluations of each Departments full revenue amounts
and how well that covers their expenditures. Perhaps a second set of more aggregate
accounts could be developed that shows by department, revenues and expenses including
expected or traditional grants and other external sources of revenue. Finally, to set a
context for the current year budget amounts, the Committee would like to see 2 or 3 year
out projections of expected budget revenues and expenses by department.
Reserves Funds: The Committee would like to see an explicit accounting for all of the
reserve funds, including fund balance history and projections. Also needed is a statement
on the current condition and projected status of each reserve fund. As an example, the
Water Fund still owes money to the General Fund. When will that debt be paid off? For
the future, what amount of reserve, and hence impact on fees, will be needed once work
begins on the new water purification plant begins?
Contingency Reserve: The Committee would like to have quantified the amount of
money set aside for the Contingency Reserve and know the rules governing the amount
going into and expenditures from that reserve.
Self Insurance: The city has been self-insured for several years for many liabilities,
including health benefits. The Committee would like to see data and information of what
liabilities are self-insured, including the amounts set aside for the liabilities, amounts paid
out for losses, and any reinsurance coverage with the premiums paid and losses covered.
We also recommended looking at cost and benefits of purchased insurance to see if we
are really saving by being self-funded.
19
Appendix A - 21
Appendix A: Finance Committee Report with Financial Advisory Commission Report
FY2013 Budget Report of Finance Committee of Annapolis City Council
Other Long-term Issues: Some of the proposals put forward by members of the
Committee that are not being recommended for this year’s budget, but deserve further
review by the Administration for next year’s budget exercise.
• Further evaluate employee health benefits for both active and retired employees
• Endorse the formation of the Task Force on Police and Fire Pension Fund and
OPEB
• Evaluate the benefits and cost savings of moving immediately to the use of SUVs
or other light vehicles for carrying extra fire staff to EMS calls
• Examine and report on operational efficiencies throughout the city organization
• Complete all evaluations recommended in the Fiscal 2012 Report from the
Finance Committee.
• Conduct an evaluation of all possible training and technologies available but not
employed by the City that would enhance employee productivity and job
satisfaction
• Initiate a comprehensive transportation evaluation to determine the extent to
which transportation should be provided outside the City boundaries
• Review the idea of establishing a sidewalk enterprise fund
• Examine state code related to penalties for exceeding appropriated budget
allocations for an operating component (department or office level)
• Evaluate the impact of demolishing and rebuilding the Hillman garage. The
Committee recognizes that this project will cause several effects.
1. The resulting parking shortage will have a major impact on downtown
business and a decrease in parking revenue while also incurring new
debt service for the City
2. The Department of Transportation must prepare for the effects on their
budget and operations
• A proper funding source should be determined for the City’s parking availability
signage. Expenditures for the program will be matched to revenue generation,
most probably benefiting the Parking Fund.
• The City should enact formal impasse protocol for union contract negotiations.
• It is recognized that a significant number of Police Department civilian employee
salaries are solely grant-funded. The department’s General Fund personnel
expenditures should be amended/reduced to accurately reflect only those
salary/benefits which are funded by the General Fund. Accordingly, when grants
are approved by the Finance Committee and City Council, the grant-funded
positions will be charged to the appropriate grant accounts.
20
Appendix A - 22
Appendix A: Finance Committee Report with Financial Advisory Commission Report
FY2013 Budget Report of Finance Committee of Annapolis City Council
• The Police Department’s general fund personnel expenditures will allow for the
attrition of one Record Specialist position.
