HomeMy WebLinkAboutM-77-0772■
eItY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Honorable Members of the
City Commission
Budget Advisory Panel:
Irving Fantl, PhD., CPA
Harvey Hendrickson, PhD., CPA
John Remington, PhD.
William Welch, PhD.
DATE
SUBJECT
October 3, 1977
REFERENCES
ENCLOSURES.
FILE
Analysis of the 1977-1978
Budget Estimate
At your request, we have analyzed the evidence presented by
City management and by Dr. D. Marshall Barry to determine whether resources
are available in the 1977-1978 General Fund Budget to retain 167 City
employees at a cost of $3.377 million (as stated in the September 2, 1977
Budget Message of Manager Joseph R. Grassie). Despite the time constraint,
we performed analyses that we consider adequate to give a valid, reliable
response to your request.
Responses elicited during three days of public hearings and the data
and analyses provided by city employees and Dr. Barry indicate that 1977-1978
budget estimates were developed on a conservative basis. We, too, have
applied a conservative approach. Our analyses of the evidence indicates
that the funds required to retain the 167 employees will be available dur-
ing 1977-1978 from the following sources:
a
Hohofable Meftbers of the City Co`nifiieeion
From -the.1977 -1978 General Fund Budget
Budgeted severance costs not needed if the 167
employees are retained
Salary lapse in e x c es s of the budgeted $1.5
million in salary savings
Elimination of the transfer to the enterprise
funds of an amount equal to the budgeted de-
ficits in five of these funds since it has not
been demonstrated that this is the amount of
cash needed for the financial self-sufficiency
of these funds; or, if this is the amount of
cash necessary, that it cannot be borrowed or
transferred from other funds ..
From 1976-1977 General Fund Operations
Increase in the fund balance carryover in excess
of $1,000,000 shown in the 1977-1978 Budget
Estimate due largely to the overstatement of
estimated encumbrances at September 30, 1977,
of approximately
TOTAL:
$ B00,000 to $1,400,000
1,000,000 to 1,200,000
,06,611 to 669,806
1,000,000 to 1,350,000
$3,306,811 to $4,649,806
We consider the above to be our response to your specific question.
3I
IC
11
ti
The Rohotable Metnbers of the City Cofunissioh Cttobet
While not a part of our charge, our investigation also disclosed a
ntiinber of related points concerning the budgeting process, costs of laying
off employees, and identified and alternative sources of funds. We are
including these points here since you may find them useful now or for fur-
ther study to help you in the future; these are as follows:
1. We have estimated that the severance costs to the City of terminat-
ing the 167 employees to be approximately $800,000. These are not the
only costs to the City of terminating these employees. The cost of dis-
charging employees and later replacing them has been studied. In addition
to severance pay, it includes recruitment costs, training costs, overtime
costs, and the inefficiency arising from the absence of the terminated
employees.
2. The stated purpose of the City of Miami Enterprise Funds is to
be financially self-sufficient. The charges for their goods or services
should be sufficient to recover costs plus a reasonable return on capital
invested in them. To support such operations out of General Fund revenues
on other than a loan basis could lead to situations where City of Miami tax-
payers are subsidizing residents of the County or special interest groups.
3. Since the General Fund (or any fund) can be affected by discretion-
ary management actions, such as, the accrual of estimated encumbrances,
the actual carryover balance for any given year's budget cannot be deter-
mined until such time as the estimated encumbrance becomes an expenditure
or is written off. As a result, the budgeting and accounting system used
by the City of Miami (and most or all other cities) permits budgets and
fund balances to be changed substantially by discretionary actions of manage-
ment.
4. An alternative that should be considered is to use CETA monies to
pay for part of the cost of many of the approximately 180 unfilled positions -
many of which are new - in the 1977-1978 budget, rather than for the recall
of the 167 employees proposed for termination.
5. The adoption of zero -based budgeting should be considered to supple-
ment present budgeting practices. This process could be instituted currently 3:=-
in the allocating of the 180 unfilled positions proposed in the 1977-1978 3;
budget. =_
3,
•
III
3(
3t
3:
3-
31
I:
Iti
I`
It
The I onorable Members o the ity Cissioh
6etober 107
In recognition of the time constraints placed on those testifying,
we appreciate the cooperation and assistance received from all concerned.
We are especially grateful to Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr., who con-
ducted the deliberations to provide the maximum disclosure of information
in the time allotted and whose skillful efforts caused these hearings to
be conducted with dispatch and decorum.
We hope that our findings and conclusions will assist the Commissioners
of the City of Miami in arriving at equitable decisions to their delibera-
tions and thank them for this opportunity to serve them.
ILF/HH/JR/WWW/cs
VING L F TL
WILLIAM W. WELCH
irg
lbw
OAR
2 we
2'
•
2c�=
2:_
2(
3(
31=
3:
3:
3�
3'
3�
3f7--
3
■
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
31
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
tr '• l t 20 20 eu'F
EMAttilT
1
$ 27,286,01
60;220.00
74,537,94
29,947.41
$Mffiffiaty_of_tayof_Selterande,Cott,fot talide, rite
and Other City bepattritehts
pheral FUnds
1. Police Department
2. Fire Department
3, Solid Waste Department
4. Other City Departments
It. Enterprise Fund
1. Golf Course
III. Unemployment compensation for 167
employees
TOTAL
11,287.88
41,082.00
$244,361.24
pow_
nom-
m • • •• r-7
=
Ex‘At!atT C
OM' OF MIAMI. FLORIDA
IN1'ER.OF ICE MEMORANDUM
10:
Honorable J. L. Plummer, Jr.
City Commissioner
sRom. Howard V. Gary, Director
Department of Management S-ces
DATE. September 30, 1977 PILE
$UIJEct
RiPERENCE!
Response to Questions Raised
by Committee of F. I. U.
Professors
ENCLOIURES.
In response to Questions 3 and 4 asked by the Committee of Professors who
are studying the City's fiscal problems, the following information is
submitted.
Ouestion # 4 Request the City to specifically address the quantitative
allegations provided by Dr. Barry in both sets of minutes
and Exhibits UF and UI.
Response to Exhibit UF, Page 3
In Dr. Bary's report which has been identified as Exhibit UF and to which
the panel has requested a response from the Ctiy Administration, a con-
clusion was reached that there is $1,362,345 of salary savings over and
above the required $1.5 million accruals built into the City's Budget.
Utilizing the computer printout of salary disbursements as of September
10, 1977, Dr. Barry determined that a "typical" bi-weekly payroll involved
the disbursement of $1,812,877 (see UF, page 3, point A.1.).
