final los alamos fy2009 performance report 04.05.10

Incorporated County of Los Alamos Performance Results Fiscal Year 2009

Report of County Governmental Performance Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Departmental Chapters Page

Reader’s Guide………………………………………………………………………………….. 1

County Administrator……………..…………………………………………………………….. 5

County Attorney …………...…………………………………………………………………... 11

County Sheriff…………………………….……………………………….……………………... 14

Community Development…………………………….…………………………..…………….. 16

Administrative Services…………………………………………………………………….….. 24

Community Services……………………………………………………………………………. 48

Los Alamos Fire Department………………………………………………………………….. 76

Los Alamos Police Department……………………………………………………………….. 84

Capital Projects and Facilities………………………………………………………………….. 89

Public Works…………………………………………………………………………………….. 100

Los Alamos County Utilities…………………………….……………………………………… 131

Navigating the Los Alamos County Performance Report: a Reader’s Guide to LA Scores!

Transitioning to Performance Management

April 2, 2010 Dear Reader: Introductory Remarks: Integrating Comparisons Los Alamos County is progressing towards meeting its objective of benchmarking government efficiencies to evaluate programs and prioritize funding levels. Our local government performance management, performance measurement and accountability program is affectionately named LA Scores!—a progressive system for reporting the performance of government services. We county managers and employees have been working very hard to provide services to our beautiful, exceptional community, and we are pleased to present this report to you for your information and consideration. With this FY2009 Performance Report, management integrates time‐tested performance measures that are well‐defined and standardized by the International City/County Management Association’s (ICMA) Center for Performance Measurement (CPM). In many programs, only ICMA measures have been selected, thereby replacing previously adopted performance measures that were used in prior years. In this report, program performance is compared to medians for participating CPM jurisdictions. Note these are simply comparisons, and benchmarks have not yet been identified. The ICMA CPM bound 2007 and 2008 reports are available for reference use at the Office of Management and Budget. In addition, the ICMA CPM 2007, 2008 and mid‐year 2009 reports are available in Adobe Acrobat format at the ICMA CPM website www.icma.org/cpm. With CPM providing statistically cleaned performance data for 15 major service areas from approximately 200 U.S. counties and cities through their easily accessible website, www.icma.org/cpm, Los Alamos County managers now have a valuable tool to benchmark their programs’

1

http://www.icma.org/cpm

http://www.icma.org/cpm

operational performance along a myriad spectrum of mixed service offerings. County managers have been trained on‐site by an ICMA CPM facilitator on all measurement definitions and reporting guidelines. Converting from Performance Measurement to Performance Management In addition to the integration of ICMA performance measures, the County Administrator has directed staff to make whatever changes are necessary to use performance data to manage services. For example, managers will be trying different ways of giving and receiving timely internal feedback regarding operational performance, via routine management meetings, satisfaction surveys, discussion groups, their Personal Performance Appraisals (PPA’s) and ad hoc analyses. Reading Performance Information Overall, the document is organized so that each Department has its own chapter, similar in format to the annual budget document. Each departmental chapter begins with a financial summary. The financial summary typically provides charts and a diagram for a high level overview followed by the meat of the financial summary – multi‐year expenditure information about expenditures by program, expenditures by fund, and the number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employees by type and division. In performance measurement parlance, expenditures and FTE’s are called “inputs” that help generate the “outputs” or services. Following the financial summary, each chapter will present the various performance scorecards for each major program in that department. The scorecard is a blend of results, outputs, efficiencies, and operational inputs, such as expenditures and FTE’s, and linkages to specific Council Goals and Comprehensive Plan Vision Statements. You’ll also see a written narrative section provided by the Department. This narrative is their professional assessment of how the program performed for the single fiscal year ending June 30, 2009. Starting top down in each performance budget section is presented:

• Program Purpose Statement, specifying major services, targeted customers, and the benefits these customers can expect to receive.

• Program expenditures and full time equivalent staffing levels for FY2006 ‐2009. Note – Percentage Average Annual Change at far right calculates the average annual change between the 2006 Actual and the 2009 Actual. Public and private companies commonly use this calculation as a general way to present growth or decline.

• References to Comprehensive Plan Vision Statements supported by the program

• Council Strategic Goals supported by the program

2

• Narrative Discussion and Analysis – The Department’s professional assessment of program performance for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009.

• Core Performance Measures – A tabular scorecard presents the program’s actual results for the various types of performance measures, including both new and existing measures. Note ‐ for many recently integrated ICMA CPM performance measures there is either limited or no historical data so the average annual change is limited to just a comparison of FY2008 as compared to FY2009.

• Charts – These commonly present 2008 or 2009 actual Los Alamos results to other member ICMA jurisdictions for the same measures.

The following table displays the column headers used. Numbered, corresponding descriptions about what these headers set forth immediately follow.

(1) (2) (3) (4)FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 % Actual Actual Actual Estimated

Annual Average Change

1. FY2007 Actual – Actual performance for the entire fiscal year ended June 30, 2007.



4. % estimated Average Annual Change, commonly calculated on either ’07‐09 or ’08‐09 basis, as noted. The percentage shown here is a calculation to obtain the average annual percentage rate of change increase / (decrease) based on as much full year fiscal data available starting with FY2007.

Glossary of Performance Measurement Terms • Program –A functional grouping of departmental and divisional

expenditures and activities that are directed toward a common purpose, consistent over time.

• Purpose – Describes the customers served by the program and the benefits provided.

• Result – Expressed as a percentage/ratio, measure of Program benefit or effectiveness.

3

• Output – A numeric measure of service units produced, and/or customers receiving service.

• Demand – If customer requests or requirements for service typically exceed capacity, then a demand measure is required. This is infrequently used.

• Efficiency ‐ A measure of expenditure per output or per result. At least one efficiency measure is required for each program.

• B – If noted in the left margin, actual results are gathered for this measure every other fiscal year, typically from the community survey.

• CPM – Measures noted as such in the left margin are integrated directly from ICMA’s Center for Performance Measurement and are clearly defined by ICMA user manuals and graphs.

Thank you for your interest in Los Alamos County government! For more information regarding the contents of this report or to request additional copies, please contact our offices using the information below. Respectfully submitted,

Brian Shelton, MBA, CTP Senior Budget Analyst LA Scores! Office

Office of Management and Budget Incorporated County of Los Alamos, New Mexico

telephone 505‐661‐4543 fax 505‐662‐8069

[email protected]

4

http://www.losalamosnm.us/

Department Organization

Department Summary

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR

County Ad i i t ti

Expenditures by Program

Administration72%

Public Information

12%Media Services

8%Lodgers' Tax

Fund8%

General Fund93%

County Administrator

7%

Expenditures as % of General Fund

5

Incorporated County of Los Alamos

Description

Mission

Budget%

Avg.FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 AnnualActual Actual Actual Change

Expenditures by Program:

The Office of the County Administrator administers and manages theorganization of County functions in compliance with the goals and policiesadopted by Council and provides staff support to the Council. The CountyAdministrator is responsible for submitting the budget to Council. This officeprovides Public Information to inform, educate and involve citizens and employeesabout County projects, policies, and goals while enhancing the image of Countygovernment. Media Services are also provided for document reproduction andduplication, graphic design, audio-visual, and mail services to County offices.