• The City Council should review the continuance of the Community Grant
Program before the next funding cycle begins
• The Committee recommends moving Four Rivers, Annapolis Youth Services
Bureau and The Kunta Kinte Foundation to line item funding in the next budget
cycle
21
Appendix A - 23
Appendix A: Finance Committee Report with Financial Advisory Commission Report
FY2013 Budget Report of Finance Committee of Annapolis City Council
Appendix 1: letters from Financial Advisory Commission
22
Appendix A - 24
Appendix A: Finance Committee Report with Financial Advisory Commission Report
Appendix A - 25
Appendix A: Finance Committee Report with Financial Advisory Commission Report
Appendix A - 26
Appendix A: Finance Committee Report with Financial Advisory Commission Report
Appendix A - 27
Appendix A: Finance Committee Report with Financial Advisory Commission Report
Appendix A - 28
Appendix A: Finance Committee Report with Financial Advisory Commission Report
Appendix A - 29
Appendix B: Budget Ordinance
1 CITY COUNCIL OF THE
2 City of Annapolis
3
4 Ordinance No. O-8-12
5
6 Introduced by: Mayor Cohen
7
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Legislative referrals are subject to City Council action at the time of introduction
and are reflected in the City Council’s adopted minutes
First Reading Public Hearing Fiscal Impact Note 90 Day Rule
3/12/12 ?/??/12 6/12/12
Referred to Referral Date Meeting Date Action Taken
Finance Committee 3/12/12
Financial Advisory
3/12/12
Commission
8
9
10 A ORDINANCE concerning
11 Annual Operating Budget: FY 2013
12
13 FOR the purposes of adopting an operating budget for the City of Annapolis for the Fiscal
14 Year 2013; appropriating funds for expenditures for the Fiscal Year 2013; defraying all
15 expenses and liabilities of the City of Annapolis and levying same for the purposes
16 specified; specifying certain duties of the Director of Finance; and, specifying a rate of
17 interest to be charged upon overdue property taxes.
18
19 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 6.16.010 of the Annapolis City Code, on March 12, 2012,
20 the Mayor shall submit to the City Council the proposed annual operating
21 budget for the Fiscal Year 2013; and
22
23 WHEREAS, on the Annapolis City Council shall hold a public hearing on the budget for
24 the City of Annapolis for the Fiscal Year 2013 and the constant yield tax rate
25 increase; and
26
27 WHEREAS, the citizens of Annapolis, employees of the City of Annapolis and all
28 interested persons shall be given an opportunity to express their views
29 concerning the Fiscal Year 2013 budget; and
30
31
32 NOW THEREFORE:
33
34 SECTION I: BE IT ESTABLISHED AND ORDAINED BY THE ANNAPOLIS CITY
35 COUNCIL that the annual operating budget for the Fiscal Year 2013, as attached hereto and
36 incorporated herein by reference, is hereby approved and finally adopted for such fiscal year;
37 and funds for all expenditures for the purposes specified in the budget, for the Fiscal Year 2013,
Appendix B - 1
Appendix B: Budget Ordinance
O-8-12
Page 2
1 are hereby appropriated in the amounts therein specified and will be used by the City in the
2 sums itemized in said budget hereby adopted for the principal objectives and purposes thereof,
3 and the total sum of funds herein provided for the respective departments and major operating
4 units thereof, boards, commissions and agencies.
5
6 SECTION II: BE IT ESTABLISHED AND ORDAINED BY THE ANNAPOLIS CITY
7 COUNCIL that a tax rate of fifty-six ($0.56) on each one hundred dollars ($100.00) of
8 assessable property in the City of Annapolis be and the same is hereby imposed on all
9 assessable property for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2013, to be collected pursuant to the
10 provisions contained in Article VII of the Charter of the City of Annapolis and all other provisions
11 pertaining to tax levies in said Charter, the said tax rate of fifty-six cents ($0.56) on each one
12 hundred dollars ($100) shall be used for the operation of the General Fund of the City of
13 Annapolis.
14
15 SECTION III: AND BE IT FURTHER ESTABLISHED AND ORDAINED BY THE
16 ANNAPOLIS CITY COUNCIL that a tax rate of one dollar sixty-six cents ($1.66) on each one
17 hundred dollars ($100.00) of personal and operating property in the City of Annapolis be and the
18 same is hereby imposed on all personal and operating property for the fiscal year ending June
19 30, 2013, to be collected pursuant to the provisions contained in Article VII of the Charter of the
20 City of Annapolis and all other provisions pertaining to tax levies in said Charter, the said tax
21 rate of one dollar sixty-six cents ($1.66) on each one hundred dollars ($100) shall be used for
22 the operation of the General Fund of the City of Annapolis.
