Pre-Budget
Key Revenues
SCHEDULE D
Updated 4/11/2006
2005 Revised 2005 to 2006 to Percentage of Budget
Item Budget March 31 2005 Actual 2006 Budget March 31 Received to March 31
2005 2006
Property Taxes
General Fund $ 2,344,358 $ 1,397,035 $ 2,357,988 $ 2,047,955 $ 1,232,201 59.6% 60.2%
Employee Benefits $ 4,095,946 $ 2,440,790 $ 4,119,715 $ 4,629,402 $ 2,769,886 59.6% 59.8%
Flood and Drainage Imp. Fund $ 81,469 $ 48,641 $ 82,100 $ 168,293 $ 101,448 59.7% 60.3%
Bond and Interest $ 1,303,507 $ 776,711 $ 1,310,982 $ 1,365,303 $ 818,083 59.6% 59.9%
Total Prooertv Taxes $ 7,825,280 $ 4,663,177 $ 7,870,785 $ 8,210,953 $ 4,921,618 ~ ~
Delinquent Taxes
General Fund $ 60,000 $ 16,835 $ 59,455 $ 50,000 $ 16,447 28.1% 32.9%
Employee Benefits $ 100,000 $ 29,274 $ 107,257 $ 55,000 $ 27,137 29.3% 49.3%
Flood and Drainage Imp. Fund $ 9,000 $ 2,492 $ 7,706 $ 3,000 $ 770 27.7% 25.7%
Bond and Interest $ 40,000 $ 11 ,456 $ 38,274 $ 40,000 $ 9,709 28.6% 24.3%
Total Del. Prooertv Tax $ 209,000 $ 60,057 $ 212,692 $ 148,000 $ 54,063 ~ ~
Vehicle Taxes
General Fund $ 319,482 $ 25,557 $ 289,354 $ 318,037 $ 24,964 8.0% 7.8%
Employee Benefits $ 568,938 $ 44,916 $ 550,204 $ 555,668 $ 46,683 7.9% 8.4%
Flood and Drainage Imp. Fund $ 47,663 $ 3,777 $ 50,321 $ 11,053 $ 1,718 7.9% 15.5%
Bond and Interest $ 208,104 $ 16,872 $ 177,671 $ 179,837 $ 14,851 8.1% 8.3%
Total Vehicle Tax $ 1,144,187 $ 91,122 $ 1,067,550 $ 1,064,595 $ 88,216 ~ ~
Sales Taxes
County Sales Tax $ 6,051,869 $ 1,521,712 $ 5,995,152 $ 6,170,020 $ 1,568,158 25.1% 25.4%
City Sales Tax $ 4,660,000 $ 1,168,491 $ 4,560,772 $ 4,750,000 $ 1,201,720 25.1% 25.3%
Capital Improvement $ 2,020,200 $ 511,214 $ 1,995,338 $ 2,060,000 $ 525,725 25.3% 25.5%
Economic development $ 288,850 $ 73,030 $ 285,048 $ 295,000 $ 75,107 25.3% 25.5%
Total Sales Taxes $ 12,732,069 $ 3,201,417 $12,551,262 $ 12,980,020 $ 3,295,603 ~ ~
Franchise Fees
Gas $ 505,000 $ 200,323 $ 518,847 $ 860,000 $ 515,305 39.7% 59.9%
Electric $ 960,000 $ 230,001 $ 1,012,410 $ 1,580,000 $ 332,547 24.0% 21.0%
Telephone $ 275,000 $ 67,511 $ 270,204 $ 275,000 $ 68,928 24.5% 25.1%
Cable $ 285,000 $ 70,980 $ 286,648 $ 285,000 $ 71,480 24.9% 25.1%
Solid Waste Host Fee $ 117,500 $ $ 117,500 $ 117,500 0.0% 0.0%
WaterlWastewater $ 615,000 $ 606,652 $ 651,000 0.0% 0.0%
Total Franchise $ 2,757,500 $ 568,815 $ 2,812,261 $ 3,768,500 $ 988,260 206% ~
EMS Fees
EMS BC/BS $ 140,000 $ 21,143 $ 135,986 $ 147,000 $ 40,908 15.1% 27.8%
EMS Medicare $ 300,000 $ 88,401 $ 338,966 $ 315,000 $ 105,964 29.5% 33.6%
EMS Medicaid $ 15,000 $ 3,941 $ 32,204 $ 24,000 $ 13,083 26.3% 54.5%
EMS OTher $ 165,000 $ 32,508 $ 174,892 $ 218,000 $ 51,441 19.7% 23.6%
EMS Individual $ 105,000 $ 25,245 $ 103,302 $ 76,500 $ 32,770 24.0% 42.8%
EMS Collection Agency $ 15,000 $ 7,449 $ 17,521 $ 15,000 $ 20,565 49.7% 137.1 %
Total EMS Chas $ 740,000 $ 178,687 $ 802,871 $ 795,500 $ 264,731 ~ ~
InterQovernmental (State)
Liquor Tax All Funds $ 420,000 $ 110,730 $ 423,702 $ 433,845 $ 108,360 26.4% 25.0%
Gas Tax $ 1,500,000 $ 509,299 $ 1,493,208 $ 1,600,000 $ 508,781 34.0% 31.8%
Totallnteraovernmental $ 1,920,000 $ 620,029 $ 1,916,910 $ 2,033,845 $ 617,141 ~ ~
4/11/2006
Key Revenues
SCHEDULE D
Updated 4/11/2006
2005 Revised 2005 to 2006 to Percentage of Budget
Item Budget March 31 2005 Actual 2006 Budget March 31 Received to March 31
Other Revenues:
County EMS $ 678,912 $ 169,728 $ 678,912 $ 819,279 $ 174,820 25.0% 21.3%
County EDP Charges $ 106,000 $ 36,394 $ 103,545 $ 106,000 $ 111,392 34.3% 105.1%
Recreation Fees, Exc. Activity Fund $ 351,500 $ 36,071 $ 318,269 $ 421,000 $ 45,406 10.3% 10.8%
Fire Protection Fees $ 195,000 $ 85,712 $ 233,074 $ 195,000 $ 816 44.0% 0.4%
Court $ 1,550,000 $ 402,623 $ 1,575,126 $ 1,550,000 $ 445,532 26.0% 28.7%
Building Insp. Fees $ 290,000 $ 71,864 $ 309,398 $ 300,000 $ 86,763 24.8% 28.9%
General Fund Chgs for Service $ 381,300 $ 115,409 $ 398,481 $ 381,300 $ 134,608 30.3% 35.3%
Interest $ 426,722 $ 83,423 $ 409,170 $ 716,062 $ 155,498 19.5% 21.7%
Transient Guest $ 850,000 $ 211,878 $ 842,127 $ 875,000 $ 209,432 24.9% 23.9%
Bi-Center Fees $ 850,500 $ 227,173 $ 820,418 $ 883,500 $ 211,527 26.7% 23.9%
Special Assessments $ 1,138,094 $ 654,136 $ 1,098,442 $ 1,105,000 $ 660,803 57.5% 59.8%
Total Other Revenues: $ 6,818,028 $ 2,094,411 $ 6,786,962 $ 7,352,141 $ 2,236,597 ~ ~
Entercrise Fees:
Sanitation Fees $ 1,942,150 $ 462,175 $ 1,890,165 $ 1,966,650 $ 509,867 23.8% 25.9%
Solid Waste $ 2,400,000 $ 566,364 $ 2,330,423 $ 2,400,000 $ 535,478 23.6% 22.3%
Golf Course $ 768,300 $ 161,059 $ 772,670 $ 779,300 $ 171,882 21.0% 22.1%
Water Sales $ 6,709,000 $ 1,381,799 $ 6,784,752 $ 6,992,670 $ 1,497,968 20.6% 21.4%
Sewer Fees $ 5,634,992 $ 1,298,468 $ 5,348,305 $ 5,944,916 $ 1,341,098 23.0% 22.6%
TotalEnterorise Fees $ 17,454,442 $ 3,869,865 $17,126,315 $ 18,083,536 $ 4,056,293 ~ ~
Total. All Kev Revenues $ 51,475,037 $15,971,764 $ 50,344,744 $ 53,906,321 $ 16,257,791 ~ ~
4/11/2006
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
AND ADMINISTRATION
Rodney Franz, Director
300 West Ash, P.O. Box 736
Salina, Kansas 67402-0736
City of
!:.i
Salina
TELEPHONE (785) 309-5735
FAX (785) 309-5738
TDD (785) 309-5747
E-MAIL rod.franz@salina.org
Website: www.salina-ks.gov
DATE: April 6, 2006
TO: Jason Gage, City Manager
FROM: Rod Franz, Director of Finance and Administration
RE: Special Sales Tax Requests
The one-fourth cent special sales tax approved by the voters in 2004 provided that 87 %%
of the funds be committed to Capital Improvements and Human Services programs. As of
today, the City Commission has approved one Human Services request, providing 3-year
start-up funding for the Smart Start initiative at $85,000 per year, as well as a number of
capital initiatives. The schedule is shown on the attached spreadsheet
I have completed reviewing the outstanding file of requests for Special Sales Tax funding.