The Office of the County Administrator provides support and systems thatempower County departments to anticipate and meet citizen expectations andcarry out County Council's policy initiatives. The Public Information Officeappropriately informs, educates and involves citizens and employees about Countyprojects, policies, and goals while enhancing the image of County government.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR

p y g County Administration 1,570,371$ 2,354,720 2,398,476 24% Public Information 284,831 342,419 393,504 18% Media Services 208,084 252,846 256,569 11% Lodgers' Tax Fund 320,151 287,221 254,520 (11%) Customer Service 288,417 192,546 - (100%)

2,671,854$ 3,429,752 3,303,069 11%

Expenditures by Fund: General 2,351,703$ 3,142,531 3,048,549 14% Lodgers' Tax Fund 320,151 287,221 254,520 (11%)

2,671,854$ 3,429,752 3,303,069 11%

Expenditures by Type:Salaries 946,050$ 954,365 873,118 (4%)Benefits 304,128 311,119 284,712 (3%)Contractual services 1,222,317 1,936,329 1,966,821 27%Other services 112,063 109,281 96,502 (7%)Materials / supplies 54,497 73,551 50,379 (4%)Interfund charges 20,623 31,913 31,537 24%Capital outlay 12,176 13,194 - (100%)

0 - - 2,671,854$ 3,429,752 3,303,069 11%

FTE Summary:Regular (full & part time) 15.50 15.50 12.00 (12%)Casual, Student,& Temp. 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A

15.50 15.50 12.00 (12%)

FTEs By Program:County Administrator 7.00 6.50 7.00 0%Public Information 2.00 2.80 3.00 22%Media Services 2.00 2.00 2.00 0%Customer Service 4.50 4.20 0.00 (100%)

15.50 15.50 12.00 (12%)

6


NOTE: Mid year 2008, the KanDu customer service center was moved to the Utilities Department andrenamed the Customer Care Center. FY 2008 and FY 2007 amounts are located in thisdepartment summary which shows FY 2009 decreases in Salaries and Benefits related to thismove to the Utilities Fund.

At the start of FY2009, Media Services moved to the CAO from the Information Technology Division. The prior years' actuals are restated in this summary.

7


Program Purpose

Program Expenditures, Budget and Full Time Equivalents (FTE)

FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 % Avg. Annual

Actual Actual Actual Actual Change Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure '06-'09

Operating Expenditures/Budget 204,758 284,831 342,419 393,504 24.3%1.50 2.00 2.80 3.00 26.0%

136,505$ 142,416 122,293 131,168 (1.3%)

Strategic Goal AddressedMaintain Quality Essential Routine Services

Narrative Discussion and AnalysisThe public information office was successful this year in conducting public outreach programs using a variety of tools and venuesfunded by their budget. Spending increased slightly in advertising because of additional communication needs not forecasted --for example, the new Capital Improvement Project application process resulted in the need to advertise several public meetings and notifications. Requests for additional feedback from the public, such as the Municipal building options outreach time frame inDecember '09, also increased advertising dollars spent. However, the office was able to use savings from Printing when no issues of the Trinity Insite newsletter were expended (last issue: June 2008) to offset higher advertising costs spent with theMonitor or KRSN; the savings on Insite newsletters are reflecting in the cost for public info per household measure.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR - PUBLIC INFORMATION

The purpose of the Public Information Program is to provide timely and accurate information to appropriately educate, inform and involve the citizens of Los Alamos County in County decisions.

FTE'sOperating Expenditure/FTE

The office successfully published its first issue of "the Citizen Handbook" for new residents, as well as continuing to support orenhance graphics design for other divisions. The Strategic Plan Annual Update was revised into an easier to read format and competitive searches for new print companies resulted in further cost savings to the Printing line item budget. The office continued to work toward its long-range goal of being able to offer graphics design or photography to other departments;for example, assisting with photography at department events, or developing ad and other campaign materials, such as work onthe County fair/rodeo, triathlon, or Boards and Commissions ads for others.

New interest in Los Alamos last year as a filming destination resulted in more staff hours being spent in this area to supportthe needs of filming crews, develop contracts, coordinate staff, and be on-site for filming activities. This was unanticipated in thebudgets but was able to be managed because hours were not spent Trinity Site activities as anticipated. The staff was also busyassisting with 60th anniversary activities, which took a significant amount during the January - June timeframe, also unexpected.

ResultsEstimated

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 '07-'09Actual Actual Actual Change

Results

B 49%biennial,

next survey in '11

53% 8.2%

B 60%biennial,

next survey in '11

63% 5.0%

Efficiency

$0.44 $0.24 $0.20(32.8%)

Expenditure per public information publication for 100 % household distribution

Percent of residents surveyed who report that they feel they have the information they need to participate in County decisions

Percent of residents surveyed who respond "good" or "excellent" when rating timeliness of information provided by the County

"B" = biennial measures.ICMA's Center for Performance Measurement does not provide Public Information measures.

8


Program Purpose


FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 % Avg. AnnualActual Actual Actual Actual Change

Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure '06-'09198,395 208,084 252,846 132,972 N/A

N/AEquipment 113,627 N/ASupplies and Freight 9,970 N/A

Subtotal Duplication Services 123,597 N/A

2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0%99,198$ 104,042 126,423 66,486 N/A

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR - MEDIA SERVICES

Media Services as Part of Information Technology

Media Services as Part of County Administrator

Data for this timeframe is unavailable in this format.


The purpose of the Media Services Program is to provide duplication, graphic design, audio-visual, and mail support services to County employees so they can obtain high quality printed materials, mail services, and technical support in a timely and accurate manner.

Operating Expenditures/BudgetInputs for Duplication Cost per Copy

Comprehensive Plan References - Vision StatementsEngage citizenship

Strategic Goal AddressedMaintain Quality Essential Routine Services

Narrative Discussion and AnalysisThe Media Services staff continued to primarily focus on Print Shop and Mail Run activities to support internal needs.However, staff began focusing more on "how" to better serve customers in efforts to support sustainability initiatives anddevelop work processes that would lead to better productivity. The office layout was reconfigured in January to add the Graphics Designer to the Media Services work area, and organization of storage and work flow were evaluated. The staff continues working on its long range goal to be able to offer more graphics design to customers as the expected move of the mail function to the Airport Basin Site takes place in the next FY. The budgeted amount for copies on thelarge copier at the Annex continued to result in savings in the printing budget and is being examined for that reason.While the number of work orders decreased to pre-FY 08 levels as expected, the number of print jobs remained fairly unchanged from the previous FY. Previous reporting on the consumeables budget had included the cost of postage/mailservices with the program budget and this was corrected in the data collection process with more refined financial reporting. The costs for overage on copies per copier are also being more closely tracked to lower printing costs and usecopiers with low "per copy" rates when possible. The division also moved toward more two-sided copies (less paper) andless costly production of posters (no laminate, less expensive poster boards) which lowered the consumeables budget this year. The division needs to work to find a more accurate representation of all copies being made on the largevolume printers to more accurately reflect total copy counts for the data collection process and is exploringoptions in FY 10. The number of copies still remained high in FY 09 as divisions changed formats for some reports, & the agenda packets continued to have high page counts - a significant item. Printing in color counts also increased.