23
24 SECTION IV: AND BE IT FURTHER ESTABLISHED AND ORDAINED BY THE
25 ANNAPOLIS CITY COUNCIL that it shall be the duty of the Director of Finance of the City of
26 Annapolis to collect the sums set apart for the several funds, to keep separate receipts and
27 amounts thereof, to deposit the same to the credit of funds as required by the several Acts and
28 Ordinances relating to and providing for the several bonds issued, and to receive on account
29 thereof only current money and legal tender of the United States.
30
31 SECTION V: AND BE IT FURTHER ESTABLISHED AND ORDAINED BY THE
32 ANNAPOLIS CITY COUNCIL that taxes levied by this Ordinance remaining unpaid on October
33 1, 2013, except for taxpayers who elect to make a partial payment before October 1 with the
34 balance due later, as allowed by State law shall be overdue and from and after that date shall
35 bear interest, to be collected with said taxes, at the rate of one and one-half percent (1.5%) per
36 month until paid.
37
38 SECTION VI: AND BE IT FURTHER ESTABLISHED AND ORDAINED BY THE
39 ANNAPOLIS CITY COUNCIL that this Ordinance shall take effect on July 1, 2012.
40
41
42 ADOPTED this ____ day of ____, ____.
43
44
ATTEST: THE ANNAPOLIS CITY COUNCIL
BY
Regina C. Watkins-Eldridge, MMC, City Clerk Joshua J. Cohen, Mayor
45
Appendix B - 2
Appendix B: Budget Ordinance
O-8-12
Page 3
1
2 EXPLANATION
3 CAPITAL LETTERS indicate matter added to existing law.
4 [brackets] indicate matter stricken from existing law.
5 Underlining indicates amendments.
6
Appendix B - 3
Appendix C: Glossary of Terms
Accounting System - The total structure of Bond Rating - A rating from a schedule of
records and procedures which identify, record, grades indicating the probability of timely
classify, summarize, and report information on repayment of principal and interest on bond
the financial positions and results of operations issued.
of a government.
Budget - A plan of financial operation comprised
Accrual Basis of Accounting - The method of of an estimate of proposed expenditures for a
accounting under which transactions are fiscal year and the proposed means of financing
recognized when they occur, regardless of the those expenditures to fund City services in
timing of related cash flows. accordance with adopted policy.
ADA - See Americans With Disabilities Act. Budget Year - The fiscal year for which the
budget is being considered, that is, the fiscal
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) - This year following the current year.
federal act gives civil rights protections to
individuals with disabilities, similar to those CAFR - See Comprehensive Annual Financial
provided to individuals on the basis of race, sex, Report.
national origin, and religion.
Capital Budget - The annual adoption by the
Annexation - The incorporation of additional Mayor and Council of project appropriations.
territory within the domain of the City. Project appropriations are for the amount
necessary to carry out a capital project's
Appropriation - An authorization made by the expenditure plan, including multi-year contracts
Mayor and Council that permits City for which a total appropriation covering several
departments to make expenditures of years’ planned expenditures may be required.
governmental resources for specific purposes
within a specific time frame. Capital Facilities Assessment (CFA) - Refers
to the benefits that accrue to properties that are
Assessable Base - The total value of all real adjacent to public improvements. For example,
and personal property in the City which is used if water mains are installed for the use of a
as a basis for levying taxes. Tax exempt neighborhood, the individual properties that are
property is excluded from the assessable base. then connected to the water mains are receiving
a "front-foot benefit", for which they will pay a
Assessed Valuation - The current market value one-time connection charge, and an annual
of real estate as determined by the Department assessment for thirty (30) years.
of Assessments and Taxation.
Capital Outlay - Expenditures which result in
Balanced Budget - A budget in which revenues the acquisition of, or addition to, fixed assets.
equal expenditures. Any item with an expected life of more than a
year and a value of more than $5,000, such as
Bond - A written promise to pay a designated an automobile, truck or furniture, is considered a
sum of money (called the principal), at a specific capital outlay.
date in the future, together with periodic interest
at a specified rate. In the Operating Budget, Capital Improvements Program (CIP) - The
these payments are identified as debt service. annual updated plan or schedule of project
Bonds are generally used to obtain long-term expenditures for public facilities and
financing for capital improvements. infrastructure with estimated project costs,
source of funding, and timing of work over a six-
Bond Anticipation Notes - Short-term interest- year period. For financial planning and general
bearing notes issued by a government in management, the capital improvements program
anticipation of bonds to be issued at a later date. is a plan of work and expenditures, and is the
The notes are retired from proceeds of the bond basis for annual appropriations and bond issues.
issue to which they are related.