The Salina Family Healthcare Clinic as withdrawn their original request for funding a
Dental Clinic, having found other resources to provide that service.
There are three remaining active requests, as follows:
Saline County Fair Association:
The Saline County Fair Association has requested supplemental support of $10,000 for
2006. As noted in the attached request, their budget has been about $96,000, including
support from Saline County of $14,000. The remainder of their budget is financed through
ticket sales and contributions. Over the last couple of years, expenses have increased
more quickly than contributions and ticket sales, and they have been forced to utilize
reserves. Mr. Wasserman indicates that they are also approaching the County
Commission for additional support. He feels that this will resolve their deficit situation.
This is apparently a one-time request. The choices facing the Commission are to either
fund or not fund the request.
SOl Requested Downtown Parking Study (estimated cost: $25,000)
At their November, 2005 meeting the SOl Board of Directors voted to request a
comprehensive parking study of the downtown area to occur in 2006. This request is in
response to ongoing downtown parking needs and challenges experienced in the
downtown for a number of years. A formal parking plan is also recommended in the 2002
Progressive Urban Management Associates, Inc. (PUMA) Market-Based Downtown Plan.
This was the result of a related community-attitudes survey distributed to 5,476 Salina
household illustrated that 31 % of respondents indicated parking as a reason for avoiding
the downtown (the second highest rated reason behind lack of diverse retail) and the
identified need to focus on overall parking management, demand and supply for a 10-year
period.
The estimated cost of this plan is $25,000. The SOl Board have committed $5,000 to the
City to help offset the total project cost. Due to sensitivity associated with parking matters,
this plan would include broad-based downtown stakeholder involvement and input. Both
the SOl Board and staff believe this planning process will greatly assist in identifying both
perceived and actual parking challenges, while producing sound solutions. While parking
has always been a high priority for the downtown, it was recently ranked as a lower project
priority due to the assumption that SOl would have to fund a bulk of the project and would
not have adequate funds to do so.
Staff believes this project can provide great benefit to an ongoing downtown need. This
can be funded either by the Special 1/4 Cent Sales Tax or the General Fund. If the City
Commission is in general agreement to move forward with this request, Staff will
commence preparing an action item for formal consideration at an upcoming City
Commission meeting.
Summary 4/10/2006
Program Component: 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total
Resources
Balance Forward $ $ 1,306,337 $ 1,399,233 $ 2,266,247 $ 3,360,201 $ 4,446,934
Current Year Taxes Generated $ 525,000 $ 2,015,584 $ 2,055,896 $ 2,097,014 $ 2,138,954 $ 2,181,733 $ 1,706,000 $ 12,720,180
Fund Reserves $ (525,000) $ 536,582 $ 200,000 $ 211,582
Total Resources Available $ $ 2,552,166 $ 3,362,233 $ 3,496,247 $ 4,405,201 $ 5,541,934 $ 6,352,934 $ 12,508,598
Demands (Expense Commitments)
Contingency $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 500,000
$
Proiect Commitments $ 1,245,829 $ 1,863,000 $ 1,130,000 $ 945,000 $ 995,000 $ 630,000 $ 6,808,829
Total Commitments $ 1,245,829 $ 1,963,000 $ 1,230,000 $ 1,045,000 $ 1,095,000 $ 730,000 $ 7,308,829
Balance Available, 12/31 $ $ 1,306,337 $ 1,399,233 $ 2,266,247 $ 3,360,201 $ 4,446,934 $ 5,622,934 $ 5,199,770
Project Commitments Detail 4/10/2006
Special Sales Tax (Capital)
Project Commitments: 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total
Capital:
Fire Station Number 2 Expansion $ $ 480,000 $ 240,000 $ 240,000 $ 240,000 $ 1,200,000
Soccer Complex $ 375,000 $ 713,000 $ 1,088,000
Vehicles and Equipment $ 354,392 $ 200,000 $ 554,392
Jerry Ivey Sprayground 05-1517 $ 40,000 $ 40,000
Bi-centenniallmprovements 05-1518 $ 227,175 $ 227,175
Downtown Amenities 05-1519 $ 70,000 $ 70,000
Wayfinding Project $ $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 300,000
Downtown Traffic Signals 05-1547 $ 94,262 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 794,262
North Ohio OP Bond supplement $ 450,000 $ 500,000 $ 550,000 $ 600,000 $ 2,100,000
New Requests: $
SOl Parking Study $ 20,000 $ 20,000
$
Human Services: $
Smart Start HS Initiative $ 85,000 $ 85,000 $ 85,000 $ 255,000
New Requests: $
Saline County Fair Association $ 10,000 $ 10,000
Sane/Sart $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 150,000
$
$
$
Total Projects $ $ 1,245,829 $ 1,863,000 $1,130,000 $ 945,000 $ 995,000 $ 630,000 $ 6,808,829
To Summary Sheet
NORTON. WASSERMAN. JONES. KELLY LLC
FRANK C. NORTON
MAILING ADDf3:f:$$;_
P.O. Box 2388
Salina. KS 67402-2388
KENNETH W. WASSERMAN
ROBERT S. JONES
ROBERT A. MARTIN
Attorneys at Law
LAW OFFICES AT:
2 I3 S. Santa Fe
Salina. KS 67401
NORMAN R. KELLY
JASON L. REED
Telephone 785-827-3646
Fax 785-827-0538
LAWRENCE E. NORDLING
ALISHA K. SKELTON
December 29,2005
kww@nwjklaw.com
Jason Gage
City Manager
300 W. Ash
Salina, KS 67401
RE: Saline County Fair Association
Dear Jason:
This will confirm my request on behalf of the Saline County Fair Association for $1 0,000
from the City of Salina. Part of the basis for this request is the fact that a significant majority of
the 4-H children displaying projects at the fair are now children who live within the city. I am
very happy that the 4-H Council has been adaptive enough to provide the benefits of being a 4-H
member to both rural and non-rural children. Because of the huge displays of rocketry,
photography and other nonagricultural related activities, the display areas have changed
considerably and premium costs have increased as well. All of this is positive from the 4-H
standpoint and even from the standpoint ofthe fair, however, it does now take more money to
sponsor the fair.