9


COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR - MEDIA SERVICES

ResultsResultsEstimated

FY2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 '07-'09Actual Actual Actual Change

Internal Quality Survey Results

89% 87%(2.8%)

92% 88%(3.8%)

Outputs1,571,317 1,419,292 1,419,431 (5.0%)

718 912 760 2.9%

Efficiency$0.13 $0.13 $0.087 (18.2%)

Employee rating media services either excellent or good for overall responsiveness

ICMA's CPM does not provide Media Services measures.

Number of print/copy jobs completed

Cost per copy/print

Employee rating media services either excellent or good for overall quality

Number of copies/prints made

10


Description

Mission

The County Attorney's Office provides general legal assistance and advice to theCounty Council and Administration, provides counsel to the County organization andto the Board of Public Utilities, and represents the County before courts andadministrative and regulatory personnel. The office also administers contracts foroutside legal services performed for the County; prosecutes criminal cases beforeMunicipal Court and, on appeals, to the District Courts and Appellate Courts of theState of New Mexico; and represents the County in trial before the appellate courts,the New Mexico Public Utility Commission, and other regulatory bodies andadministrative agencies.

To serve the best interests of the County and its citizens by providing excellent andtimely legal advice and counseling to the County Council, the County Administrator,and the boards and commissions; be a strong and effective legal representative andadvocate for the County in legal matters; assist the County Administrator in serving thepublic and improving the work product of County staff by being available and engagedin county projects at an early stage and throughout the project; be available to theCouncil, as a body, and to Councilors individually to assure that Councilors have everyreasonable opportunity to understand the legal ramifications of their actions; and workwith County staff in a proactive manner to reduce or eliminate legal risks.

COUNTY ATTORNEY

Budget

General Fund98%

Attorney2%


11


%Avg.

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY2009 AnnualActual Actual Actual Change

Expenditures by Type:Salaries 393,114$ 406,370 421,946$ 4%Benefits 130,213 111,667 144,930 5%Contractual services 92,014 79,789 146,174 26%Other services 19,077 11,234 14,312 (13%)Materials / supplies 18,983 26,460 20,033 3%Interfund charges 4,461 4,321 4,359 (1%)

657,862$ 639,841 751,754 7%

FTE Summary:Regular (full & part time) 5.00 5.00 5.00 0%

COUNTY ATTORNEY

12


Program Purpose



Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures '06-'09Expenditures/Budgets 738,717$ 657,862 639,841 751,754 1%

5.00 4.59 5.00 5.00 0%Expenditure/FTE 147,743$ 143,325$ 127,844$ 150,250$ 1%

Comprehensive Plan References - Vision StatementsEngage citizenship

Strategic Council Goals Supported by Department ResourcesMaintain Quality Essential Routine Services

ResultsEstimated

FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 %Actual Actual Actual Change '07 - '09

#DIV/0!

The purpose of the County Attorney Department is to provide competent, balanced and preventative legal counsel to Council, the County Administrator, and County staff members so that they all have the opportunity to make well informed and legally sound decisions which optimize program outcomes and to act in accordance with the law while maintaining a fair and open County government.

FTE's

Performance Measures

COUNTY ATTORNEY DEPARTMENT

INTERNAL SERVICES SURVEY OUTCOME MEASURES #DIV/0!

85% 100% 18%

86% 89% 3%

OUTCOME MEASURES

% Elected and Appointed officials satisfied or very satisfied that their decisions were based upon sound legal advice.

% Senior Management and Division Managers surveyed indicating confidence that their decisions were legally compliant.

13


Description

Budget

%

The Sheriff enforces those Federal, State, and County laws not under the jurisdictionof the Los Alamos Police Department. This enforcement includes service of legalprocess from various courts and provision of bailiff services as requested by thecourt.

COUNTY SHERIFF

General Fund99.9%

Sheriff0.1%


%Avg.

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 AnnualActual Actual Actual Change

Expenditures by Type: Salaries 39,276$ 41,378 42,147 4% Benefits 8,295 8,483 8,854 3% Contractual services 644 13 339 (27%) Other services 4,291 6,466 3,386 (11%) Materials / supplies 6,457 2,015 3,476 (27%) Interfund charges 542 529 452 (9%) Capital outlay 0 0 0 N/A

59,505$ 58,884 58,654 (1%)FTE Summary: Regular (full & part time) 1.75 1.75 1.75 0% Casual, Student,& Temp. 0.22 0.27 0.15 (17%)

1.97 2.02 1.90 (2%)

14


Program Purpose



Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures '06-'09Expenditures/Budgets 69,529$ 59,505 58,884 58,654 (5.5%)

2.03 1.97 2.02 1.90 (2.2%)Expenditure/FTE 34,251$ 30,206$ 29,150$ 30,871$ (3.4%)

Comprehensive Plan References - Vision Statements


Narrative Discussion and Analysis

Public Safety, implying Law Enforcement, underpins the entire Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement as stated in its preamble: "We will preserve our safe, small town atmosphere…."

The Los Alamos County Sheriff’s Department continues to provide a means for timely service of process within the County. The Sheriff’s Department is currently recruiting for two vacant Deputy positions. The goal is to have sufficient qualified, trained Deputies employed prior to the election of a Sheriff in 2010.

COUNTY SHERIFF

The Sheriff enforces those Federal, State, and County laws not under the jurisdiction of the Los Alamos Police Department. This enforcement includes service of legal process from various courts and provision of bailiff services as requested by the court.

FTE's

ResultsICMA's Center for Performance Measurement does not provide measures for Sheriffs.

Est. AverageFY2007 FY2008 FY2009 Annual % Actual Actual Actual Change '07 - '09

100% 96% 98.8% (0.6%)276 287 256 (3.7%)213$ 205$ 229$ 3.7%

Percent of processes administered within legal time requirementsNumber of processes administeredExpenditure per process administered

The Sheriff’s Department continues to maintain current registration of the sex offenders residing in Los Alamos County. New registration requirements and forms were enacted by the Department of Public Safety, effective August 1, 2009. These new requirements and forms have been incorporated by the Sheriff’s Department. Upon completion of the Jail Police Judicial Complex in 2010, the Sheriff’s Department will once again have a separate office from which to serve the residents of Los Alamos County. The proximity to the Police Department and Courts will facilitate expeditious service in a central location for the citizens. Additionally, a separate office for the Sheriff will ensure privacy while dealing in confidential matters.

Performance MeasuresCORE FUNCTION - LEGAL PROCESSES ADMINISTERED

15


COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

16


Description

Mission

Goals


The Community Development Department (CDD) is both a regulatory and policydepartment. CDD's role is to understand the future vision of the community,Planning and Zoning Commission, and County Council, and to create theregulations to make those policies real. CDD is responsible for approvingdevelopment activities on private land, ensuring that buildings are built andremodeled to meet Building Code life and safety requirements, and helping propertyowners and business owners bring ideas to implementation. CommunityDevelopment consists of Planning Services, Building, and Housing divisions.

To proactively plan and facilitate quality development and redevelopment, maintainneighborhood vitality, ensure sustainability and enhance the human and naturalenvironment of the County.

Administer and implement the Downtown Code in order to achieve revitalization.