Dr. Barry in his report, then attempted to annualize his bi-weekly figure
by multiplying same by twenty-six payrolls.
Firstly, it should be understood in no uncertain terms that the cash dis-
bursements for salaries as of the September 10, 1977 computer printout do
not reflect a typical payroll period of the year. Since the presentation
of the Budget Manual on May 12, 1977, Department Directors have been aware
of the impending layoffs. Despite the fact that a great deal of uncer-
tainty had surrounded the issue of which positions would be eliminated up
until the time of the budget summission to the Department of Management
Services in early July, Department Directors drastically reduced the rate
at which they filled vacant positions which occurred through normal
attrition.
Consequently, the cost of a normal staffing patterm cannot be based on the
payroll cost accuring near the end of this fiscal year.
A more normal or typical pay period would have to be found in the second
quarter of the 1977 fiscal year.
The Management Services staff did, in fact, find more normal payroll dis-
bursements in the second and third quarter of this fiscal year. Unlike
Page 1 of 16
W W- WW
w
br. Barry, Management Services staff did not want to draw an unsound
conclusion from a single data item (i.e., a single payroll). Instead,
the Management Services staff studied an eighty -day period in order to
develop an average payroll which would be typical of normal staffing
patterns.
The total payroll applicable during the eighty -day period from February
12, 1977 to May 21, 1977 was $14,977,438. Thus, the average daily rate
of salary disbursements was $187,218 and $1,872,180 for one average pay-
roll of ten (10) days.
Already, the fallacy of Dr. Barry's argument can be seen since he had
understated the cost of each payroll by $59,303.
The Management Services staff then annualized the average payroll figure
of $1,872,180 by dividing same by ten (10) days to develop a daily rate
($187,218) and then multiplying the daily rate by the number of days in
the fiscal year (261). Following the above described procedure, an
annual figure of $48,863,891 was developed (see Appendix I). It is quite
apparent that Dr. Barry's report of the annual cost for fiscal year 1977
was understated by $1,729,089 (see Exhibit UF► pg. 3, Point A.1.).
It should also be noted that the faulty methodology utilized in the report
(UF, pg. 3, Point A.1.) wherein the typical payroll figure was multiplied
by 26 payrolls resulted in the loss of one payday which is not the case in
the City's procedure (i.e., 26 payroll @ 10 days ea. = 260 days. However,
Fiscal Year 1977 contain 261 paid days over which salaries are distributed.
Thus, 261 actual days less 260 days implied in Dr. Barry's procedure equals
one (1) day not accounted for in his report).
Instead of the breakdown of salary cost for Police and Fire versus General
Employees as given in the report (UF, pg. 3, Point A.2.) which was based on
an incorrect payroll cost assumption, the breakdown should be as follows:
Police and Fire Annualized Salary
General Employees Annualized Salary
Total General Fund Annualized Salary
$29,625,413.42
19,107,978.84
$48,733,392.26
Since Dr. Barry's initial payroll cost assumption was in error, as would be
expected, all of his projected figures based on same are wrong. Thus, the
magnification of the annualized current year salary cost to reflect Fiscal
Year 1978 salary rates in the report (UF pg. 3, Point A.3.) are erroneous
and should be calculated as follows:
UF pg. 3, Pt. A.3.A. should be:
Police/Fire General Employees (Calc.
$29,625,413 x .144* x 1.035 x 1.05)
Police/Fire Sworn (Calc. $29,625,413 x
.856 x 1.05)
UF pg. 3, Pt. A.3.B. should be:
General Employees (Calc. $19,107,979
Less $1,021,627** =$18,086,352
18,086,352 x 1.035 x 1.05 = )
2 of 16
$ 4,636,140
26,627,321
$31,263,461
19,655,343
UP pg. 3, Pt. A.3.C. should be:
Total Applicable General Funded Salaries
Longevity and Anniversary Increase Factor
1977/78 Salary Requirement
OF pg. 3. Pt. A.4. should
51,147,436** reflecting
51,682,586 salaries -
(535,150) deficit
00,018,804
s: 1.015
$51,682,586
be:
layoffs t $1.5 M required salary ravings
Normal Staffing pattern
As can be asen from the above, there is no day one built-in savings as
Dr. Barry contends. In fact, a normal staffing pattern as in fiscal
year 1977 will not be possible in fiscal year 1978 but rather cut-
backs will be necessary as the City Administration has repeatedly asserted.
This assertion does not mean that Budgeted positions which are vacant have
not been included in the City Manager's Proposed Budget and in fact such
positions have been included in the $51,147,436 dollar figure given by Dr.
pBaoriHwe veanrd nthoet wnitchluiothn e opuvrvawoetin the cpiaoppasned lb. udOgnet y itha
Commission can make a determination regarding such budget priorities.
It should be noted at this point that Dr. Barry's analysis as well as the
counter -analysis presented above are good only for discussion at a
conceptual level. These procedures cannot and were not utilized in
developing a budget. The procedure utilized by the Department of
Management and Budget and the rest of the City Administration are
explained below. As you will see below the methodology for developing
the budget document is a much more precise procedure.
The methodology employed by the City Administration began with the
development of budget limits for each spending agency in the General
Fund. The limits were derived as follows:
a
1. The salary requirements to support existing service levels were
determined by reviewing the Fiscal Year 1977 Adopted Budget.
2. These salary requirements were adjusted to eliminate restricted
or inappropriate funds and then magnified to reflect the 31, 5 and
11/2 compounded percentage salary rate increases anticipated for Fiscal
Year 1978. Excluded salaries were than added back in to determine the
salary figures for Fiscal Year 1978.
3. Overtime, shift differential and holiday pay previously budgeted in
Special Programs and Accounts were then reallocated to the various
user departments. These figures, when added to the magnified salaries
generated the projected 1978 Personnel Services Cost.
*This factor is the ratio of General Employees in Police and Fire to Total
employees (including sworn employees) in Police and Fire.
**At this point, because of a lack of time, Management Services staff have
assumed Dr. Barry's figures to be correct.
3 of 16
4. f1oh.payroll items were increased by 6% after a review of the appropriate
consumer price indices and an internal study regarding same.
S. Total cost for each department was determined by adding the appropriate
Personnel Services Cost with non -payroll costs.
6. All departmental costs were aggregated and compared with the City's
projected miscellaneous revenues combined with Ad Valorem proceeds
assuming a tax rate of 10 mills. A budget gap of $6.122M was de-
termined.
7. The total projected appropriations when divided by the budget gap
• precipitated the percentage cut of 7.653 that each department had
• to cut.