The other reason for the request is that the Saline County Fair Association ranks 98th of
all the fairs in Kansas in terms of support from the county and city. Some fairs are nearly 100%
sponsored by city and county sponsorship.
The Saline County Fair has a budget of about $96,000 and, to date, the most government
support has come from Saline County at $14,000. As you can see, the fair meets most of its
obligations through sales 'Of tickets to fair-sponsored events and through obtaining contributions
from Saline County businesses. The last couple of years, even though contributions have
increased slightly, so has the cost and we have actually had to spend money out of reserve to
meet all of the obligations.
We are also requesting an additional contribution from the county, hoping that for 2006
the fair will again have a positive cash flow.
I would be happy to present our case to the Commissioners, if you desire.
December 29,2005
Page 2
Please let me know what additional information you might need.
Very truly yours,
KWW Ips
Salina Regional Health Foundation (SANE/SART program)
The Salina Regional Health Foundation has requested annual funding on the order of
$30,000 to $35,000 per year to support the SANE/SART (Sexual Assault Nurse
Examiner/Sexual Assault Response Team) Program. The program was initiated in 2003,
through the initiative and contributions from a variety of community groups.
The program provides nursing staff trained in the processing of sexual assault cases, from
the collection of evidence to court testimony, and also provides for specialized equipment
required for the effective performance of the forensic tasks required. Services are offered
to the surrounding region, however the bulk of the cases originate from Salina/Saline
County.
In calendar year 2004, the program recorded 95 cases/consults. 59% of these originated
in Saline County, 71 % were pediatric victims, 91 % were female, and physical injury was
sustained in 48% of the cases. The assailant was known in 82% of the cases. Ages of
the victims varied from 1 year of age to 50 years of age (although, during the life of the
program, the age range is from 4 months to 91 years).
In fiscal (ending September 30) year 2004, the program handled 76 cases/consults,
incurred $114,089 in expenses, and realized a net of $38,120 in patient revenue.
Approximately $6,000 in net patient revenue came from insurance providers, with the
balance coming from the County prosecutor's offices in Saline and surrounding Counties.
The program also receives a small amount of grant revenue. 2005 numbers will be
somewhat higher, based on the data provided for the first 10 months of the year.
According to the notes in the file, the original concept behind the request was that the cost
of the program, net of insurance re-imbursements and services provided to other Counties
in the region, be shared among the City of Salina, Saline County, and the Salina Regional
Health Foundation at about $33,000 each. In 2005, Saline County paid about $18,000 in
patient fees. Starting in 2006, Saline County has negotiated a lump sum annual payment
of $28,000, in place of providing payment on a case by case basis.
Based on the information provided, and if the City provides the requested funding, total
resources for the program would be approximately as follows:
Insurance Reimbursements
Grant Revenues
"Patient Revenue"
From Regional Counties
Saline County
City of Salina
Health Foundation
Total Resources
$ 6,000
$ 5,000
$ 15,000
$ 28,000
$ 30,000
$ 30,000
$ 114,000
This is clearly a continuing program. There are several options that could be pursued:
1. Fund the program at some level determined by the City Commission out of the
special sales tax proceeds from 2006 through 2010, and then consider how to
proceed beyond that point; or
2. Fund the program out of Special Sales Tax proceeds for 2006 and directing staff to
include the program in the General Fund Agency Contracts item for 2007 and
beyond as a continuing obligation; or
3. Not fund the program.
A packet of supporting material is attached.
r_
.~
Salina
Regional
Health
Foundation
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Jane Berkley
Mike Berkley
Dale Bradley
Shirley Braxton
Larry Britegam
Harold Eagleton
Kathleen Elsea
Charley Griffin
Lynda Hassler
Julie Sager Miller
Mark Miller
Karen Mize
Randy Peterson
Dr. Rex Romeiser
Steve Ryan
David Sellers
Linda Smith
Dick Tilgner
John Vanier
Dr. Bob Weber
Dr. Tom Wilson
George Yarnevich
fi;'\ r -:--.-:-:r:-:--;-;-,-::--,;-,,-
/'1,\ '" , ." ,.
i ii d :..." . ii . ' .
July 29, 2005
-'---"
/Mr. Jason Gage
City Manager
City of Salina
City-County Building
P.O. Box 736
Salina, KS 67402-0736
Rita Deister
Administrator
Saline County
City-County Building
P.O. Box 5040
Salina, KS 67402-5040
Dear Jason and Rita,
This past J~.me yth, Randy Peterson, CEO, Salina Regional Health Center,
Mary Alice Weed, RN, and I meet with Dennis Kissinger, Rita Deister, Police
Chief Jim Hill, Sheriff Glen Kochanowski, and other law enforcement
representatives, concerning SANE/SART (Sexual Assault Nurse
Examiner/Sexual Assault Response Team).
At the June 7th meeting, Randy and I shared financial information related to
the operation of SANE/SART since its inception in April 2003 and stressed
the need for additional levels of financial support from both the city and the
county.
Our understanding from the meeting was that then City Manager Dennis
Kissinger was hopeful that support from the city budget could be forthcoming
for SANE/SART starting in the current budget year and that Rita Deister
intended to visit with the County Commissioners about the possibility of the
county providing funding for SANE/SART starting with the 2006 county
budget.
Since the June yth meeting, I initiated follow-up telephone calls to both
Dennis and Rita in which I stated my understanding of the potential
outcomes from our meeting. Dennis assured me that he had briefed the new
incoming City Manager Jason Gage and Rita assured me that the County
Commissioners were in the process of finalizing the county's budget for 2006
and that funding for SANE/SART would be discussed.
At this point, I have not heard anything further related to possible funding for
SANE/SART from either the city or the county. Although the hospital's 2005
fiscal year does not end until September 30th, we are projecting a loss for
SANE/SART in the 2005 fiscal year of approximately $84,000. In fiscal year
2004, SANE/SART's first full year of operation, it had a net operating loss of
$71,270.
139 North Penn' P.O. Box 5080 . Salina, Kansas 67402-5080 . 785/452-6088 . Fax 785/452-6358
Improving the health of our regional community.
Printed on recycled paper
r_
.~
Salina
Regional
Health
Foundation
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Jane Berkley
Mike Berkley
Dale Bradley
Shirley Braxton
Larry Britegam
Harold Eagleton
Kathleen Elsea
Charley Griffin
Lynda Hassler
Julie Sager Miller
Mark Miller
Karen Mize
Randy Peterson
Dr. Rex Romeiser
Steve Ryan
David Sellers
Linda Smirh
Dick Tilgner
John Vanier
Dr. Bob Weber
Dr. Tom Wilson
George Yarnevich
P-2
SANE/SART was established through a collaborative effort involving
representatives of the hospital, city, county, law enforcement and other
community-wide human service organizations. SANE/SART is an important
much needed service for victims of sexual assault, many of whom are under
the age of five.
I would appreciate hearing in writing as to the status of funding for
SANE/SANE from both the city and the county. Your response will provide
me an opportunity to share your information with the Salina Regional Health
Foundation Board of Trustees. Currently, our board has tabled a grant
request for $60,000 on behalf of SANE/SART pending further information
being obtained from the city and county, concerning funding for SANE/SART.
We look forward to building upon our relationship with both the city and the
county to continue to provide SANE/SART for victims of sexual assault. I
look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
Thomas P. Martin
Executive Director
139 North Penn' P.O. Box 5080 . Salina, Kansas 67402.5080 . 785/452.6088 . Fax 785/452.6358
Improving the health of our regional community.