Assist with the final adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and a revised

Function in concert with other departments in implementing the Council's economic

Budget

Function in concert with other departments in implementing the Council s economicdiversification strategies.

General Fund98%

Community Development

2%


17


%Avg.


Expenditures by Type: Salaries 678,478$ 722,583 750,165 5% Benefits 217,814 209,744 228,389 2% Contractual services 25,170 64,201 39,822 26% Other services 37,898 33,098 30,779 (10%) Materials / supplies 45,741 16,900 19,053 (35%) [2] Interfund charges 17,549 29,133 25,106 20% Capital outlay 35,588 0 0 (100%) [1] Fiscal charges 0 0 0 NA

1,058,238$ 1,075,659 1,093,315 2%

FTE Summary: Regular (full & part time) 13.00 13.00 13.00 0%


[2] Decrease in FY2008 due to fewer computer replacements.

[1] Amounts for items less than $5,000 have been reclassified from capital outlay to materials/supplies.

18


Program Purpose



Expenditures Expenditures Budget Expenditures '06-'09Expenditures and Budget 1,029,110$ 1,058,238 1,075,659 1,093,315 2%

13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 0%79,162$ 81,403 82,743 84,101 2%56.70 58.30 59.26 60.23 2%


Diversify housing

Strategic Council Goals Supported by Program ResourcesMaintain quality and essential routine services


One of the main purposes of having a Community Development Department is to provide planning advice to the County Council and others and to provide prompt and accurate land use permitting services to present and future land users so as to promote the coordinated and efficient use of land in the County, support economic vitality, improve the community's physical appearance, and achieve the goals contained in the Council's Strategic Plan and Comprehensive Plan. The Community Development Department provides consultation, plan review, inspection and education services to builders and homeowners so they can save time and effort while complying with applicable codes.

FTE'sExpenditure/FTE

Engage citizenship

Revitalize downtown

Expenditure/capita


1. The building permits and to some extent planning applications include review and work performed by other departments.

2. FY2009 actual cost per building permit increased due to additional large projects requiring multiple detailed plan reviews.

3. FY2009 cost per development application declined due to fewer larger project applications.

4. Community Development doubts the validity of the high and low figures for comparison with other municipalities due to large cost disparities; they are obviously not calculating costs the same way.

19


COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTResultsCPM denotes a measure defined and maintained by the ICMA Center for Performance Measurement

Estimated %FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 Average AnnualActual Actual Actual Change '08 - '09

CPM

- 6.80 6.88 1%

CPM 644 530 (17.7%)

CPM126.77$ 233.37$ 84%

Estimated % Average Annual Change '07-'09

98% 96% 99% 0.5%

Percent of development application staff recommendations passed by the Planning and Zoning

Percent of all development applications processed according to customer service standards for response time

Average # of calendar days from customer submittal of building permit application to permit issuance

Performance MeasuresBUILDING PERMITS (All Types)

LAND USE APPROVAL AND PLAN REVIEW

Average cost per permit issued

# permits issued (see table A on following page)

95% 100% 91% (2.1%)

CPM58 157 200 85.7%

CPM622.08$ 483.72$ (22.2%)

10 11 9 (5.1%)

the Planning and Zoning Commission

Average cost per development plan reviewed

Total # of development plans reviewed

LAND USE PLANS AND CODESNumber of planning documents and code updates drafted

20



HOW THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STACKS UP

Hampton, VA pop 146,139 ‐HIGHEST, 167

Avg # Calendar Days from customer submittal to permit issuance

Los Alamos pop 18,150 Actual,

6.8


6.88

Garnder, KS pop 18,096 ‐MEDIAN,

8

Several Communities MEDIAN ‐West Jordan, UT,

Charlotsville, VA, McAllen, TX & Sarasota County,

FL, 10

Sandy Springs, GA pop 85,790 ‐ HIGHEST, 64

Cartersville,GA pop 21,220 ‐LOWEST, 1

Cartersville, GA pop 22,235 ‐LOWEST, 1

2007 2008 2009

21




Washoe County, NV pop 107,999 ‐

HIGHEST, $1,202.88

Addison, IL pop 36,947 ‐ HIGHEST,

$769.11

Avg cost per permit issued

Los Alamos pop 18,150 Actual ‐

MEDIAN, $126.77 Phoenix, AZ pop

1.5 million ‐MEDIAN, $125.83

Austin, TX pop 724,111 ‐

LOWEST, $5.32

Austin, TX pop 724,111 ‐

LOWEST, $5.41


$233.37

2007 2008 2009

22




Rockford, IL pop 151,441 ‐HIGHEST, $15,552.33

New Albany, OH pop 6,584 ‐

HIGHEST, $12,718.30

Avg Cost per development plan reviewed

Columbia County, GA pop 106,887 ‐

MEDIAN, $1,281.70

Phoenix, AZ pop 1.54 million ‐MEDIAN, $1,420.06

Cartersville,GA pop 21,220 ‐

LOWEST, $185.44

Plant City, FL pop 35,000 ‐ LOWEST,

$45.33


$622.08


$483.72

2007 2008 2009

23


ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT

General Fund80%


Accounting & Budget11%

Indigent Health Care17%

Human Resources13%

Information Technology

33%

Proc/Materials Mgmt6%

Risk Management20%


Administrative Services20%

24


Description

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT

The Administrative Services Department is responsible for overseeing and coordinating functions that provide internal services to the County.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provides budgeting and financialmanagement support necessary for efficient operations, prudent decision making andsound municipal stewardship. OMB functions include planning, organizing, directingand monitoring the accounting, auditing, collection of funds. The office hasresponsibility for preparing budgets, LA Scores! , financial statements and reports,investing public funds, monitoring expenditures, and managing the Indigent HealthCare program. OMB also has administrative oversight over the following Funds: DebtService, Self Sufficiency, Cerro Grande Fire, and CIP Permanent.

The Human Resources Division administers personnel management and humanresources development to provide the County with a highly-qualified and motivatedwork force. It also supports County departments by providing services such asrecruitment, selection, classification, work force management, compensation, salaryadministration, benefits, records, performance appraisal administration, compliance,staff training and development, and employee and labor relations.

Th I f ti T h l Di i i i ibl f th ffi i t d ff tiThe Information Technology Division is responsible for the efficient and effectiveoperation of information systems used by the County to provide services to ourcitizens. The Division provides services in the following areas: hardware and softwaresupport for the County’s desktop and server environment, application developmentand support, geographical information services, support for the County’s internet andintranet, and telecommunications. The Information Technology Division also providesgraphic services and mail delivery to the County.

The Purchasing and Safety/Risk Management Division is responsible for thepurchasing, materials management, safety and risk management functions of theCounty. This includes contracting, procurement, materials management andprotecting the personnel and assets of the County from exposures to loss throughhazard identification, loss prevention, loss reduction and exposure avoidancemethods. Additionally, the Division provides safety training, compliance and workers’compensation services to employees.

25


Department Summary

% Avg.