8. The various department heads in computing budget request forms de-
termined the exact salary requirements for each individual employee
position (including vacant positions). These salary requirements were
then aggregated by title, by division and by department.
9. Department Director then had to provide for mandatory non -payroll
cost and for other needed items.
10. Department Director then reduced their budgets by 7.653% in the manner
which would, in their estimation, best allow them to fulfill their legal
and administrative responsibilities. It is during this process that hard
decisions were made which in some cases led to the abolition of a filled
position (e.g. a Clerk position) in order to retain a more important
position (e.g. an Inspector position) some of which were vacant at the
time.
MI _
11. All budgets were submitted to the Department of Management and Budget where
MEE
they were audited, corrected, adjusted for such items as fringe benefits,
sue_
budget and making adjustments to reflect his priorities, the budgets were
1111
summarized and presented to the City Manager. After reviewing each
returned to the Management and Budget Department.
OHM
UMW
12. Management and Budget then incorporated the City Manager's adjustmentsIM
into the detailed budgets, audited and summarized same for inclusion in
the budget document.
13. The City Manager and staff then reviewed the total document and
developed alternatives to preclude the layoffs. Their alternatives
were included in the City Manager's Budget Message.
14. After the document was printed, it was submitted to the City Commission
with additional summaries prepared by the Department of Management and
Budget.
As a final note it should be understood that each position authorized by the City
!tanager was budgeted on an individual basis with only the exact requirements in-
( eluded. Therefore, THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO SURPLUS FUNDS INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET
mom
mom DOCUMENT.
4 of 16
ilEgPONS _.' EXHtB1T UP PAGH__2
in reapotse to Dr. Barry's assumption that a $978,591 surplus in salary
aaVirgs is available to offset the proposed layoff, we contend, assuming
his figures are accurate, that this surplus would be eliminated in order
to cover existing deficits in other accounts.
Dr. Barry's projected salary surplus as per UF, Page 2: $978,591
Account Appropriation
Severance Pay 1,000,000
Overtime 600,000
Holiday Pay 576,913
Workmen's Compensation 1,760,000
TOTAL 3,936,913
31% Salary Account
Increases to Police and Fire
(Ord. 8666)
Latin Amer. Trade Exhibition
(Ord. 8656)
2,625,000
(923,811)
(306,000)
Expenditure
2,339,358.40
845,504.71
641,345.87
2,436,000.00
6,262,208.96
1,395,169
DEFICITS
(1,339,358.40)
( 245,504.71)
( 64,432.87)
( 676,000.00)
(2,325,295.98)
Overage as per Dr. Barry's UF, Page 2 978,591
Available Balance 2,373,780
Deficits (as detailed above) (2,325,296)
Balance 48,484
As can be readily seen, by utilizing Dr. Barry's salary accruals as well as the
31/2% salary adjustment account, the balance is not sufficient to fund the proposed
layoff positions and cover existing deficits in the above -stated accounts.
■
fthibit til is a titied The City of Miami Puhd halithee to The det eral hth
fort+7).+` in this exhibit, the City projects a fund balance Of $1,023,595
tesulting from estimated revenues and expenditures for the period ending
September 30, 1977 of $74,820,466 and $73,796,871, respectively.
br. Barry alleges that the City of Miami double -counted Florida Power and
Light Capital Improvement funds in the amount of $2,820,000; erroneously
included $800,000 of expenditures because it counted two and one-half pay, -
rolls as being expended for FY'77 when in fact there is only two payrolls
that will be expended in FY'77; and that the $2 million salary savings
should not be counted as an expenditure since the revenue side did not
include the $2 million as anticipated salary savings.
In response, the City agrees that the above allegations are in fact true with
one qualification. Dr. Barry states that the City should have only con-
sidered two payrolls for the remainder of FY'77. However, the City contends
that it will expend two payrolls and one day plus the difference between
the salary rates accrued in FY'76 and salary rates for FY'77.
Hence, if the City's projections are corrected to correspond to the agreed
upon allegations, the following information would result:
1. Estimated General Fund
Revenues for the period
ending 9/30/77
$3478297466 $72,000,466
2. Less:
a) Projected Expenditures
Based on Expenditure
Report # 1 as of
9/15/77 $697807433 $68,441,733
b) Expenditures Not
Included in Report
#1 as of 9/15/77 2,555,138
c) Salary Savings 278ee,998 -0- {337;967871} (70,996,871)
3. Estimated Fund Balance
for FY'77 $ 178237595 $ 1,003,595
As depicted in the corrected figures, the fund balance still hovers around
$1 million.
Dr. Barry further alleges that the City's revenue projections as shown in
Exhibit UI only includes "major revenues to be received during the forth-
coming year and does not address itself, nor did it intend to address itself,
to smaller so-called revenues" which he feels are "quite sizable." In
Exhibit UH3 the Department of Finance's projection of revenues and expendi-
tures, dated September 29, 1977, it is projected that revenues will total
6 of 16
1111 IIUUIIO
$72,211,175. this projection includes the ''smaller so=celled geitehues"
&lidded to by Dr. Barry, and will be sworn to on Friday, September 30► 1977
by the CPA responsible for the projection.
If one uses the September 29, 1977 revenue projection and assumes that the
expenditure projections are accurate (which will probably not be argued
since the only disagreement with same --the addition of FY'76 salary
accruals --has been corrected), the following information will result:
1. Estimated General Fund
Revenues for period ending
9/30/77
2. Less:
a) Projected Expenditures
Based on Expenditure
Report as of 9/15/77
b) Expenditures Not Included
in Report #1 as of
9/15/77
3. Estimated Fund Balance
$59,441,733
2,555,138
Furthermore, if one considers the projected revenues and
the period ending September 30, 1977 as developed during
tember 25, 1977 by the Finance Department, the following
result:
1. Estimated General Fund
Revenues for period ending
9/30/77
2. Estimated Expenditures
3. Estimated Fund Balance
$72,213,175
(70,970,671)
$ 1,242,504
02' 2114n
70,996,871
$ 1,216,304
expenditures for
the week of Sep -
information will
It should be noted that the detail expenditures as presented in the Finance
Department's report (UH3) of September 29, 1977 is only $26,200 less than
the City's projection of September 23, 1977. Also, the difference between
the revenues of UI is only $212,709 and not "over a million and a half
dollars" as contended by Dr. Barry.