Printed on recycled paper
r_
.~
Salina
Regional
Health
Foundation
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Jane Berkley
Mike Berkley
Dale Bradley
Shirley Braxton
Larry Britegam
Harold Eagleton
Karhleen Elsea
Charley Griffin
Lynda Hassler
Julie Sager Miller
Mark Miller
Karen Mize
Randy Pererson
Dr. Rex Romeiser
Steve Ryan
David Sellers
Linda Smirh
Dick Tilgner
John Vanier
Dr. Bob Weber
Dr. Tom Wilson
January 26, 2006
Mr. Jason Gage
City Manager
City of Salina
City-County Building
300 West Ash
P.O. Box 736
Salina, KS 67402-0736
Dear Jason,
I thought it might be wise to touch base with you again concerning the Sexual
Assault Nurse Examiner/Sexual Assault Response Team (SANE/SART)
Program. As you may recall, our earlier discussions centered on a funding
partnership for SANE/SART that involved Salina Regional Health Center,
Saline County and the City of Salina.
It is my understanding that effective this past January 1, 2006, the Saline
County Commissioners have approved an annual allocation of $28,000 for
the SANE/SART Program. Beyond the support from the county, ""Salina
Regional Health Center continues to subsidize the SANE/SART Program and
its operating deficit.
We remain hopeful that the City of Salina will want to be a partner in helping
to fund the SANE/SART Program. SANE/SART is fulfilling a very important
mission by providing immediate and follow-up medical, advocacy, and
criminal justice services to victims of sexual assault, the majority of whom are
of a very young age.
Please advise if there is anything further that we should be doing to help
facilitate this request. Thank you again for your consideration.
George Yarnevich
Thomas P. Martin
Executive Director
139 North Penn' P.O. Box 5080 . Salina, Kansas 67402-5080 . 785/452-6088 . Fax 785/452-6358
Improving the health of our regional community.
Printed on recycled paper
r_
.~
Salina
Regional
Health
Foundation
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Jane Berkley
Mike Berkley
Dale Bradley
Shirley Braxron
Larry Britegam
Harold Eagleton
Kathleen Elsea
Charley Griffin
Lynda Hassler
Julie Sager Miller
Mark Miller
Karen Mize
Randy Peterson
Dr. Rex Romeiser
Steve Ryan
David Sellers
Linda Smith
Dick Tilgner
John Vanier
Dr. Bob Weber
Dr. Tom Wilson
George Yarnevich
September 21 , 2005
Mr. Jason Gage
City Manager
City of Salina
City-County Building
300 West Ash
P.O. Box 736
Salina, KS 67402-0736
Dear Jason,
Thank you for taking the time to meet with us concerning the Sexual Assault
Nurse Examiner/Sexual Assault Response Team (SANE/SART) Program.
As we all agreed, the SANE/SART Program is fulfilling a very important
purpose by providing immediate and follow-up medical, advocacy, and
criminal justice services to victims of sexual assault, the majority of whom are
of a very young age.
In March 2002, the Salina Regional Health Foundation, through its
Community Health Investment Program (CHIP) awarded a $60,868
challenge grant to help establish a SANE/SART Program in our community.
Through the efforts of a community coalition that included representatives
from city/county government and law enforcement, and other charitable
human service organizations including, Salina Area United Way, Social
Rehabilitative Services (SRS), Domestic Violence Association of Central
Kansas (DVACK), and Chiid Abuse Prevention Services (CAPS), matching
funds to the CHIP challenge grant were raised and the SANE/SART Program
was initiated in April 2003.
As the attached SANE/SART Program financial analysis will verify, the
program has operated at a loss since its inception. Given the important
purpose of the SANE/SART Program and its origin through the community
coalition, we are hopeful that city/county government will assist Salina
Regional Health Center in financially supporting the SANE/SART Program.
Toward that end, the Saline County Commissioners have approved an
annual allocation of $28,000 for the SANE/SART Program, starting in 2006.
139 North Penn. P.O. Box 5080 . Salina, Kansas 67402.5080 . 785/452.6088 . Fax 785/452.6358
Improving the health of our regional community.
Pnnted on recycled paper
r_
.~
Salina
Regional
Health
Foundation
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Jane Berkley
Mike Berkley
Dale Bradley
Shirley Braxton
Larry Britegam
Harold Eagleton
Kathleen Elsea
Charley Griffin
Lynda Hassler
Julie Sager Miller
Mark Miller
Karen Mize
Randy Peterson
Dr. Rex Romeiser
Steve Ryan
David Sellers
Linda Smith
Dick Tilgner
John Vanier
Dr. Bob Weber
Dr. Tom Wilson
George Yarnevich
P-2
In addition to providing caring and compassionate care for victims of sexual
assault, a case can also be made that through the SANE/SART Program,
justice is more effectively served and that law enforcement resources are
more efficiently and economically utilized.
We would respectfully request that the City's governing body consider an
annual funding commitment in the range of $30,000 to $35,000 for the
SANE/SART Program, starting in 2006.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or require any
further information.
Sincerely,
R~P=,O' -
President/CEO
Salina Regional Health Center
~!nfV{~
Executive Director
Salina Regional Health Foundation
Enclosure
139 North Penn. P.O. Box 5080 . Salina, Kansas 67402.5080 . 785/452.6088 . Fax 785/452.6358
Improving the health of our regional community.
Printed on recycled paper
Salina Regional Health Center
SANElSART Analysis
April 1 , 2003 through September 30, 2005 (Paid Claims Only)
SANE/SART
April-Sept. SANE/SART SANElSART
FY03 % FY04 % FY05 %
Patient Revenue 18,683 41 ,631 45.007
Grant Revenue 88,268 4,700 7,818
Total Revenue 106,951 46,331 52,825
Contractual Allowance 1,628 8.71% 3,511 843% 5,509 12.24%
Net Patient Service Revenue 105,323 42,819 47,316
Direct Expenses 64,920 97,150 100,219
Capital Equipment Purchase 33,925
Funded Depreciation 5,669 6,785 6,857
Contribution Margin 808 0.77% (61,115) -142.73% (59,760) -126.30%
Indirect Expenses 6,128 10,154 11,370
Net Income(Loss) (5,319) -5.05% (71,269) -16644% (71,130) -150.33%
Statistics
# Cases 32 64 71
# Consultations n/a 12 22
Total Contacts 32 76 93
Payor Mix
Blue Cross 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Blue Cross - HMO/PPO 0.00% 868 2.08% 0.00%
Other Commercial 0.00% 852 2.05% 0.00%
HMO/PPO 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Medicare 0.00% 3,661 8.79% 1 .420 315%
Medicaid 0.00% 2,627 6.31% 1,541 342%
All Other 18,683 10000% 33,624 80.77% 42,046 9342%
Total 18,683 41,631 45,007
Notes
. FY05 includes City of Salina cases as follows: 8 Long-term, 28 acute and 10 Consults.
. FY05 Includes Saline County cases as follows: 1 Long-term and 1 Consult.
. FY05 has 1 unpaid claim and 1 inpatient claim that are not included in the above data.
. SANE/SART program started April 2003.
. Consultations were not recorded until January 2004.
. Patient contact is made during a consult but no exam is performed and no revenue IS generated
LRalney
4/10/2006
CIDOCUME-l ImmUICILOCALS-l ITemp'AnalyslS 03-
S'..;~
~
.2!se,Jason
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hill, Chief Jim
Thursday, July 21,20052:59 PM
Gage, Jason
SANE/SART
Jason:
SANE/SART is an acronym used to describe:
A Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) is a Registered Nurse who 1) is specially trained to provide
comprehensive care to sexual assault victims, 2) demonstrates competency in conducting forensic examinations,
and 3) possesses the expertise for effective courtroom testimony.
The Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) is a community-based coordinated response to child and adult
victims of sexual assault. The team is comprised of SANE's, sexual assault victim advocates, law enforcement,
prosecutors, and any other professionals with a vested interest in assisting victims of sexual assault.