Expenditures by Program: Accounting & Budget 1,259,138$ 1,198,008 1,163,893 (4%) Indigent Health Care 993,076 1,892,186 1,860,474 37% Human Resources 1,130,874 1,280,880 1,423,916 12% Information Technology 2,733,785 2,997,659 3,632,241 15% Proc/Materials Mgmt 610,970 661,649 682,438 6% Risk Management 1,785,883 1,868,056 2,156,969 10%

8,513,726$ 9,898,438 10,919,931 13%

Expenditures by Fund: General 5,734,767$ 6,138,196 6,902,488 10% Indigent Health Care 993,076 1,892,186 1,860,474 37% Risk Management 1,785,883 1,868,056 2,156,969 10%

8,513,726$ 9,898,438 10,919,931 13%

FTE Summary: Regular (full & part time) 52.25 53.25 56.75 4% Limited term 2.00 2.00 1.00 (29%) Casual, Student,& Temp. 0.11 0.00 0.00 (100%)

54.36 55.25 57.75 3%

FTEs By Division: Office of Mgmt & Budget 11.75 11.75 11.75 0% Human Resources 11.50 12.00 11.00 (2%) Information Technology 19.00 19.50 23.00 10% Purchasing & Risk Mgmt 12.11 12.00 12.00 (0%)

54.36 55.25 57.75 3%

26


Office of Management & Budget Mission

Program Budget

% Avg.


Revenue and Expenditure Summary: Indigent Health Care Revenues 1,971,272$ 1,731,992 2,163,665 5% Expenditures 993,076 1,892,186 1,860,474 37% Net Revenues (Exp.) 978,196$ (160,194) 303,191 (44%)

Expenditures by Program: Accounting & Budget 1,259,138$ 1,198,008 1,163,893 (4%)

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT - OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT & BUDGET

The mission of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is to preserve the County's strong financial position by creating a responsible financial strategy, facilitating effective management of County resources through sound budgetary practices, and providing analysis and recommendations that optimize economic outcomes.

g g , , , , , , ( ) Indigent Health Care 993,076 1,892,186 1,860,474 37%

2,252,214$ 3,090,194 3,024,367 16%

Expenditures by Fund: General 1,259,138$ 1,198,008 1,163,893 (4%) Indigent Health Care 993,076 1,892,186 1,860,474 37%

2,252,214$ 3,090,194 3,024,367 16%

Expenditures by Type: Salaries 738,523$ 760,421 736,710 (0%) Benefits 225,591 217,799 224,393 (0%) Contractual services 1,074,962 1,972,523 1,881,890 32% Other services 39,479 41,602 45,848 8% Materials / supplies 28,685 36,421 47,219 28% Interfund charges 96,884 65,270 88,029 (5%) Capital outlay 5533 0 - (100%) Fiscal charges 42,557 (3,842) 278 (92%)

2,252,214$ 3,090,194 3,024,367 16%

FTE Summary: Regular (full & part time) 10.75 10.75 10.75 0% Limited term 1.00 1.00 1.00 0%

11.75 11.75 11.75 0%

27


Human Resources Division Mission

Human Resources Program Budget

% Avg.


Expenditures by Type: Salaries 708,213$ 762,943 789,330 6% [1] Benefits 213,792 232,447 246,321 7% [1] Contractual services 42,730 82,785 205,646 119% [2] Other services 110,856 90,771 89,853 (10%) [3] Materials / supplies 47,153 100,409 84,624 34% Interfund charges 7,324 8,643 7,964 4%

Fiscal charges 806 2 882 178 (53%)

The mission of the Human Resources Division is to support County employees with quality, innovative and timely human resource policies, programs and services. The Division partners with management and staff to foster excellence, productivity and fairness as well as to strengthen the County’s ability to attract, develop and retain an excellent workforce. The Division also strives to maintain a workplace culture in which all employees feel valued and able to contribute their personal best to the achievement of County goals.

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES - HUMAN RESOURCES

Fiscal charges 806 2,882 178 (53%)1,130,874$ 1,280,880 1,423,916 12%

FTE Summary: Regular (full & part time) 11.50 12.00 12.00 2% [1]

[1] HRIS Payroll Coordinator FTE moved back from Information Technology Division due to delay inHRIS software upgrade.

[2] Increase for assessment testing for police and fire.

[3] Decrease in advertising for recruitments.

28


Information Technology Division Mission

Information Technology Program Budget

% Avg.


Expenditures by Type: Salaries 1,136,786$ 1,241,292 1,383,031 10% Benefits 346,619 391,030 456,255 15% Contractual services 730,845 787,668 1,034,751 19% [1] Other services 293,099 262,273 350,738 9% Materials / supplies 75,122 130,404 203,294 65% Interfund charges 40,024 34,079 34,866 (7%) Capital outlay 111,290 150,913 169,306 23%

2 733 785$ 2 997 659 3 632 241 15%

The Information Technology (IT) Division improves County staff effectiveness and citizen services by supporting and upgrading County IT assets. Assets include the integrated County network (ICN), the central server facility (CSF), desktop computing resources, and all software applications used by County organizations.

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

2,733,785$ 2,997,659 3,632,241 15%

FTE Summary: Regular (full & part time) 18.00 18.50 23.00 13% Limited term 1.00 1.00 0.00 (100%)

19.00 19.50 23.00 10%

[1] Amounts for items less than $5,000 have been reclassified from capital outlay tomaterials/supplies.

29


Procurement/Material Management & Safety/Risk Management Division Mission

Procurement/Material Management & Risk Management Program Budget

% Avg.


Expenditures by Program: Procurement/Material Mgmt 610,970$ 661,649 682,438 6% Risk Management 1,785,883 1,868,056 2,156,969 10%

2,396,853$ 2,529,705 2,839,407 9%

Expenditures by Fund: General 610,970$ 661,649 682,438 6%

The Purchasing and Safety/Risk Management Division is responsible for the purchasing, materials management, safety and risk management functions of the County. This includes contracting, procurement, warehousing and protecting the personnel and assets of the County from exposures to loss through hazard identification, loss prevention, loss reduction and exposure avoidance methods. Additionally, the Division provides safety training, compliance and workers’ compensation services to employees.

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES - PROCURMENT, MATERIALS, AND RISK MANAGEMENT

Risk Management 1,785,883 1,868,056 2,156,969 10%2,396,853$ 2,529,705 2,839,407 9%

Expenditures by Type: Salaries 558,125$ 623,948 622,259 6% [1] Benefits 182,311 213,123 211,676 8% [1] Contractual services 576,001 665,655 455,186 (11%) Other services 964,572 933,484 1,440,909 22% [2] Materials / supplies 82,213 60,950 66,330 (10%) Interfund charges 33,131 32,080 33,047 (0%) Capital outlay - - 10,000 100% Fiscal charges 500 465 0 (100%)

2,396,853$ 2,529,705 2,839,407 9%

FTE Summary: Regular (full & part time) 12.00 12.00 12.00 0% [1] Casual, Student,& Temp. 0.11 0.00 0.00 (100%)

12.11 12.00 12.00 (0%)

[1] Two new FTEs transferred from schools for consolidated mail/warehouse functions.

[2] Increase in property insurance, dental insurance and workers' compensation insurance premiums.