Dr. Barry also feels that the City of Miami is projecting a large expendi-
ture rate for the last month of FY'77. As you are probably aware, unlike
the normal months of the fiscal year, the last month makes it mandatory
that departments submit all outstanding liabilities so that they may be
paid for in the year the expenses were incurred. A good example of this
situation is the funding requirement for the Consent Decree (see Exhibit
CK). Even though the City is required to "establish a fund not to exceed
$500,000 as the extent of its back pay liability under the Decree...and
that there shall be a maximum of $100,000 appropriated each year for five
years, beginning with the City's fiscal year 1976-77," these funds have not
7 of 16
mmw
SWF
MOW
=-
boon enedmbered and is hot tef1etted ib the September 15, 1977 Mepott * I,
1n somtinary, br. Barry's statement "you still have in excess of $3 million
dollars surplus of which I spoke on Saturday, using their own exhibits" is
hot accurate. As shown above, even with the corrections suggested by
br. Barry, the fund balance is still within our projections, i.e., that fund
balance will be approximately $1 million give or take an error of 1% of
'76.77 General Fund.
-mac
Q eatibn 3 bocumentation of Estimation on Severance Pay projectioh and
the assumptions used in deriving the figure.
severance pay may briefly be described as the required monetary canpensa-
tion for accumulated Vacation Time, Earned Time and Sick Time which must
be paid to an employee upon termination of their service with the City.
In order to determine the appropriation to be made for Severance Pay in
the fiscal year 1977-78 budget, the City Administration used a straight-
line average of the daily cost for this item in the current fiscal year
and projected same for the number of workdays (260) in 1977-76. The total
cost for Severance Pay which was used to compute the average daily cost
rate is the same $2,025,651.40 which appears on the Surplus/Deficit Recap
report of August 13, 1977. This figure was simply divided by the 226 work
days that had elapsed during this period to determine the average daily
cost of $8,963.06. The average daily cost figure was then magnified for
the 260 workdays in 1977-78 to produce an estimated cost for Severance Pay
of $2,330,395.60.
In order to insure that the year-to-date (as of August 13, 1977) daily
average was not a distortion, City Administration compared this average
cost figure to an average daily cost figure for the period of April 23,
1977 through August 13, 1977 (i.e., 80 days). The average daily cost
during this period was $8,482.65. When this figure is annualized, the
estimated cost for Severance Pay would be $2,205,489 or a difference of
$124,906.60 from the first projection. In view of such a small change in
the two projections as well as the fact that Severance Pay will be paid
at higher salary rates for FY'77-78, the administration decided to appro-
priate Severance Pay in the amount of $2.3 million assuming a similar
experience in the coming year as is estimated for FY'76-77.
It should be noted that the actual expenditures to date, not to mention
the projected cost to the end of the year, exceed the $1,627,568 appro-
priated in this account. The amount of over -expenditure already incurred
in this item as of the September 10, 1977 Surplus/Deficit Recap is
$444,107.69. At the projected rate of expenditure for this item, there
will be an additional amount of $267,682.71 to be added to the current
deficit bringing the total over -expenditure to $711,790.66. Furthermore,
when the total projected expenditure is compared to the $1 million
originally appropriated for Severance Pay* there is a deficit of $1,339,358.66.
It has been alleged that after layoffs, the cost for Severance Pay should
decrease appreciably. However, it has been the position of the administra-
tion that this does not occur. This position is based on the simple fact
that normally the first employees to be severed from service will be the
least tenured with the least accumulated benefits. A review of the average
disbursement cost for Severance Pay prior to the January 1977 layoffs as
well as the average after layoffs supports this position. The period prior
to layoffs which was used to develop an average daily rate was October 1,
1976 through January 3, 1977 (i.e., 66 workdays). During this period, the
average daily rate for Severance Pay was $3,220.36.
*Total projected Severance Pay cost for FY '76-77 is $2,339,358.66.
9 of 16
The period after layoffs used to compute an average daily rate was March
26, 1977 through July 2, 1978 (i.e., 70 workdays). The average daily cost
for this period was $5,682.88, an increase of $2,462.52 per day aver the
sample period before layoffs.
Although it has been alleged that the majority of Severance Pais attri-
butable to layoffs, it should be noted that of the $2,339,358.40-projected
to be expended for this purpose, only approximately $650,000 of this
amount was expended during the middle of the layoff period. It would be
difficult for anyone to determine how much of this sum is attributable to
personnel being laid off and thoseaeaving on an early retirement. In
summary, approximately $1,689,358.hg for Severance Pay was expended for
terminations other than the amount expended during the layoff period. In
fact, during the layoff period, the daily average expenditure for Severance
Pay, as indicated earlier, was $3,220.36 while afterwards it increased to
$5,682.88.
APPENDIX
PRo cDuRE_ POR DEVELOPING. 'EA1 L
SALARY COSTS
to order to develop an average yearly salary cost, the following method=
oibgy Was utilized:
• The payroll registers covering the pay periods 2/12/77
through 5/28/77 were obtained.
• Utilizing each of these pay periods the average yearly
cost, by pay period, was determined for General Employees;
and Police and Fire employees separately as follows:
Total Cost for Pay Period
10 Days in a Pay Period
2/12/77 Police
Fire
General
2/26/77 Police
Fire
General
3/12/77 Police
Fire
General
3/26/77 Police
Fire
General
x 261 Days in Fiscal 1977
Pay Period
Costs Days
652,744.16 T
500,979.00
738,470.59
1,892,193.75
646,760.01
498,540.97
735,924.16
1,881,225.04
644,914.17 s
494,551.03
749,446.21
1,888,911.41
643,707.26
497,124.71 T
737,528.28
1,878,360.25
Daily Days Annual
Costs In FY77 Cost
10 = 65,274.42 • 261 = 17,036,623.62
10 = 50,097.90 • 261 = 13,075,551.90
10 = 73,847.06 • 261 = 19,274,082.66
49,386,258.18
10 = 64,676.00 • 261 = 16,880,436.00
10 =49,854.09 • 261 = 13,011,917.49
10 =73,592.42 • 261 = 19,207,621.62
49,099,975.11
10 = 64,491.42 • 261 = 16,832,260.62
10 = 49,455.10 • 261 = 12,907,781.10
10. 74,944.62 • 261 = 19,560,545.82
49,300,587.54
10 = 64,370.73 • 261 = 16,800,760.53
10 = 49,712.47 • 261 = 12,974,954.67
10 = 73,752.83 • 261 = 19,249,488.63
49,025,203.83
4 /1Y Pbiice
Pine
General
4/22/77 Police
Fire
General
S/7/77 Police
Fire
General
S/21/77 Police
Fire
General
Pay Period
Costs
643,113.49
459,060.35 ?