JH
1
SANE/SART Monthl /Annual Statistics
Jan 9 2 7 6 19 8 8 I 8 I 2 3 7
Feb 7 5 2 4 37 13 4 3 6 I 4 2 3
Mar II 8 3 4 31 7 8 3 11 0 6 4 7
Apr 9 6 .., 7 14 5 1/2 6 .., 9 0 6 I 9
-' -'
May 2 2 0 I 20 na 0 2 2 0 I 0 2
June 10 6 4 4 17 6 7 .., 10 0 6 2 (I rechk) 7
-'
July 5 3 2 3 9 1/2 4 5 0 5 0 2 3 (I rechk) 4
Aug 9 6 3 4 17 5 5 4 8 I 5 I 6
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dee
2005
Total
2004 ' 95 62 33 56 18 9 67 28 86 9 46 17 78
Total
Apr- 57 28 29 40 22 8 41 16 51 6 21 not 50
Dee
2003 collect-
Total ed
Acute: %
Long Term: %
Oldest: 91 years
Youngest: year
Average age acute exam: years (examined <72 hours of assault)
Average age long term: years (examined> 72 hours of assault)
Pediatric: %
Adult: %
Female: %
Male: %
Injury: %
Consultations:
Known assailant: %
Most common ages seen in order were:
Increase % from the year 2004
Percentage of SANE/SART patients per county served include:
Saline: % Geary: %
Dickinson: % Shawnee: %
Ottawa: % Ellis: %
Mitchell: % fll;/1
Cloud: %
Rush: %
SANE/SART Monthl /Annual Statistics
Jan 8 6 2 8 19 14 3 5 8 3 0 8
Feb 8 3 5 6 11 9 7 1 8 2 4 6
Mar 8 5 3 4 23 7 6 2 7 4 2 6
Apr 2 1 1 0 34 4 1 1 2 2 0 2
May 9 5 4 5 13 11 7 2 8 5 1 7
June 9 6 3 1 15 4 8 1 6 "'I 4 0 6
-'
July 10 6 2 7 21 9 8 2 10 4 2 7
Aug 9 5 4 7 19 8 6 3 9 1 3 0 10
Sept 8 5 2 3 20 10 5 3 7 1 5 3 8
Oct 5 4 1 2 16 16 3 2 4 1 2 1 4
Nov 7 4 3 4 12 None 5 2 7 4 3 3
Dec 12 9 3 9 17 10 8 4 11 1 11 1 11
2004 95 59 33 56 18 9 67 28 86 9 46 17 78
Total
Apr- 57 28 29 40 22 avg. 8 avg. 41 16 51 6 21 50
Dee
2003
Total
Acute: 65%
Long Term: 35%
Oldest: 50 years
Youngest: 1 year
Average age acute exam: 18 years (examined <72 hours of assault)
Average age long term: 9 years (examined >72 hours of assault)
Pediatric: 71 %
Adult:29 %
Female: 91%
Male: 9%
Injury: 48%
Consultations: 17
Known assailant: 82%
Most common ages seen in order were: 15 years, 3 & 13 years, 6 yrs, & 4 yrs
Increase 40% from the year 2003
Percentage ofSANE/SART patients per county served include:
Saline: 59% Osborn: 1 %
Dickinson: 17 % Ft. Meyers, FL: 1 %
Ottawa: 5% Butte, Calif: 1 %
Lincoln: 3 % Ellis: 1 %
Mitchell: 2% Geary: 1 %
Cloud: 2% Washington: 1 %
McPherson: 1 % Barton: 1 %
Harvey: 1 % Marion: 1 %
2()(J ~ IlIlal leu Ie I. illig S I co. lied. 1ge lied. Ped I dull I CIIl. lIale II/jurI' Pafl. h 1/11 WI/
- I alii lIul1C l:,'el.l ('\11111 lIlllll.
Apr 11
May 4
June 7
July 7
Aug 8
Sept 5
Oct 7
Nov 5
Dee 3
Totall 57
Avg.
age
SANE/SART Monthly /Annual Statistics
7
3
8
15
7
8
3
8
3
4
11
2
3( one seen 2
for acute!
L T exam)
2 6
8
14
3
3
3
4
5
22
8.5
5
2
7
4
5
5
2
4
20
8.5
4
3
6
3
6
2
6
6
16.5
5
7
8
2
6
4
4
32
4.5
4
5
5
2
5
2
9
9
7
7
7
2
3
5
35
16
2
3
5
2
4
2
3
55
5
2
2
2
28
29
40
22 avg.
age
8 ~ 41 16
avg.age
51
6
21
50
Acute: 49%
Long Term: 51 %
Saline CO.: 70%
Oldest: 51 years, (consulted on an 88 year old)
Youngest: 16 months, (consulted on a 4 month old)
Average age acute exam: 22 years (examined <72 hours of assault)
Average age long term: 8 ~ years (examined> 72 hours of assault)
Pediatric: 72%
Adult: 28%
Female: 89%
Male: 11 %
Injury: 37%
Known assailant: 88%
The SANE/SART Unit opened February 28,2003 and treated our first patients in April 2003.
January 2004 through March 31,2004, we have treated/consulted on #23 additional cases.
A year before SANE/SART: March 1, 2002 to March 31, 2003, the Emergency Department
treated #36 sexual assault survivors.
A year ofSANE/SART: April 1, 2003 to March 31,2004, the SANE/SART Unit
treated/consulted #80 sexual assault survivors, a 55% increase over the previous year.
National averages: 1 in 3 women are sexually assaulted and only 1 in 10 will report.
1 in 15 men are sexually assaulted and only 1 in 30 will report. 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys will
be sexually assaulted before the age of 18 and only 15% will disclose. Perpetrators usually
begin at age 8-10 and will assault an average of350x in their lifetime.
Percentage of SANE/SART patients per county served include:
Saline: 72%
Dickinson: 11 %
Cloud: 5%
McPherson: 4%
Lincoln: 2%
Republic: 2%
Ottawa: 1 %
Ellsworth: 1 %
Wooster,OH: 1%
if DIe" Z""D,e",e
SANE/SART 2004
A2e Jan Feb Mar ADr Mav Jun Jul Aug SeDt Oct Nov Dec Tot
1 x X x 3
2 xx x 3
~ x x x xx x 6
4 x x x x 4
5 xx x x x 5
6 x x x x x 5
7 x X 2
8 x X 2
9 x x x 3
10 X 1
11 X X 2
12 0
13 xx x xxx xxx 9
14 x x x x 4
15 x x x xx xx x x x 10
16 x x x xx x 6
17 xx 2
18 x 1
How many were under the age of 8 years?: #30
How many were under the age of 16 years?: #59
How many of our clients were kids?: #67, which is 71%
How many were unable to name their attacker{s)?: #7
We had one confirmed gang rape of a child.
/
/~
SA II N A
~OWNTOWN
",
,....J ..'1
" ,/.
.~.,. ...;
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
1/20/2006
David Moody
Salina Regional Health Ctr.
SDI President
, , .~: L; '..~ u(', r: c', "..... ,-
...... r i I ~j t
Tony Dong
Martinelli's Little Italy
SDI Vice President
Jason Gage
City Manager
P. O. Box 736
Salina, KS 67402-0736
SherrilBieberly
Quilting Bee
SDI Secretary
Dear Jason:
Kent Buer
First Bank Kansas
SDI Treasurer
The SOl Board of Directors at its November, 2005
meeting agreed to earmark $5,000 in SOl reserves to
apply toward a possible City-funded parking study of
the downtown core area.