30


Program Purpose



Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure '06-'0960,003$ 43,536 85,667 205,646 51%

Operating Expenditures/Budget 1,062,710$ 1,087,338 1,195,213 1,218,270 5%11.50 11.50 12.00 12.00 1%

92,410$ 94,551 99,601 101,523 3%

Strategic Council Goals Supported by Program ResourcesMaintain quality essential routine services

Narrative Discussion and AnalysisDuring the FY2009 budget cycle, one (1) FTE had temporarily been transferred to the IT Division to work on a special

project that involved both IT and HR. This position was returned to the HR budget in FY2010. Additionally, as a part of

the FY2010 budget, recruitment expenses for Public Safety were transferred into the HR budget. These two major

budget items, in addition to the annual increase allowance of 7%) resulted in the increased budget of 10.8%.

HR staff have worked closely with management in the recruitment process Process improvements have been

Capital and Outside Services


ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES HUMAN RESOURCES PROGRAM

The purpose of the Human Resources Program is to provide recruitment/retention, total rewards and career development services to the organization (management, current employees and potential employees) so it can attract, retain and motivate people to accomplish the County and department goals.

HR staff have worked closely with management in the recruitment process. Process improvements have been

implemented including training, more efficient processes, and identification of the most effective recruitment markets.

The average number of working days to fill a vacant position has decreased; however, in most situations the anticipated

time standard was exceeded due to the readverstisement of positions in order to obtain a higher quality of applicant

pool.

During FY2009, employee turnover was much less than anticipated. This figure is the lowest that it has been for nearly

10 years. Additionally, there were no employee grievances during this timeperiod. Employee benefits in the County

are a huge retention tool with the County's percentage being well within the national average. With the State and

County retirement and pension plans, the County contributes 18.15% to 30.25% of the base earnings per employee.

The Human Resources Division is staffed to provide full comprehensive services in the areas of: recruitment, employee

relations (including grievances, complaints, investigations), labor relations (including negotiations, hearings, grievances),

training (including providing, facilitating, tuition assistance), compliance reporting, benefits (including administration of

pension plans, retirement plans, wellness programs, donated leave), payroll processing and accounting, Personnel Board,

Labor Management Relations Board, compensation structure (including market studies and job classifications),

Employee Survey, and Employee Recognition Programs. Staff are cross-trained to assist in the various programs.

31



ResultsCPM = Measure defined and maintained by ICMA's Center for Performance Measurement

Estimated %FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 Average AnnualActual Actual Actual Change

CPM

55 36.1 (34.4%)

CPM

60 52.2 (13.0%)

CPM

172 180 178 1.7%

CPM 1.67 N/A N/A

Footnote 1 - CPM

Total # positions filled (including promotions of existing employees, new regular employees, and new temporary, casual and limited term employees

EMPLOYEE GRIEVANCES# of employee grievances and appeals per 100 employees% grievances resolved before passing from management

Performance MeasuresRECRUITMENT

Average # working days for external recruitment without candidate testing requirements

Average # working days for external recruitment with candidate testing requirements

Footnote 1 - CPM100% N/A N/A

CPM1.44 1.40 (3.1%)

3%

85% N/A

CPM

6.9% 2.1% (69.6%)

CPM

37.7% 39.4% 4.4%

HR STAFFING LEVELRatio of total HR FTE's (excluding payroll) per 100 total jurisdiction FTE'sEMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION% employees who rated overall satisfaction as a County employee as satisfied or above on the Employee Survey

EMPLOYEE TURNOVER RATETurnover rate (excluding retirements, deaths, probationary and part timers) for all positions

BENEFIT COSTSEmployee benefit costs as a percentage of employee salaries (excluding overtime)

Footnote 1 - During FY2009, 0 employees filed grievances, and 677 employees were eligible to file grievances. Reporting 0% would be accurate, but would also be misleading, as management had no grievances to deal with. Therefore, the best answer is N/A, for Not Applicable.

passing from management control

32


ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES HUMAN RESOURCES PROGRAMHOW THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES HUMAN RESOURCES PROGRAM STACKS UP

Los Alamos, pop 18,150,

37.7%

Los Alamos, pop 18,150,

39.4%

Sioux Falls, SD pop 154 100

Cumberland, MD pop 20,758

‐ Highest, 59.3%

Casper, WY pop 52,089 Median,

35.0%

Bridgeport, CT pop 137,912,

69.0%

Employee Benefits as % of Employee Salaries

pop 154,100 Median, 36.2%

McHenry, IL pop 24,493 ‐Lowest, 15.6%Colorado

Springs, CO pop 398,258 ‐

Highest, 4.0%2007 2008 2009

33



Windsor, CO ‐Highest, pop. 19,201, 4.20

Pleasant Hill, MO ‐ Highest, pop 6,903,

2.98

Ratio of HR FTEs per 100 Total FTE's

Los Alamos pop 18,150, 1.44

Los Alamos pop 18,150, 1.40

Harrisonville, MO pop 8,946‐Median, 0.80

Coral Springs, FL pop 128,930‐Lowest, 0.20

Clayton, MO pop 15,935 ‐Median, 0.78

Grain Valley, MO pop 13,000 ‐ Lowest , 0.31

2007 2008 2009

34



55

50

60

Average # working days for external recruitment without candidate testing requirements

60 52

4548.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2007 2008 2009

Average # working days for external recruitment with candidate testing requirements

Los Alamos, NM

CPM Median ‐Floyd County, GA

6.9%

2.1%

6.6%

0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00%

2008

2009

Turnover rate (excluding retirements, deaths, probationary and part timers) for all positions

Tacoma, WA pop 396,000 ‐Median Los Alamos actual

36 34.6 32.0

0

10

20

30

40

2007 2008 2009

Los Alamos, NM

CPM Median ‐Elgin, IL

35


Program Purpose



Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure '06-'091,128,624$ 842,135 938,581 1,204,057 2%

Operating Expenditures/Budget 1,970,108$ 1,891,650 2,059,078 2,428,184 7%18.75 19.00 19.50 23.00 7%

105,072$ 99,561 105,594 105,573 0%



Narrative Discussion and AnalysisInformation Technology continues to move toward ICMA standards for eGovernment, staff expertise and system reliability. In FY 09 the Internal Services Survey showed that satisfaction with IT services increased by over 23% from the 2007 survey. This increase in customer satisfaction is attributable to listening to our

Upgrade infrastructure

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

The purpose of the Information Technology Program is to provide hardware, network and software services to County employees so they can utilize reliable technology and receive responsive services to accomplish their job duties.



y y ginternal customers and implementing their recommendations. At the beginning of FY 2008, Information Technology met with customers throughout County departments to find out how we could provide better service. The top priority for improvement in IT services from internal customers was to move beyond technical expertise to how specific major applications operate by increasing IT personnel and the familiarity of those personnel with those applications. The specified applications were Financials, Utility and Public Safety applications. In the FY 09 budget request, IT personnel increased from 19.5 to 22 and IT dedicated three FTEs to the financial system, utility billing/work orders and the public safety dispatch/records management system. We have received positive feedback from the customers, including a comment from one customer that they no longer felt they needed to allocate a position within their group to focus on the internal workings of that system. There was consideration to move an FTE from HR to IT to provide the same type of service for the HR system and the FTE was temporarily moved from HR to IT in FY09, but the transition never occurred and the position was left in HR. Based upon the same series of meeting with internal customers, the next highest priorities were to increase IT resources, particularly personnel, funding and time and to provide increased 24/7 service and support for public safety. IT added support for the public safety system, Intergraph, which includes a new area of support, computers in public safety vehicles. IT continues to support Public Safety systems including the systems with which they interface with a smaller team than other Intergraph clients dedicate to support of the system. We have incorporated some of these duties into IT positions that were already in existence to provide the necessary support. The ownership and maintenance of the Intergraph system was transferred to the County from LANL two years ago. Since that time many additional modules have been implemented. Information Technology plans to meet with department customers again in FY 10 after we get a normalized response to the new internal services survey. This will be the first year utilizing the ICMA standard questions and ratings. The survey will become an annual process instead of biannual to keep a better appraisal of current customer satisfaction. EGovernment initiatives are in relatively new in Los Alamos County. Citizens continue to increase utilization of the eGovernment components as they become available. We expect dynamic change in these areas to continue as citizens become aware of the services and new services are added. The safeguards installed to protect against downtime in FY08 have shown to decrease system downtime and increase system stability.