774,079.88
1,876,253.72
662,754.49
500,867.20
681,167.25 i
1,844,788.94
638,488.86 i
501,408.28
720,517.78
1,860,414.92
640,112.77
495,459.55 s
719,717.50 i
1,855,289.82
/F
Da�iy
Days Costs
10= 64,311.35
10= 45,906.04
10= 77,407.99
10= 66,275.45
10= 50,086.72
10= 68,116.73
10= 63,848.89
10= 50,140.83
10= 72,051.78
10= 64,011.28
10= 49,545.96
10= 71,971.75
Days Annual
In FY77 Cost
261 = 16,785,262.35
• 261 = 11,981,476.44
• 261 = 20,203,485.39
48,970,224.18
• 261 = 16,253,892.19
• 261 = 13,072,633.92
261 = 17,778,465.23
47,104,991.34
• 261 = 16,664,560.29
• 261 = 13,086,756.63
• 261 = 18,805,514.58
48,556,831.50
• 261 = 16,706,944.08
• 261 = 12,931,495.56
• 261 = 18,784,626.75
48,423,066.39
• The average yearly cost was then determined for Police,
Fire and General Employees by summing up each pay period
and dividing by eight.
Police
Fire
General
Average Yearly
Cost
133,960,739.68 s 8 = 16,745,092.46
103,042,567.71 ?• 8 = 12,880,320.96
152,863,830.68 i 8 = 19,107,978.84
48,733,392.26
• Police and Fire costs were adjusted at the rate of 5%
for salary and 11/2% for longevity increases. Similarly,
General Employee costs were adjusted at the rate of
31/2% and 5% for salary and 1 for longevity.
Mr-
•
a
Average Yearly
_Cast ...._ _ Salary Adjusthent Yearly Cost
Y '78 Average
P61i6e 16,745,092.45 51 = 837,254.62 = 17,582,347.08
17,582,347.08 11% = 263,735.21 - 17,846,082.29
Police TOTAL
17,846,082.29
}ire 12,880,320.96 5% = 644,016.05 = 13,524,337.01
13,524,337.01 11% = 202,865.06 = 13,727,202.07
Pire TOTAL
13,727,202.07
General 19,107,978.84 31% - 668,779.26 = 19,776,758.10
19,776,758.10 5% = 988,837.91 = 20,765,596.01
20,765,596.01 11% - 311,483.94 = 21,077,079.95
21,077,079.95
General TOTAL
CM TOTAL 52,650,364.31
f
APPEND/X tI
-lrces: Severance Pay Control
-sheet,
P/R Surplus/Deficit Recap
9/30/77
, SUMMARY OF ACTUAL PAYMENTS 6
# SEVERANCE PAY, CITY-WIDE
OCTOttk 1, 1976 THROUGH AUGUST 13, 1977
Total
Expenditures
On beginning
Date
Total Expenditures, txpenditure
Ending Date For Pay Period
Oct. 1, 1976 Oct. 9, 1976
-0- 60,491.25
Oct. 9, 1976
60,491.25
Oct. 23, 1976
62,320.97
Nov. 6, 1976
124,997.04
Nov. 20, 1976
152,633.63
Dec. 4, 1976
186,059.11
Dec. 18, 1976
188,314.45
Jan. 1, 1977
212,543.59
Jan. 15, 1977
546,661.43
Jan. 29, 1977
868,177.95
Feb. 12, 1977
995,740.73
Feb. 26, 1977
1,105,662.86
Max. 12, 1977
1,197,751.72
Mar. 26, 1977
1,278,489.21
Oct. 23, 1976
62,320.97
Nov. 6, 1976
124,997.04
Nov. 20, 1976
152,633.63
Dec. 4, 1976
186,059.11
Dec. 18, 1976
188,314.45
Jan. 1, 1977
212,543.59
Jan. 15, 1977
546,661.43
Jan. 29, 1977
868,177.95
Feb. 12, 1977
995,740.73
Feb. 26, 1977
1,105,662.86
Mar. 12, 1977
1,197,751.72
Mar. 26, 1977
1,278,489.21
Apr. 9, 1977
1,323,691.48
14 of 16
60,491.25
1,820.72
2,676.07
27,636.59
13 425.48
2,255.34
24,229.14
334,117.84
321,516.52
127,562.78
109,922.13
92,088.88
80 737 49
45,202,27
Apr, 90 1911
1,323,691.48
Apr. 23, 1977
1,347,039.39
May 7, 1977
1,490,105.89
May 21, 1977
1,550,416.68
June 4, 1977
1,583,042.99
June 18, 1977
1,637,265.49
July 2, 1977
1,676,290.95
July 16, 1977
1,704,328.91
July 30, 1977
1,942,979.58
Apr, 23, 1977
1,347►039,39
May 7, 1977
1,490,105.89
May 21, 1977
1,550,416.68
June 4, 1977
1,583,042.99
June 18, 1977
1,637,265.49
July 2, 1977
1,676,290.95
July 16, 1977
1,704,328.91
July 30, 1977
1,942,979.58
Aug. 13, 1977
2,025,651.40
143,066.50
60,310.79
32,626.31
4,222.5o
39,025,46
28,037.96
238,650.67
82,671.82
2,025,651.40
Cumulative Cost from 10/1/76-8/13/77 2,025,651.40
Work Days. Elapsed in FY '76-77 as of 8/13/77 226
Average Daily Cost
Average Daily Cost
Work Days in FY '76-77
Projected Severance Cost FY '
Cumulative Cost from 4/23/77-8/13/77 (or 80 days)
Work Days Elapsed in FY '76-77 (4/23/77-8/13/77)
Average Daily Cost
Work Days in FY '77-78
Projected Severance Cost FY '77-78
8,963.06
8,963.06
X 261
2,339,358.66
678,612.01
• 80
•
8,482.65
X 260
2,205,489.00
APpti%btX ttt
"TYPICAL° 2=MbKTI Pthlett
btAtbTiY PP/Olk TO ADb tUttt¢ti3T
TO Tflt JA 4t AkY wiYOFFS
b tbb r 1 through January 1 Total spent - $212r543.59
Workdays:
October 1 261
January 3 - 195
X $3,220.36 per day
•
•
March 26 through July 2 Total spent - $397,801.74
Workdays:
March 28
66 days
135
July 4 - 65
k $5,682.88 per day
— 1
MEME
70 days
i
i
,•,00ri4Ft1,dp, N, ,11, I'', III il!'°' I .qp,l M 111;1'
i
1111
1111111
I
1111
''1'Il1!1111yIIIIf
I
ul
'll!@ II
i
i
IIII II'IIIII'1
i
11111■I1IIIII
11111_
IMPACT OF SALARY SAVINGS ON BUDGETED POSITIONS
Average Positions
Required to Remain
% of $1.5 M $ Portion of Avg. Salary Vacant for 1/2 Yr.