Andy Anderson
Anderson's Leather
We believe the study, as recommended in the PUMA
plan, is necessary to bring an objective evaluation to
the table along with innovative concepts for parking
management downtown.
Lou Appleby
Appleby & Marsh Architects
Todd Davidson
Hampton & Royce
ayle Martin
Executive Director
Murray Gorman
Capers Cafe and Bakery
Jerry Hinrikus
Sign Pro
Enclosure
Ken Jennison
Salina Media Group
GRM/eaf
Clark Renfro
UMB Bank
Ken Wasserman
Norton, Wasserman, Jones & Kelly
Alan Weber
Blue Cross-Blue Shield of KS
Gayle Martin
Executive Director
114..A Sou~h nh · PO Box 1065 · Salina, KS 674.02.1065 · 785/825.0535 · fox 785/825.7216 . www.lalinadown~own.com
Pre-Budget Information, Salina Solid Waste Fund
Management Summary:
The Solid Waste Fund pro-forma shows that, given current operating constraints and volumes,
and the desire to fully fund the operation out of Solid Waste tipping fees, we will face significant
challenges with the Solid Waste fund this budget cycle. The fund faces a deficit in revenues
under expenses in 2006, and that current deficit is now projected to grow steadily in future years.
Revenues:
The deficit is such that a $2.00 per ton increase in tipping fees for 2007 would balance the fund,
provided that future modest increases were implemented. However, from 20% to 25% of the
volume is generated by users external to Saline County, most of whom have the ability to choose
other options for disposal. In addition, we do have several other relatively large users who might
be motivated, at some fee level, to attempt to make alternate arrangements for disposal. If they
were to do so, the volume of waste handled at our facility could decline significantly.
The economy of landfill operation is that there are economies of scale; revenues will change
proportionately to volume in a linear fashion. That is, given a rate, a 10% change in volume
generates a 10% change in revenue. Expenses behave differently. A 10% change in volume
may only have a 2% or 3% change in expenses incurred, however at particular points, the
expenses break dramatically, with operational changes.
The result of these characteristics is that if volume were to be reduced by, for example, 17,600
tons (20%), the rate necessary to balance in 2007 would be on the order of $32.50 per ton
instead of the $29 now projected to be required. Reduction of the waste stream, while good for
the environment and for the life of the facility, is not necessarily good from a financial viewpoint.
The result is that fee changes should be approached judiciously, and only in the context of a
review of other operational considerations.
Expenses:
As noted in the detailed information, our sense is that much of the operating and capital costs
cannot be reduced significantly without also impairing the service levels and our ability to
continue to comply with regulations. However, some of the supplemental fees and charges that
have been established for the fund could be altered without affecting the primary mission of the
facility. Any of these changes present policy changes, and exhibit varying degrees of palatability.
Detail regarding these miscellaneous fees is included in the notes, as indicated
County Road impact fee ($2.00 per ton): Discussed in Note 6
Waste Reduction Fee ($1.00 per ton). Discussed in Note 7.
Post Closure Fee ($.50 per ton). Discussed in Note 8.
Host fee (5% of revenue, or about $1.35 per ton): Discussed in Note 9.
City Road Impact fee: ($2.00 per ton): Discussed in Note 10.
The following pages provide a discussion of the attached schedules and financial projections.
Schedule I
Note 1, Tonnage, and User fees
Annual tonnage for the pro-forma is projected to remain stable at 2005 levels, or
at approximately 88,000 tons. We currently serve three neighboring counties, in
addition to Saline County. These users produce approximately 20,000 tons per
year of the total. Several other users are relatively large, and given appropriate
motivation, they may also consider other disposal options. A key point I that
these users have choices, and can often select another provider, if the pricing
and services better fit their needs. Due to our encouragement to recycle in a
variety of ways, tonnage to the landfill has typically decreased since 1996
(93,333 tons), given comparable circumstances. Remaining landfill life at the
current facility is estimated to be 81 years. As a matter of comparison, in 1997
remaining life was estimated at 54 years.
Rates for the landfill have remained relatively stable since 1997, when they were
increased from $20.50 per ton to $28.00 per ton to fund subtitle D requirements.
Rates were increased again to $29.00 in 1998, and then reduced to $27.00 in
2000, which is where they are today.
Note 2, Interest Income
Interest income is the only significant non-fee revenue accruing to the Solid
Waste Fund. It depends entirely on the fund balances held and the market rates
for money.
Notes 3-11 Expenses
Solid Waste expenses are broken into 3 general classes: direct operating
expenses, major contractual service fees, and capital needs.
Note 3, Operating Expenses.
Salaries, benefits, supplies and services are projected in the pro-forma by using
2006 budgeted items and projecting an annual inflationary increase of 3 % per
year throughout the period
The Landfill operates on a six day per week schedule, including most holidays
while the Household hazardous waste facility operates on a standard five day
schedule for the most part, but including one Saturday per month. The operation
is staffed by a total of 12 FTE's. The operating budget does include costs
related to access to expertise in landfill management. General administrative,
risk management, billing and collection activity is not directly charged to the fund,
however, an "overhead transfer" is made each year to reimburse the General
fund for these items. Total operating expenses in 2006 will be on the order of
$1,063,000. Operation expenses are only indirectly and loosely responsive to
changes in volume. The facility must be staffed sufficiently to accomplish the
required tasks, and this is more closely related to hours of operation than it is to
volume. Our sense is that if volume were to be reduced significantly-perhaps to
60,000 tons or so, we could reduce the number of hours the facility is available,
and significantly reduce operating costs. Likewise, if volume were to increase
significantly, operations could be changed to provide a second working face, for
example. This would significantly increase our operating and capital costs. Our
sense is that this (or other operational accommodations) might be required at a
volume of 120,000 to 140,000 tons. Our sense is that staffing and other
operating costs are about as thin as they can be considering the current range of
volume and service levels.
Note 4, Other fees.
The Landfill operation is subject to a number of other fees, some of which are
imposed by regulation, some of which have been imposed by agreements with
other entities, and some of which reflect local policy choices. These are a
significant portion of the annual cost of operation, and are all directly related to
the volume of material accepted.
Note 5, KDHE Fee:
This is KDHE's regulatory licensing fee imposed by the State to reimburse them
for the costs of oversight and licensing. It is established at $1.00 per ton of
material accepted. The City has no options with regard to the level or the
payment of this fee.
Note 6, County Fee.
At the time the sub-title 0 landfill was established, and agreement was reached
with Saline County to reimburse them for the cost of constructing and maintaining
the transportation routes to the landfill at a level higher than the typical rural road
section, due to the volume and nature of the traffic generated. Saline County
also re-constructed Burma Road at that time, and issued bonds to do that
construction. This fee is set at $2.00 per ton, with a minimum of $180,000 per
year. In reviewing some of the old documentation regarding this, the thought at
the time was that, even though the citizens of Salina contribute a substantial
portion of the Road and Bridge tax, they also generate the bulk of the refuse, and
it was fair that those generating the refuse contribute to the cost of maintaining
the enhanced transportation routes to and from the landfill. It is also important to
note that this fee recovers transportation related costs for Saline County for those
out-of-county users of the landfill which generate on the order of 20,000 tons per
year. This fee is set by interlocal agreement, which could be re-negotiated,
however, staff feeling is that there is a good justification for this fee at some level.
Note 7, Waste Reduction Fee.
This fee is intended to finance methods of encouraging reduction in the waste
stream to the Landfill. In the past, the City has used this for the mulching mower
rebate program and for the Venture grant program. It is set at $1.00 per ton, and
is formally incorporated into the Solid Waste plan. The amount available
accumulates from year to year if not spent, and the estimated amount available
for 2006 is about $250,000. The Solid Waste Management Committee exercises
oversight of this program. This is established by local policy, and could be
reduced or eliminated, however this would be a significant shift in policy direction.