36





CPM114,181 N/A

CPM52,445 64,760 11.7%

CPM371,379$ 418,817$ 6.4%

CPM

300 400 16.7%% Change '07 -'09

CPM

64% 79% 23.4%

CPM64% 79% 79% 23 9%

dollar amount of electronic payments accepted

# Geographical information systems queries (internet and intranet combined)

STAFF EXPERTISEInternal Customer Satisfaction Rating of Information Technology Services Overall

% rating quality of IT service as either excellent or good

Performance Measures by Strategic Plan FactorEGovernment Indicators# of unique user sessions on County website

# online transactions, approvals and payments processed

64% 79% 79% 23.9%

CPM

65% 80% 80% 23.6%% Change '08 -'09

Footnote 1 - CPM

26 198 661.5%

Footnote 2 - CPM

3.2 minutes .5 minutes (84.4%)

Footnote 3 99.65% 101.0% 1.4%

SYSTEM RELIABILITY

g

% rating timeliness of IT service as either excellent or good

# general outages any time of day, including unplanned outages plus scheduled maintenance (24/7 operations)

Footnote 1 - No meaningful variance can be calculated as the counting method changed from year to year.Footnote 2 - No meaningful variance can be calculated as the counting method changed from year to year.Footnote 3 - Please contact IT Manager Laura Gonzales at 663-1991 for more info regarding 101%. IT didn't use all of the scheduled uptime for maintenance and had an overall uptime of 99.9812% including scheduled downtime on a 7x24x365 basis.

Average duration of general outages any time of day, including unplanned outages plus scheduled maintenance (24/7 operations)

% scheduled systems uptime

37



HOW THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM STACKS UP

27%

37%

27%

9%

58%

33%

7%2%

Excellent Good Fair Poor

2008 % customers surveyed rating quality of IT services

Los Alamos rating of customer service Overall satisfaction rating, CPM Mean

38



HOW THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM STACKS UP

26%

39%

25%

10%

53%

35%

9%

3%

Excellent Good Fair Poor

2008 % customers surveyed rating timeliness of IT services

Los Alamos rating of customer service Overall satisfaction rating, CPM Mean

Los Alamos Actual, $105,594 Los Alamos Actual,

$105,573

Smyrna, GA pop 49,534 ‐ HIGHEST,

$390,886

Teton County, WY pop 20,002 ‐ LOWEST,

$25,592

MEAN, $150,580

2008 2009

IT Operating expenditures per IT FTE

39


Program Purpose



Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure '06-'09Expenditures/Budget 585,359$ 610,970 661,649 682,438 5.2%

9.5 9.6 9.5 9.5 0.0%61,617$ 63,643 69,647 71,836 5.2%


Narrative Discussion and AnalysisNOTE: Increase of FTEs and additional budget for FY10 are the result of the planned consolidation of LAPS and LAC material management functions

28,564 individual demands for material (line item issues, not eaches) were satisfied from inventory (i.e., not PO) for LAC during FY09. This included all types of material support – paper to pipe fittings (keeping people on the job, not chasing material at stores or involving a buying process) - things our workforce uses every day Material management continues to be the primary (PO being distant

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROCUREMENT & MATERIALS MANAGEMENT

The purpose of the Procurement and Material Management Program is to provide for the purchase, contracting, warehousing and delivery of materials and contract services to Departments so they have the materials and services they need to accomplish their tasks in an efficient manner.


workforce uses every day. Material management continues to be the primary (PO being distant second) and most efficient method to deliver daily use and project material into the hands of our workforce. Our goal is, and has been, to increase the volume of material support via inventory issue versus individual purchase orders.

Material Management continues to live up to its motto, "Same Day, Not Some Day", Items are provided instantly to our customers over the counter or through ready stores (items pre-positioned in their shop area), or via delivery every afternoon for items ordered online before noon the same day. In addition, items from purchase orders received by Material Management central receiving are processed and delivered that same afternoon.

Other interesting numbers include that FY09 was the 15th straight year showing audited results of 100% inventory validity and an adjustment (gain, loss, damage) rate of less than 0.02%. Minimum acceptable rates are 95% or higher and 5.0% or less respectively. This demonstrates that in addition to efficiency, the operation is well controlled and mindful of our users' fiscal realities.

Preparations for consolidating with LAPS have consumed considerable time for supervisory staff as details of an MOU for material support of LAPS was hammered out with their staff and a final document produced. LAC staff looks forward to providing LAPS with an increased level of service with the ability to leverage a larger staff, a more material support oriented process (all types of material, not just office supplies as in the current LAPS operation), and better buying power for the benefit of all.

40





100% 98% 100% 0%

N/A

CPM

N/A


MATERIALS MANAGEMENT% tangible goods requests processed within 3 business days

Employee rating of experiences with materials and supplies order services

PURCHASING

Employee rating of purchasing and procurement experiences for timeliness, quality and overall.

41



HOW THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROCUREMENT & MATERIALS MANAGEMENT STACKS UP

Los Alamos, pop 18,150 Actual,

Los Alamos, pop 18,150 Actual,

$71,836

MEAN, $84,079

Elgin, IL ‐ pop 94,487‐HIGHEST,

$202,758

Hampton VA pop

Expenditures per Purchasing FTE

#REF!

$69,647 Hampton, VA pop 146,439 ‐ LOWEST,

$44,570

2008 2009

Min

25th%-ile

Median

75th%-ile

LAC

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00

Calendars days from advtsg through PO issuance-informal bids

42


Program Purpose



Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure '06-'09Risk Fund Expenditures/Budget 3,788,077$ 1,785,883 1,868,056 2,156,969 (17.1%)

2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0%



ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

FTE's

Worker's Compensation expenditures for FY09 appear lower than norm due to the delay of major surgery relating to a major injury. The surgery will take place during FY2010 and the cost is estimated to bring the expenditures back up to the norm.

The purpose of the Risk Management Program is to provide risk assessments, safety training and claims management services to the County, County employees and the public so the County can minimize losses, employees can return to work and the public can recover their loss.

The number of worker days lost per claim is higher than the previous years due to two major surgeries resulting in extremely long recovery periods.