Salary Savings $1.5 M Sal. of Dept'l. to Achieve $1.5 M
Required Say. Required Positions in Salary Savings
Police 39.2812 $ 589,218 $18,115
Fire 14.7304 220,956 20,570
Solid Waste 17.1855 257,782 14,627
Other 28.8029 432,044 14,557
TOTAL 100.0000 $1,500,000 $16,560
'11II II,!' II I'll111'11lPll
11,1111111II!�'
1'1111TII„I�
IR�II1III� �q IIII¶Qrill �!rrlll I,�!IIlI�� ���I I i ��
I I �I� I 11111 l l l ll�� l q 1�11l1111PIIII II 11'�I'IIII ;I II ! II I IIIIlI,I I �
IIIM. or
� I II'"i�l'°IIII
ICE
full !IIIIII IIIICIII IIIII
65.06
21.48
35.26
59.36
181.16
it
�IIIIu'I
i
i
i
Average Positions
Required to Remain
Vacant for 1/2 Yr.
to Achieve an ad-
ditional 1M in Sal.
Savings
43.36
14.32
23..50
39_58
120.76
•
Average Positions
Required to Remain
Vacant for 1/2 Yr.
to Achieve $2.5 M
in Salary Savings
108.42
35.80
58_7f
98.94
301.92
II
101REpqr IIIIIIIIIII
I
Ii II II��
I
J
�II
� I ��I IIIII�
1,1!!!!,
1
11111111111111
Enterprise Fund Summary
Total budgeted for operations
Amount subsidized from General Fund
for operations
% cut if not subsidized by General Fund
Total budgeted for Extraordinary Maintenance
(Unallocated Funds)
Total Extraordinary Maintenance including
Orange Bowl (see attached report by
Robert Jennings)
Total Extraordinary Maintenance excluding
Orange Bowl
Alternatives: Action
(1) Eliminate Extraordinary Maintenance and
use $506,811 to subsidize Enterprise
operations. In addition, cut operations
by $192,995.
(2) Transfer $649,995 from General Fund
and $49,811 from Unallocated Funds
to Enterprise operations.
(3) Loan $699,806 to Enterprise Funds.
$ 506,811
457,000
377,000
Consequences
Curtail facilities' operations
and create hazardous operations.
Postponing major maintenance
will cause further deterioration
in City facilities valued at
$23.5 million.
This would save $49,811 to
General Fund.
Enterprise Funds do not have
the ability to repay.
■
■
♦
CttY CF F'IAti' FLOE;;D
1NtER-OFFICE MEMOFANDUi
'77 OCT 5 AM
to Joseph R. Grassie
City Manager
tPOm
4t
enning 'NDireetOt
De,artment of Public Paeilitiet
totizc
October 4, 1977
r
Need for establishment of
Unallocated Funds within the
City Enterprise Fund.
i
(1) Major maintenance require -
tents at the Orange Bowl Stadiur
(2) Major maintenance require-
ments at the Miami Marine Stadic
(3) Major maintenance require -
tents at the Miami Baseball
Stadium.
(4) Major Maintenance require-
ments at the City Marinas.
(5) Major maintenance require -
tents at the City Auditoriums.
The enclosures hereto are prbvided'in response to your
recent request.
As you can see, the grand total of all estimated major
maintenance requirements is presently $3,682,200.
Those major maintenance items which are followed by
asterisks indicate the $457,000 of work which, in my
opinion, must be accomplished in the 1977-78 fiscal
year. If, however, the $15 million general obligation
bond issue for Orange Bowl improvements passes on
November 8, 1977, those Orange Bowl items will be
accomplished by bond funds, reducing the need for
immediate repairs to $377,000.
Enclosure (1)
MajorMaintenance Requirefnents = Orange Bowl Stadium
If the 1.5 Million dollar general obligation bond issue for Orange Bowi
iT iroVehent does not pass on November 8, 1977, the City still must
find funds to correct the following list of Orange Bowi deficiencies:
Major Maintenance Item
1. Repair or replace landings where vomitory
ramps enter into the stadium.
2. Repair and maintain areas above and to the
right and left of the main passageways,
where decking plates come into contact with
supporting members or connect to adjoining
decking.
3► Repair portions of the upper and middle
walkways, as required.
4. Make further repairs, as needed, to defective
precast concrete joists and slabs.
5. Sandblast and paint upper portions of the
north and south stands, and replace shelf
angle bays and slabs as required.
6 Sandblast, clean, and paint the eight main
light towers. (Not necessary if light
towers to be replaced as part of major
renovation).
7. Sandblast, clean, repair, and paint some
of steel columns at the rear of both north
and south stands where corrosion is evident.
TOTAL
Estimated Cost
$ 15,000 *
95,000
50,000 *
225,000
12,000 *
1,000 *
$400,000
.iiiii iiiiiiiiii.i.III.i
Enclosure (2)
Major Maintenance Requirements„ = Miani ,_Matit a stadium
Major Maintenance Item
Repair cracked cement and exposed steel
on leading edge of grandstand.
2. Replace deteriorated seats.
3. Improve sound system to attract additional
revenue -producing events.
4. Improve stadium physical security to
accommodate rock concerts.
TOTAL
Estimated Cost
$ 25,000 *
27,000 *
150,000
, 12,000
$214,000
MAjOt Maintenance Requiremehtt Miaffii_ta$,Oball_8tadium
Major Maintenance Item
I. Rebuild press box.
2. Replace deteriorated seats.
3. Repair and recoat roof,
4, Recondition concession standta
Estimated Cost
$100,000
200,000
75,000
15_000
$390,000
Enclosure (4)
ta.,b... Maintenance, Re.quir,etents_...._ity._a.ia.
If Dinner Key Marina is not leased to private enterprise
under lease provisions which require the lessee to
renovate the marina in exchange for a long-term agreement,
the following major maintenance must be accomplished
at City cost.
Major Maintenance
Upgrade and renovate
service.
Upgrade and modernize
restroom facilities
Repair and replace pilings and
stringers.
Item Estimated Cost
electrical
11.Dinner Key Marina Annex
If Dinner Key Marina Annex is not leased to private
enterprise under lease provisions which require the
lessee to renovate the marina in exchange for a long-
term agreement, the following major maintenance must
be accomplished at City cost.