Bonds Issued - Bonds sold.
Appendix C - 1
Appendix C: Glossary of Terms
Capital Project - A governmental effort Consolidated Omnibus Budget
involving expenditures and funding for the Reconciliation Act (COBRA) - The legal
creation of usually permanent facilities and other requirement of an employer to offer eligible
public assets having a relatively long life. employees and their families the opportunity for
Certain planning studies, consultant fees, City a temporary extension of health coverage
staff charges, and major equipment, furniture, (called "continuation coverage") at group rates in
and fixtures necessary to make facilities certain instances where coverage under the plan
operational may also be considered part of would otherwise end.
capital projects.
Constant Yield - The tax rate that maintains the
CDBG - See Community Development Block revenue from property taxes at the same level
Grant. as the prior year. This rate is computed by the
State Department of Assessments and Taxation
Chart of Accounts - A uniform listing of each year on the basis of the new, adjusted
accounts that standardizes City accounting and assessable base for each jurisdiction. New
supports the preparation of standard external Property appearing on the rolls for the first time
reports. It assists in providing control over all is excluded from the calculation.
financial transactions and resource balances.
Contingency - Contingency funding represents
CIP - See Capital Improvements Program. monies budgeted for use in unforeseen
circumstances.
Client-Server - A computing platform where
desktop PCs, known as clients, access large Current Resources - Resources to which
pools of information stored on high speed data recourse can be had to meet current obligations
servers. User interaction takes place at the PC, and expenditures. Examples are current assets,
typically through graphical interfaces such as estimated revenues of a particular period not yet
Windows. Information storage is managed by realized, transfers from other funds authorized
the server. This approach combines the PC's but not received, and in the case of certain
innovation and ease-of-use with access to large funds, bonds authorized and unissued.
pools of data traditionally associated with
mainframe computers. Current Year - The fiscal year immediately
preceding the fiscal year for which the budget is
COBRA - See Consolidated Omnibus Budget being prepared.
Reconciliation Act.
Debt Issuance - Sale or issuance of any type of
Commingle - Refers to materials included in the debt instrument, such as bond.
City's recycling program, specifically glass jars
and bottles, aluminum and steel cans, and Debt Ratios - Ratios which provide measures of
plastic containers. assessing debt load and ability to repay debt
which play a part in the determination of credit
Community Development Block Grant ratings. They are also used to evaluate the
(CDBG) - A general purpose federal grant City's debt position over time and against its own
primarily used to facilitate the production and standards and policies.
preservation of low and moderate income
housing. Debt Service - The payment of interest on and
repayment of principal on borrowed funds. The
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report term may also be used to refer to payment of
(CAFR) - The official annual report of a interest alone.
government.
Deficit - The amount by which a government's
budget outlays exceed its budget receipts for a
given period, usually a fiscal year.
Appendix C - 2
Appendix C: Glossary of Terms
Department - A major administrative unit of the Expenditure - The issuance of checks,
City which indicates overall management disbursement of cash, or electronic transfer of
responsibility for an operation or a group of funds made to liquidate an obligation. Where
related operations within a functional area. accounts are kept on an accrual or modified
accrual basis, expenditures are recognized
Depreciation - An allocation made for the whether or not cash payments have been made.
decrease in value of physical assets through Where accounts are kept on a cash basis, they
wear, deterioration, or obsolescence. are recognized only when cash payments have
been made.
Disbursement - The expenditure of monies
from an account. Expense - The outflow of assets or the incurring
of liabilities (or both) during a period as a result
Distinguished Budget Presentation Award of rendering services, delivering or producing
Program - A voluntary program administered by goods, or carrying out other normal operating
the Government Finance Officers Association activities.
(GFOA) to encourage governments to publish
efficiently organized and easily readable budget Fees and Credits - Income from any billing for
documents and to provide peer recognition and services or sale made by the City; for example,
technical assistance to the fiscal officers athletic program registration fees, building
preparing them. permit fees, and animal licenses.