Note 8, Post-closure fee.
Landfill operators are required by environmental regulations to provide for "post
closure" care of the solid waste land fill site to prevent future contamination of the
environment. When Salina was implementing the sub-title 0 requirements, the
regulations were not in final form, and it appeared that there would have to be
some form of a specific funding mechanism in place to provide those post-
closure care assurances. A fee of $.50 per ton of waste was included in the
Solid Waste Management plan and in the calculation of the landfill charge to
accommodate this.
The final regulations treated Solid Waste facilities operated by governmental
agencies somewhat differently than those operated by private enterprise, in that
governmental agencies are allowed to use an assessment of their financial
condition, their ability to issue bonds, and their ability to levy future taxes. Thus,
pre-funding of this obligation is not required-governmental solid waste facility
operators may rely on future generations to fund post closure care through
general taxing authority. In cases such as Salina's facility, this may generate
some equity questions, as about 20% of our volume comes from other taxing
jurisdictions, and we have no way, outside of a fee, to tap those future resources.
This fee generates about $44,000 per year, which is transferred to our post-
closure care fund. This fund will have accumulated a total of $504,000 by the
end of 2006, providing for an estimated 10 years of care for the currently utilized
portion of the facility, if we closed the facility today. Our practice has been to
pay for the post-closure care on currently closed cells (The original pre-Subtitle D
cell, and Subtitle D Cell 1 ) from current landfill revenues, and to reserve the
"post-closure" portion of the fees for use after the final closure of the facility.
This is subject almost entirely to local policy, and several choices exist, including:
1. Continue as we are, providing for future funding of post-closure care.
2. Provide for post-closure care on currently closed cells from the post-closure
fund instead of from landfill operating expenses. While we have not tracked this
portion of expense separately, based on the closed area of the facility, this could
result in a "savings" to the landfill operating accounts of perhaps $15,000 per
year. This amount will grow over time as the area closed grows. Of course,
demands on the post-closure fund will also grow, and eventually, the $.50 per ton
allotment may not be sufficient.
3. Eliminate the post closure transfer, relying on the current balance in the fund
and future taxing authority to provide for post-closure care.
4. Eliminate the post closure transfer and transfer the balance in the post closure
fund to the operating fund, thereby relying entirely on future taxing authority for
post- closure obligations.
Note 9, Host fee.
In 2004, the City of Salina established a "Host Fee" of 5% of the revenue stream
to be transferred to the General Fund, to be somewhat analogous to a Franchise
fee. The thought was that a comparable situated private facility would likely be
paying taxes, as well as other licensing fees. This was one of the methods used
to address significant financial pressures on the General Fund at that time.
At current rates and volumes, this generates approximately $119,000 per year in
expense. This is entirely subject the City Commission discretion, and could be
continued, adjusted, or eliminated at the Commission's discretion
Note 10, City Road Impact fee.
This is a new internal fee established for 2006, at $2.00 per ton, to be transferred
to the Special Gas Tax fund. This is comparable to the road impact fee paid to
the County, and is intended to compensate for the wear and tear on the streets
created by multiple solid waste collection providers. The intent was to bolster our
street maintenance program. This provision generates about $176,000 in annual
costs to the Solid Waste Fund, and a like amount of revenue to the Special Gas
Tax Fund. As with the host fee, this is entirely subject the City Commission
discretion, and could be continued, adjusted, or eliminated at the Commission's
discretion.
Note 11, Capital Replacement
The Solid Waste operation utilizes several pieces of very expensive ($200,000 to
$600,000 ea.), very long lived equipment. In addition, we must provide for
periodic opening and closing of landfill cells, on an approximate schedule of
every four to five years, at a cost on the order of $2,000,000 per cell. The cash
bsis accounting system we must use does not do a very good job of disclosing
these long term obligations. The capital replacement line on this schedule
reflects what our annual commitment to these long term obligations must be,
given the anticipated replacements, which are shown on Schedule B to this
report. Essentially, to replace equipment and build cells, we need to commit
$815,650 per year from 2006 through 2010, and $905,659 from 2011 through
2015.
Note 12, Current surplus or deficit.
This line on the pro-forma discloses how the projected annual resources
compare to the annual demands on the fund. Note that 2006 shows a deficit of
$315,498, however, this includes the extraordinary item related to the
accumulated Waste Management program funds. If this unusual item is
excluded, then the deficit is $150,498. The projected 2007 deficit is $166,375,
and increases steadily thereafter.
Schedule II
Note 13: Fund Balance Projections.
The fund balance portion of schedule II shows the total projected fund balance
for the Solid Waste Fund, separated into the balance required to maintain the
capital replacement schedule and the fund balance committed to an "operating"
reserve. The capital reserve is determined first, based on the anticipated future
capital needs of the operation, and the operating reserve is the remainder. The
general rule of thumb is that the operating reserve should be maintained at a
level no lower than about two months of operating revenue-about 17% of
annual revenues. As can easily be seen from the schedule, at current rates and
volumes, the operating reserve is below the targeted amount after 2006, and
actually is in a deficit for the years 2011 and thereafter.
Note 14: Post-closure care fund balance.
This shows the projected post closure care fund balance, presuming that we
continue to treat it as a trust reserved for use after the final closure of the landfill.
Note 15 Capital Replacement Reserve.
This is the core of the calculations regarding the long term capital requirements
of the fund, and shows the specific equipment replacement schedule, including
debt service for cell construction and closure expenses. The capital replacement
schedule is only loosely related to annual volumes. For example, a change in
volume of 20% plus or minus would likely affect equipment replacement only
slightly. Likewise, a 20% reduction in volume may increase cell life by 20%, but
in our case, that is perhaps an increase from 5 years to 6 years-a change of
about $85,000 annually for the debt service. The same reduction in volume has
a much larger impact on the use fees generated.