Major Maintenance Item Estimated Cost
shower and
$2,000,000
50,000
75,000 *
OTAL $2,125,000
• Replace dock wiring and improve
plumbing.
• Repair and replace pilings.
III. Miamarina
Major Maintenance Item
1. Replace pilings.
2. Install culvert under entrance
to improve debris circulation.
road
$20,000
8,000
$28,000
Estimated Cost
$ 7,200
70,000
TOTAL $77,200
Enclosure (5)
Nta3 or Maintenance fie uitefnentt_ _3t.._ AUdi_tOr3ui
I. Dinner Key Auditorium
Currently being renovated with Federal Funds. No immediate
Major maintenance required.
II. $ayfront Auditorium
Major Maintenance Item
1. Roof repairs to the entire building,
2. Renovation andmodernization
,pianos,
olightsstage includ-
ing switchboard , pinwheel,80,000
curtains, etc.
3. Repairs to terrazzo floors, entire building. 10,000
4. Renovation of rest rooms, including new 20i000
plumbing fixtures.
5. New overhead lighting system, Caribbean and 50,000
Gulfstream Rooms.
6. Repairs to acoustical ceilings, including 25,000
treatment of lobbies.
100,000
7. Replacement of air conditioning system. 75,000
8. Replacement of folding doors.
9. Provide kitchen accessibility to Caribbean 3,000
Room.
10. New plate glass entrance doors, entire
facility.
11. Renovation of office and lobbies.
TOTAL
tstitnated,. Cost
$ 50,000 *
25,000
10,000
$448,000
PY 176=777 IoREcASt(1)
GEt4 RAL FUND
ptOatted Revenues Schedule A (submitted to panel.)
Expenditures:
payroll - Schedule B (submitted to patte1)
Non -Payroll - Schedule C (attached)2))
Projected Surplus
(1) Advisory panel took exception to Schedule C,
so all other Schedules are not reproduced.
(2) Advisory panel took the following arbitrary
actions on Schedule C:
(a) Reduced $700,000 third party claims and
damage reserve by 50%--when in fact
t
rease in
there
412,500s (see eCity cAttorney'sllettaims er
attached).
(b) Charges to Contingency Account of $74,948
disallowed, even though this amount was
transferred to support the Latin American
Trade Fair.
(c) Reduced encumbrances arbitrarily by
$683,200 without considering all depart-
mental requests.
Schedule C is reproduced as reviewed and approved
by four (4) CPA's. The effect of this Schedule is
to reaffirm that there is only $1.2 million in fund
balance and not $2.0 million
or $2.3 million as
contended by the advisor panel.
$52,651,732
_ 18438,013
$72,2U,175
71,089,711
$ 1,123_,430
Ex .k B'1 &
•
FY 176.77 rORtCAST(1)
G t4 RAL FUND
Projetted Revenues Schedule A (submitted to panel) $720.150.75
penditures:
Payroll - Schedule B (submitted to panel)
Non -Payroll - Schedule C (attached) ))
Projected Surplus
(1) Advisory panel took exception to Schedule C,
so all other Schedules are not reproduced.
(2) Advisory panel took the following arbitrary
actions on Schedule C:
(a) Reduced $700,000 third party claims and
damage reserve by 507e-when in fact
there was
net
increase claims
$412,500(seeCityAttorney'sletterf
attached).
(b) Charges to Contingency Account of $74,948
disallowed, even though this amount was
transferred to support the Latin American
Trade Fair.
(c) Reduced encumbrances arbitrarily by
$683,200 without considering all depart-
mental requests.
Schedule C is reproduced as reviewed and approved
by four (4) CPA's. The effect of this Schedule is
to reaffirm that there is only $1.2 million in fund
balance and not $2.0 million
or $2.3 million as
contended by the advisory panel.
$52,651,732
1854381O13
71, 089.745
1.111124122
100,000
62,632
75,406
1,265
12,500
35,Q11
21,371
50,000
1,112,500
306,000
465.572
2,243,157
10,540,344
6,434,435
779 923)
$18.438,013
SCHEDULE t
NON=PAYROLL EXPENDITURES
ENCUMBRANCES AT 9-30-77
HUMAN RESOURCES - CONSENT DECREE RESERVE
HARD CASH MATCH - STATE & FEDERAL GRANTS COMMITMENTS)
CITY HALL RENOVATIONS -(PUBLIC PROPERTIES MEMO)
SANITATION - INTERVIEW TRAVEL EXPENSE
LAM DEPARTMENT - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
MANAGEMENT SERVICES - VARIOUS ACCOUNTS
POLICE DEPARTMENT - FIXED ASSETS
AUDITORS FEES - PMM & CO. FY 76-77 AUDIT
THIRD PARTY CLAIMS & DAMAGES RESERVE
CONTRIBUTION TO LATIN AMERICAN TRADE FAIR, ORD. 6656 $559,072
OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS AS OF 10-3-77
LESS: PROJECTED LIQUIDATION OF P.O.IS g3 500)
BEFORE BOOKS ARE CLOSED TOTAL ENCUMBRANCES
PROJECTION OF NON -PAYROLL EXPENDITURES THROUGH 9-30-77
PROJECTION OF SPECIAL
PROGRAM
SS ANDFYACCOUNTS EXPENDITURES 9-30-77
PRIOR YEAR ENCUMBRANCES
7
TOTAL NON- PAYROLL EXPENDITURES
AMES E. GUNDERSON
INANCE DIRECTOR
CARL E. GARCIA, C.P.A.
ASST. FINANCE DIRECTOR
Jed! a 777
GARY M / HOUCK, M.S.M., C.P.A.
ASST. INANCE DIRECTOR
M.B.A., C.P.A.
DIRECTOR
CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA
INtER•OFFICE MEMORANDUM
IIIII IUii111111Iiiii 11111 ■I
TO:
FROM:
James E. Gunderson, Director
Finance Department
Georg F. Knox, Jr!
City torney
DATE October 4, 1977 R►LE
SUBJECT. Contingent Torts Liability
REFEPENCEI
tNCLOIURE$:
4,.3 C •6 E7 </K 7 Soo
The following is the estimated contingent torts liability:
Butcher v. City of Miami: This case has been in litigation
since 1963 and involves an ununiformly pay increase given
to the Sanitation Department. At this time the estimated $ 350,000.00
liability is
The case is presently on appeal.