Division - A categorization of organizational Fiscal Policy - The City's policies with respect
unit, indicating management responsibility for an to revenues, spending, and debt management
operation or a group of related operations within as these relate to government services,
a functional area, subordinate to the department programs, and capital investment. Fiscal policy
level of organizational unit. provides a set of principles for the planning and
programming of government budgets and their
Empowerment - A managerial style which funding.
places emphasis on decentralized problem-
solving in an effort to allow employees and Fiscal Year - Any yearly accounting period,
citizens who are affected by policy decisions to regardless of its relationship to a calendar year.
participate extensively in the decision-making The fiscal year for the City begins on July 1 of
process. each year and ends on June 30 of the following
year; it is designated by the calendar year in
Encumbrance - A firm commitment to pay for which it ends. For example, the fiscal year 1996
future goods and services, formally documented begins on July 1, 1995 and ends on June 30,
with a contract or agreement that may extend 1996.
over more than one budget year. Both
encumbrances and planned expenditures on a Fixed Assets - Assets of a long-term character
project must fit within an agency's appropriation. which are intended to continue to be held and
used. Examples of fixed assets include items
Enterprise Fund - A fund established to such as land, buildings, machinery, furniture,
account for operations that are financed and and other equipment.
operated in a manner similar to a private
business enterprise, where the intent of the Fringe Benefits - For budgeting purposes,
governing body is that the costs (expenses, fringe benefits are employer payments for social
including depreciation) of providing goods or security, retirement, group health, dental and life
services to the general public on a continuing insurance.
basis be financed or recovered primarily through
user charges. The City's enterprise funds Front-Foot Benefit - See Capital Facilities
include the Water, Sewer, Dock, Market House, Assessment.
Transportation, Off Street Parking, Stormwater
Management, and Refuse funds. FTE - See Full-Time Equivalent.
Appendix C - 3
Appendix C: Glossary of Terms
Full Faith and Credit - A pledge of the City's Goal - A statement of broad direction, purpose,
taxing power to repay debt obligations. or intent based on the needs of the community.
A goal is general and timeless.
Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) - A measure of
authorized personnel calculated by dividing Governmental Accounting Standards Board
hours of work per year by the number of hours (GASB) - This organization was established as
worked per year by a full-time employee. an arm of the Financial Accounting Foundation
in April, 1984, to promulgate standards of
Fund - A fiscal entity with revenues and financial accounting and reporting with respect
expenses which are segregated for the purpose to activities and transactions of state and local
of carrying out specific activities or attaining governmental entities.
certain objectives in accordance with special
regulations, restrictions, or limitations, and Grant - A county, state, or federal financial
constituting an independent fiscal and assistance award making payment in cash or in
accounting entity. kind for a specified program.
Fund Balance - The cumulative difference Gross Bonded Debt - The total amount of
between revenues and expenditures over the life direct debt of a government represented by
of a fund. A negative fund balance is usually outstanding bonds before deduction of any
referred to as a deficit. assets available and earmarked for their
retirement.
FY - See Fiscal Year.
HVAC - An abbreviation for heating, ventilation
GAAP - See Generally Accepted Accounting and air conditioning equipment.
Principles.
ICMA - An abbreviation for International City
GASB - See Governmental Accounting Manager's Association.
Standards Board.
Infrastructure - The physical assets of a city
General Obligation Bonds - Bonds that are (streets, water, sewer, public buildings, parks),
backed by the full faith and credit of the issuing upon which the continuance and growth of a
government. community depend.
General Fund - The general operating fund that Interfund Operating Transfers - Payments
is used to account for all financial resources made from one operating fund to another as a
except for these required to be accounted for in contribution to defray a portion of the recipient
another fund. fund's costs.
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles Intergovernmental Revenues - Revenues from
(GAAP) - Uniform minimum standards for other governments in the form of grants,
financial accounting and recording, entitlement, shared revenues, or payments in-
encompassing the conventions, rules, and lieu-of-taxes.
procedures that define accepted accounting
principles as determined through common Investments - Securities, bonds, and real
practice or as promulgated by the Governmental property (land and buildings) held for the
Accounting Standards Board, Financial production of revenues in the form of interest,
Accounting Standards Board, or various other dividends, rentals, or lease payments. The term
accounting standard-setting bodies. does not include fixed assets as used in the
normal course of governmental operations.