Schedule I 2004 Solid Waste Pro-Forma update 2.xls 4/10/2006
Revenues and Expenditures
Annual tonnage: 88,097
Operating Fund 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Rate Per Ton $ 27 $ 27 $ 27 $ 27 $ 27 $ 27 $ 27 $ 27 $ 27 $ 27
Operating Revenues: Note 1
Use fees: $ 2,378,619 $ 2,378,619 $ 2,378,619 $ 2,378,619 $ 2,378,619 $ 2,378,619 $ 2,378,619 $ 2,378,619 $ 2,378,619 $ 2,378,619
Total Operating Revenues: $ 2,378,619 $ 2,378,619 $ 2,378,619 $ 2,378,619 $ 2,378,619 $ 2,378,619 $ 2,378,619 $ 2,378,619 $ 2,378,619 $ 2,378,619
Other Income:
Interest Income: Note 2 $ 45,000 $ 63,702 $ 51,082 $ 44,427 $ 35,547 $ 24,612 $ 11,460 $ (7,664) $ (29,328) $ (53,850)
Total Other Income: $ 45,000 $ 63,702 $ 51,082 $ 44,427 $ 35,547 $ 24,612 $ 11,460 $ (7,664) $ (29,328) $ (53,850)
Total Revenues: $ 2,423,619 $ 2,442,321 $ 2,429,701 $ 2,423,046 $ 2,414,166 $ 2,403,231 $ 2,390,079 $ 2,370,955 $ 2,349,291 $ 2,324,769
Direct Operating Expenses Note 3
Personnel $ 418,250 $ 430,798 $ 448,029 $ 465,951 $ 484,589 $ 503,972 $ 524,131 $ 545,096 $ 566,900 $ 589,576
Employee Benefits $ 134,309 $ 141,024 $ 148,076 $ 155,479 $ 163,253 $ 171,416 $ 179,987 $ 188,986 $ 198,436 $ 208,357
Supplies $ 286,183 $ 294,768 $ 306,559 $ 318,822 $ 331,574 $ 344,837 $ 358,631 $ 372,976 $ 387,895 $ 403,411
Services $ 224,358 $ 231,089 $ 238,021 $ 245,162 $ 252,517 $ 260,092 $ 267,895 $ 275,932 $ 284,210 $ 292,736
Total Operating Expenses: $ 1,063,100 $ 1,097,679 $ 1,140,686 $ 1,185,414 $ 1,231,933 $ 1,280,318 $ 1,330,644 $ 1,382,991 $ 1,437,441 $ 1,494,081
Per Ton $ 12.07 $ 12.46 $ 12.95 $ 13.46 $ 13.98 $ 14.53 $ 15.10 $ 15.70 $ 16.32 $ 16.96
Other Fees: Note 4
KDHE Fee@ 1.00 Note 5 $ 88,097 $ 88,097 $ 88,097 $ 88,097 $ 88,097 $ 88,097 $ 88,097 $ 88,097 $ 88,097 $ 88,097
County Fee @ 2.00 Note 6 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000
Waste Reduction Fee @ 1.00 Note 7 $ 253,097 $ 88,097 $ 88,097 $ 88,097 $ 88,097 $ 88,097 $ 88,097 $ 88,097 $ 88,097 $ 88,097
Post-Closure Fee @ $,50 Note 8 $ 44,049 $ 44,049 $ 44,049 $ 44,049 $ 44,049 $ 44,049 $ 44,049 $ 44,049 $ 44,049 $ 44,049
Host Fee(5% of Revenue) Note 9 $ 118,931 $ 118,931 $ 118,931 $ 118,931 $ 118,931 $ 118,931 $ 118,931 $ 118,931 $ 118,931 $ 118,931
City Road Impact Fee @ $2.00
(New in 2006) Note 10 $ 176,194 $ 176,194 $ 176,194 $ 176,194 $ 176,194 $ 176,194 $ 176,194 $ 176,194 $ 176,194 $ 176,194
Total Other Fees: $ 860,367 $ 695,367 $ 695,367 $ 695,367 $ 695,367 $ 695,367 $ 695,367 $ 695,367 $ 695,367 $ 695,367
Per Ton $ 7.89 $ 7.89 $ 7.89 $ 7.89 $ 7.89 $ 7.89 $ 7.89 $ 7.89 $ 7.89 $ 7.89
Capital Replacement:
Major EquipmenVDebt Reserves
Allowance Note 11 $ 815,650 $ 815,650 $ 815,650 $ 815,650 $ 815,650 $ 905,659 $ 905,659 $ 905,659 $ 905,659 $ 905,659
Per Ton $ 9.26 $ 9.26 $ 9.26 $ 9.26 $ 9.26 $ 10.28 $ 10.28 $ 10.28 $ 10.28 $ 10.28
Total Current Expenditures $ 2,739,117 $ 2,608,696 $ 2,651,703 $ 2,696,431 $ 2,742,950 $ 2,881,344 $ 2,931,670 $ 2,984,017 $ 3,038,467 $ 3,095,107
Cost per Ton $ 29.22 $ 29.61 $ 30.10 $ 30.61 $ 31.14 $ 32.71 $ 33.28 $ 33.87 $ 34.49 $ 35.13
Current Year Surplus (Deficit) $ (315,498) $ (166,375) $ (222,002) $ (273,385) $ (328,784) $ (478,114) $ (541,591) $ (613,062) $ (689,176) $ (770,338)
Schedule II 2004 Solid Waste Pro-Forma update 2.xls 4/10/2006
Fund Balances and Reserve Calculations
Operating Fund 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Total Fund Balance, 1/1 Note 13 $ 1,592,550 $ 1,277,052 $ 1,110,677 $ 888,675 $ 615,290 $ 286,506 $ (191,608) $ (733,199) $ (1,346,261) $ (2,035,437)
Operating Component of Fund
Balance, 12/31 $ 562,617 $ 179,883 $ 321,321 $ 241,442 $ 286,506 $ (539,140) $ (1,173,939) $ (1,346,261) $ (2,119,469) $ (2,918,974)
Capital Replacement Component of
Fund Balance $ 714,435 $ 930,794 $ 567,354 $ 373,848 $ $ 347,533 $ 440,740 $ 0 $ 84,032 $ 113,198
Total Fund Balance, 12/31 $ 1,277,052 $1,110,677 $ 888,675 $ 615,290 $ 286,506 $ (191,608) $ (733,199) $ (1,346,261 ) $ (2,035,437) $ (2,805,775)
Operating Balance as % of revenue 24% 8% 14% 10% 12% -23% -49% -57% -89% -123%
Post-Closure Obligations Note 14
Post Closure Fund Balance, 12/31 $ 504,236 $ 568,454 $ 635,241 $ 704,699 $ 776,935 $ 852,061 $ 930,192 $ 1,011,448 $ 1,095,955 $ 1,183,841
Capital Replacement Reserve
Income
Capital Reserve Allowance Note 15 $ 815,650 $ 815,650 $ 815,650 $ 815,650 $ 815,650 $ 905,659 $ 905,659 $ 905,659 $ 905,659 $ 905,659
Total Income $ 815,650 $ 815,650 $ 815,650 $ 815,650 $ 815,650 $ 905,659 $ 905,659 $ 905,659 $ 905,659 $ 905,659
Expenditures:
2001 Cat Dozer 2019 $ 296,195 $ 400,000
2002 Wheel Loader 2017 $ 99,553
1998 Motor Grader 2013 $ 78,000 $ 78,000
2003 Cat Compactor 2013 $ 451,450 $ 451,450
1993 JD Scraper 2010 $ 204,500 $ 400,000
1998 Landfill Compactor 2013 $ 340,350 $ 575,000
1991 Landfill Scraper 2006 $ 253,880 $ 575,000
Other Minor Equipment and
Building Enhancements $ 124,450 $ 87,281 $ 92,081 $ 97,146 $ 102,489 $ 108,126 $ 112,451 $ 116,949 $ 121,627 $ 126,492
Landfill Construction and Closure $ 512,009 $ 512,009 $ 512,009 $ 512,009 $ 512,009 $ 450,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 750,000
Total Expenditures $ 1,036,459 $ 599,290 $ 1,179,090 $ 1,009,155 $ 1,189,498 $ 558,126 $ 812,451 $ 1,346,399 $ 821,627 $ 876,492
Current Year Surplus (Deficit) $ (220,809) $ 216,360 $ (363,440) $ (193,505) $ (373,848) $ 347,533 $ 93,208 $ (440,740) $ 84,032 $ 29,167
Capital Replacement "Fund" Balance, 1/1 $ 935,244 $ 714,435 $ 930,794 $ 567,354 $ 373,848 $ $ 347,533 $ 440,740 $ 0 $ 84,032
Capital Replacement "Fund" Balance, 12/31 $ 714,435 $ 930,794 $ 567,354 $ 373,848 $ $ 347,533 $ 440,740 $ 0 $ 84,032 $ 113,198
Debt Project Schedule
Debt Payments:
1995-A
2004-A Closure, Cells 1 & 2, Open Cell 4 $ 512,009 $ 512,009 $ 512,009 $ 512,009 $ 512,009
2010-A Construct Cell 5 (In use 2010) $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000
2011-A Close Cell 3 and 4 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000
2014-A Open Cell 6 $ 500,000
Total Debt Services $ 512,009 $ 512,009 $ 512,009 $ 512,009 $ 512,009 $ 450,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 750,000