Rosen v. City of Miami. This case arose out of an automobile
accident with a police vehicle. The estimated liability 400,000.00
is
There are presently 107 claims pending involving various
types of auotmobile accidents, including Sanitation
Department and Fire Department equipment. The estimated 550,000.00
liability is _
/?,SSvv
The City is also a party -defendant in numerous other
tort cases involving police civil liability; accidents
in parks, on sidewalks, city buildings; wrongful refusal
to issue certificates of occupancy and use by the licensing
division, damages to boats on city owned marinas, etc.
The total general liability in these cases is estimated at
GFK/JBA/bbb
TOTAL
75,000.00
$1,375,000.00
i
■
i
i
i
IuI
i
■
0
1111
i
i
1111
i
i
A SUMMARY OF THE ADMINISTRATION'S RESONSES TO THE PANEL'S
CONCLUSIONS ON THE 1978 BUDGET ESTIMATE
CONCLUSION ##1 - Budgeted severance costs not needed
if the 167 employees are retained...
CONCLUSION #2 - Salary lapse in excess of the budgeted
$1.5 million in salary savings. What
does this mean and how was it derived?
#3 - Elimination of the transfer to the
enterprise funds of an amount equal
to the budgeted deficits in five of
these funds since it has not been
demonstrated that this is the amount
of cash needed for the financial
self-sufficiency of these funds; or,
if this is the amount of cash
necessary, that it cannot be borrowed
or transferred from other funds
- Increase in the fund balance carry-
over in excess of $1,000,000 shown
in the 1977-1978 Budget Estimate due
largely to the overstatement of
estimated encumbrances at September
30, 1977, of approximately
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION #4
TOTALS
Panel
$ 800,000 to $1,400,000
1,000,000 to 1,200,000
506,811 to 699,306
1,000,000 to 1,350,00
Corrected
Totals
$ 244,361
1,000,000
506,811
Comments
Represents the severance cost for 167i
employees proposed to be temporarily
laid off.
Requires the City to maintain 302
positions vacant for one half year..
Requires City Commission decision not
to do any maintenance on $23.5 millions
of public facilities assets.
The city does not have the option of
postponing! the payments for its current
obligations_
ll111 1 iulllilPl INI III I11911 111u III 1911I 1 l
it
I�If
I
7il
"III 117111711771171 1111111
115 I
!,',1111111,
111
��'iii� III I I I I �
I I I�
I I� � I�
I�I I I.
I� I II
I I I � I II ImuI�I. I �I
J� IIII.I�
*i11! III 10
111111111
111111
11111w!Ili III
VACANCIES EXTANT BY CLASSIFICATIONL
DEPARTMENT AND FUND PER CY'77-78 APL'S
C.
ae
os
t
M
m
«
~
11!
"C
O
a
_
N
b
a
iOC
st
L
fl
!
o
.0'i
N
.+
4
E�
'aehier II
.
`
M
M/
:ode Comp'. Inspector 2
nief Sanitation Inspector 1
�•U
N
5
ti
u
N
_C
5
.1
N.
w
14
Or
O
t
0
p
t
."1
eo
Leaa1 Stenographer '
op
VV
U0
.
Y
.1
CC
Planning Illustrator II
5
"
G
•1
c
4
a
c
'Recreation Leader II
!
~
"•
/
Y
/
Y
a
M
(Safety Coordinator
w
u
M
U
G
N
i
F,
y
i
lllaab Collector Sptd.
'Waste Collector Operator II
Ire7
i
Mn
/
a
t
MY•
h
a
',uto. !Quip. Operator I I
Q
T�
111
III
Office of the Mayor
■■■�_�
•-I_1.111110
_El
0
_■
Board of Commissioners
■■■-�■■-
••■��■■-
Cit Clerk
Lr
3
1
■.■
2
■.�
1
7
PP!
-1111�
MIN
Civil Service
■■��■•�
�■-
0
i
:':er
■■■��■■�
••III
■..��••�
■��-��
•_
RPM
Pinenae
■■.-
1
■■�
Human Resources
■■■��.■�.■e
PPE
__
ME
Tire
.■
1
��■■�
�■
■-
1
19 0
1111
:Police
■■■��■.�
1111
NIPPIIIMME
1111911111111111
27
10 04'■11111111
IMIMMIE
Public Works
1
1
6
,..-�■■�
1
Parks
.■■-�■.�-
Solid Waste
1
1
1
1
1
.�wr.■11111
1
1■
1
19
Turiam Promotion
�■�MM1■■__
2
111.1111W
Trades Commerce
■■■���■�
?N?
NM
Mil
Conferences s woven.
1
.■■
■■�
1
PEIMININ
raN
Leisure Services
■■
24
■■�
1
se
34
PNIMMI
S1 • • . i Zonin • Ins. t .
1
1
1
1
1
■■■r_
1
■�
1
�
7
PIP
-
i
1
■..--■■
1
1
�
3
sa o
plan.s Z. admin. Bd..
.
■.■��■■-
jlana•ament and Sud•et
■
■■.�-■■-
1
■-
_
_•
_
PRPRIMI
Dinner le Off. Bld•s.
Communication Saint-
■�-
■��
■
■.■��■■�
■-I-
.-�=
.■.��■.-
Citizen Services
■■.�-■■-
■�
TOTALS
■
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
-1
1
1
3
1
6
1
1
1
1
1■
1
1
1
34
2
1
1
1
3
3■NM
125
2 1
8
Temporary positions
s• Part-time positions
ee• Includes 24 temporary
. and 34 part-time
positions
•
.n
ry
,m.,
ea
..
.o
V
+
n
.n
r
v
r
o
v
o
.°.
m
.n
v
.tD•.
o
.ni
v
.r.
r
..-.
r
.n
m
n
O.
m
..4
v
.v
.n
m
•
n
8
v
m
m
-
m
./.
v
,
40,209
^1
r
.o
ai
o
o
o.
.
0
O
o.
"
0
^v
-
•v+'I'+
m
✓'
-
O
•o.
mo
N
O
v
^'
-
^'
-
gy`
O
.o.
m
o
_
ry
co
r
•
m
a
r
r
1
24,804
"'
o
m a
v Q
m .o
-
^ �•,
m
m.
.n
0 P..et.mate Number Unkr
C. E. T. A.
ROL/CE GRANTS
ca v rr10N own MOD PONDS
102,577
Ex HMI T
E
COMMUNITY OCVE1.CP,GXf BLOCR GRANT
METRO TRANSrT
CCN TRACT
1 1 1 4 S6,276 3 7 49,791
102.S77 1
eOi r
m i+
n
1 1
1
0
0
1
0
n
1
n
1
1
8 116.311 3 3 49,791
Eet mete
Number Unknown