GFOA - An abbreviation for Government
Finance Officers Association.
Appendix C - 4
Appendix C: Glossary of Terms
Levy - (Verb) To impose taxes or special Objective - Desired output-oriented
assessments for the support of governmental accomplishments which can be measured and
activities. (Noun) The total amount of taxes or achieved within a given time frame.
special assessments imposed by a government. Achievement of the objective advances an
organization toward a corresponding goal.
Liabilities - Debts or other legal obligations
arising out of transactions in the past which must Obligations - Amounts which a government
be liquidated, renewed, or refunded at some may be required legally to meet out of its
future date. This term does not include resources. They include not only actual
encumbrances. liabilities, but also unliquidated encumbrances.
Long-Term Debt - Debt with a maturity of more Operating Budget - See Budget.
than one year after the date of issuance.
Management Indicators - Specific quantitative Operating Expenditures - Costs other than
and qualitative measures of work performed as expenditures for personnel directly employed by
an objective of a department. the City (salaries, wages, and fringe benefits)
and capital outlays. Examples of operating
Matured Bonds Payable - A liability account expenditures include office supplies, telephone
reflecting unpaid bonds which have reached or expense, consulting or professional services,
passed their maturity date. and travel expenses.
Measurement Focus - The accounting Ordinance - A formal legislative enactment by
convention which determines (1) which assets the governing board of a municipality. If it is not
and liabilities are included on an entity's balance in conflict with any higher form of law, such as a
sheet and (2) whether its operating statement state statute or constitutional provision, it has
presents "financial flow" information (revenues the full force and effect of law within the
and expenditures) or "capital maintenance" boundaries of the municipality to which it
information (revenues and expenses). applies. The difference between an ordinance
and a resolution is that the latter requires less
Modified Accrual Basis of Accounting - The legal formality and has a lower legal status.
accrual basis of accounting adapted to the Ordinarily, the statutes or charter will specify or
governmental fund type. It is a modified version imply those legislative actions which must be
of the full accrual basis of accounting in that it, in enacted by ordinance and those which may be
general, measures financial flow (tax and spend) enacted by resolution.
of an organization, rather than capital
accumulation (profit or loss). Other Charges - In a summary analysis of
expense types, this refers to all expenses not
Net Bonded Debt - Gross bonded debt less any included within specifically defined
cash or other assets available and earmarked categorizations. For example, within the City's
for its retirement. general fund, this category consists primarily of
funding to Outside Agencies and transfers
Non-Departmental Operating Expenditures - to/from other funds.
Operating expenditures which are not charged
directly to specific departments, but are a cost to Outside Agency - An independent non-profit
the City as a whole, such as debt service community organization working on behalf of the
payments and general liability insurance. community that requests funding contributions
from the City.
Object Expense Code - As used in expenditure
classification, this term applies to the article Overlapping Debt - The proportionate share of
purchased or the service obtained. the debts of local governments located wholly or
in part within the limits of the reporting
government which must be borne by property
within each government.
Appendix C - 5
Appendix C: Glossary of Terms
Pay-As-You-Go - Capital expenditures included Purchase Order - A document which authorizes
in the Capital Improvements Program which are the delivery of specified merchandise or the
funded by a contribution from an operating fund. rendering of certain services and the making of
charge for them.
Per Capita - Per unit of population; by or for
each person. Reappropriation - Statutory action to continue
the availability, whether for the same or different
Performance Measurements - See purposes, of all or part of the unobligated portion
Management Indicators. of a budget into the next fiscal year.
Permanent Employee - An employee who is Reappropriation Ordinance - Changes made
hired to fill a position anticipated to have a to the appropriation ordinance during the fiscal
continuous service duration of longer than one year to reflect encumbered amounts added to
year, whose compensation is derived from the the current budget from the prior fiscal year.
City's Administrative, Police, or Union
classification tables, and whose position is Receipts - Collections from the public, based on
established by the Position Control System. a government's exercise of its sovereign powers.
Governmental receipts consist of receipts from
Personnel (Costs) - Expenditures which include taxes, court fines, gifts and contributions, and
salary costs for full-time, part-time, hourly, and compulsory licenses.
contract employees, overtime expenses, and all
associated fringe benefits. Reimbursement - A sum (1) that is received by
the government as a repayment for commodities
Previously Authorized Projects - Projects sold or services furnished either to the public or
listed in the CIP section that were funded in prior to another government account and (2) that is
years, but which have not been completed and authorized by law to be credited directly to
formally closed. specific appropriation and fund accounts.
Prior Year(s) - The fiscal year(s) immediately Repurchase Agreement - An agreement in
preceding the current year. which a governmental entity transfers cash to a
broker-dealer or financial institution; the broker-
Program Area - A group of activities and/or dealer or financial institution transfers securities
work programs based primarily upon to the entity and promises to repay the cash plus
measurable performance. interest in exchange for the same securities.
Projections - Estimates of budget authority, Resolution - A special or temporary order of a
outlays, receipts, or other budget amounts legislative body; an order of a legislative body
extending several years into the future. requiring less legal formality than an ordinance
Projections are generally intended to indicate or statute.
the budgetary implications of existing or
proposed programs. Retained Earnings - The accumulated gains
and losses of an enterprise fund to date,
Property Tax - A tax levied on all real and reduced by amounts transferred to permanent
certain personal property, tangible and capital accounts.
intangible, according to the property's assessed
valuation. The power to impose and collect Revenue - Monies received or collected by the
property taxes is given to the Mayor and City as income, including such items as tax
Council. payments, fees from specific services, receipts
from other governments, fines, forfeitures,
shared revenues, and interest income.
Appendix C - 6
Appendix C: Glossary of Terms
Revenue Anticipation Notes - Notes Tax Anticipation Notes - Notes, sometimes
(sometimes called warrants) issued in called warrants, issued in anticipation of
anticipation of collection of non-tax revenues, collection of taxes, retired from tax collections,
retired after the collection of such revenues. and frequently from the proceeds of the tax levy
whose collection they anticipate.
Revenue Bonds - Bonds whose principal and
interest are payable exclusively from earnings Tax Base - All forms of wealth under the City's
from an Enterprise Fund. In addition to a pledge jurisdiction that are taxable.
of revenues, such bonds sometimes contain
mortgages on Enterprise Fund property. Tax Duplication - A state of affairs whereby
both County and City levy property taxes on
Revision - Shifting of all or part of the budget citizens to pay for services rendered by the City.
authority in one appropriation or fund account to
another, as specifically authorized by law. Tax Rate - The amount levied per $100 of
assessed property value, as determined by the
Self-Insurance - Refers to the City's State Assessor, on property within the City. The
participation in a self insurance fund. Self- Mayor and Council establish the tax rate each
insurance allows an organization to closely year in order to finance General Fund activities.
realize its actual claim experience, as well as
pool its insurance buying power with other Temporary Employee - An employee who is
participating agencies. hired to fill a position anticipated to have a
Special Assessment - A compulsory levy made continuous service duration of less than one
against certain properties to defray part or all of year, whose compensation is not derived from
the cost of a specific improvement or service the City's Administrative, Police, or Union
deemed to primarily benefit those properties. classification tables, and whose position is not
established in the Position Control System.
Special Revenue Fund - A fund used to
account for the proceeds of specific revenue Transfer - See Revision.
sources (other than special assessments,
expendable trusts, or for major capital projects) Undesignated Fund Balance - Funds
that are legally restricted to expenditure for remaining from the prior year which are
specified purposes. available for appropriation and expenditure in
the current year.
Stormwater Management (SWM) - A means of
controlling the quantity and quality of storm Unreserved Fund Balance - That portion of a
water runoff flowing downstream. SWM can fund balance for which no binding commitments
refer to structural practices such as underground have been made.
storage facilities, dams for retention and
detention facilities, or it can refer to non- User Fees - Payments for direct receipt of a
structural practices such as lower density of public service by the party benefitting from the
development and wider stream buffers. service. Also known as user charges.
Surplus - The amount by which the City's Zoning - The partitioning of a city, borough, or
budget receipts exceed its budget outlays for a township by ordinance into sections reserved for
given period, usually a fiscal year. different purposes (i.e., residential, offices,
manufacturing).
Appendix C - 7