CPM

1.00$ 1.00$ 0.69$ (16.9%)

CPM3.0 1.0 3.8 11.8%

CPM26.62$ N/A

CPM25.90 N/A

CPM3.0 5.8 6.9 51.9%

80.0 36.0 22.0 (47.6%)

SAFETY AND LOSS Risk management training hours per FTE

# safety audits completed

Expenditures for liability claims per capita

Performance MeasuresWORKER'S COMPENSATION

Expenditures for worker's compensation per $100 of total jurisdiction salaries and benefits

# worker days lost per claim

GENERAL LIABILITY

Risk Management training hours were down for fiscal year 09 due to there being only one staff member for 1/2 of the period. Combine that with new personnel in both positions, an established training program was not in effect until the latter half of the fiscal period. This would also account for the reduction in the number of safety audits performed. The safety officer was performing the entire risk department's functions for 1/2 of the fiscal year while providing leadership and mentoring to the Risk Manager when he came on duty.

General liability claims per 10,000 population

43



HOW THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STACKS UP

Shorewood, IL ‐

Bridgeport, CT pop 137,912 ‐ HIGHEST,

$8.27

White House, TN pop 9,891 ‐

HIGHEST, $4.89

Expenditures for worker's compensation per $100 of total jurisdiction salaries and benefits compared to CPM

Los Alamos, NM, pop 18,150 Actual,

$1.00


$1.00 Los Alamos, NM, pop 18,150 Actual,

$0.69

Schaumburg, IL‐ pop 75,936 ‐MEDIAN,

$1.72

pop 18,322 ‐MEDIAN, $1.70

Overland Park, KS pop 173,225 ‐LOWEST, $0.31

Mesa, AZ pop 493,077 ‐ LOWEST,

$0.69

2007 2008 2009

44



HOW THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STACKS UP

Min

25th%-ile

Median

75th%-ile

LAC RISK

Max

$0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 $4.50 $5.00

FY2008 Workers Comp expenditures per $100 Jurisdiction salaries and

benefits

FY2008 Number of Worker Days Lost per Workers

Min

25th%-ile

Median

75th%-ile

LAC RISK

Max

0 5 10 15 20 25

y pComp Claim

45


ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAMHOW THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STACKS UP

Dennis, NJ pop 5,907 ‐ HIGHEST,

32.50

Highland Park, IL pop 31,365 ‐

HIGHEST, 23.25

# worker days lost per claim compared to CPM


3.00


1.00


3.80

Casper, WY‐ pop 52,089 ‐MEDIAN,

3.01

Arlington, TX ‐ pop 739,543 ‐MEDIAN,

3.26

Queen Creek, AZ 22,679 pop 22,679 ‐

LOWEST, ‐

Englewood, CO pop 32,286 ‐ LOWEST,

0.10 2007 2008 2009

46


ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAMHOW THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STACKS UP

3.0

5.8

6.9

1.7

4.5

‐ 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

2007

2008

2009

Risk management training hours per FTE

CPM Median

Los Alamos, NM

47


COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT

48


Department Description

Department Mission

The Library Division manages the Mesa Public Library and the White Rock BranchLibrary, providing informational, educational, recreational and research services, includingacquisition and circulation of library materials, answering reference questions, offeringyouth programs, art exhibits, and special events.

The Parks Division maintains all County parks, trails, open space, and various recreational

The Recreation Division provides recreation programs, sponsors activities, initiates andplans projects and provides reservations for County facilities. It also assesses leisure timeneeds and desires of citizens to develop viable recreation programs; sponsors activitiessuch as the Fair and Rodeo; and develops, coordinates, and implements special events.Facilities include an aquatic center, a golf course and an outdoor rink used for ice skating inthe winter and day camp programs in the spring and summer.


The Community Services Department (CSD) includes Library, Parks, and Recreationprograms, and certain cultural service contracts with outside agencies.

The Community Services Department is committed to enhancing the quality of life in thecommunity through cultural, recreational, and informational opportunities.

49


Department Summary


% Avg.


Expenditures by Program: Library 2,151,296$ 2,252,071 2,594,709 10% Parks 1,900,787 2,187,780 2,013,490 3% Cemetery 121,160 174,217 172,884 19% Recreation 3,259,396 3,513,017 3,530,035 4% Cultural Services 454,014 584,735 812,268 34% Senior Center 283,042 307,550 305,811 4%

8,169,695$ 9,019,370 9,429,197 7%

50


% Avg.


Expenditures by Fund: General 7,193,686$ 8,004,694 8,331,640 8% Golf 967,649 1,003,029 1,086,572 6% Aquatic Center Gift Sub-Fund 3001 3,115 2,934 (1%) Library Gift Sub-Fund 1,992 4,871 5,759 70% State Shared Revenue (Rec) 3,367 3,661 2,292 (17%)

8,169,695$ 9,019,370 9,429,197 7%

FTE Summary: Regular (full & part time) 74.75 75.00 77.00 1% Casual, Student,& Temp. 23.41 24.10 24.98 3%

98.16 99.10 101.98 2%

FTEs by Division Library 28.89 29.53 29.82 2% Parks 22.20 21.93 21.55 (1%) Recreation 44.57 45.64 48.61 4% Administration 2.50 2.00 2.00 (11%)

98.16 99.10 101.98 2%


NOTE: For budget reporting purposes, the Administration Division is allocated over all ofthe General Fund divisions/programs in the Community Services Department. Theallocation is based on the number of General Fund FTEs within each division. Theallocated amounts are included in the interfund charges line item.

51


Library Division Mission

Library Program Budget

% Avg.


Expenditures by Fund: General 2,149,304$ 2,247,200 2,588,950 10% Library Gift Fund 1,992 4,871 5,759 70%

2,151,296$ 2,252,071 2,594,709 10%

Expenditures by Type: Salaries 1,237,397$ 1,305,361 1,348,930 4% Benefits 351,644 372,878 399,011 7% Contractual services 77,139 70,852 107,288 18% [1] Other services 42,358 50,153 54,479 13% Materials / supplies 226,071 272,177 354,673 25% [2] Interfund charges 150,157 169,998 111,100 (14%) Capital outlay 66,430 10,197 218,805 81% [2]

Dedicated to enriching your life and the community by ensuring easy and equal access to ideas, information and services for all.

COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT - LIBRARY

p y [ ] Fiscal charges 100 455 423 106%

2,151,296$ 2,252,071 2,594,709 10%

FTE Summary: Regular (full & part time) 26.75 27.50 27.50 1% Casual & Temp. 2.14 2.03 2.32 4%

28.89 29.53 29.82 2%

[1] Increase for RFID maintenance and long range survey.

[2] Amounts for items less than $5,000 have been reclassified from capital outlay to materials/supplies. Also slight increase in spending for adding to the library's collection.

52


Parks Division Mission

Parks / Cemetery Program Budgets

% Avg.


Expenditures by Program: Parks 1,900,787$ 2,187,780 2,013,490 3% Cemetery 121,160 174,217 172,884 19%

2,021,947$ 2,361,997 2,186,374 4%

Expenditures by Type: Salaries 814,798$ 888,237 834,332 1% [1] Benefits 283,633 312,223 315,034 5% [1] Contractual services 160,255 105,225 119,602 (14%) Other services 34,309 43,193 34,655 1% Materials / supplies 259,366 280,477 259,690 0%

COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT - PARKS

Strive for continuous improvement in the promotion of safety and quality of the Parksinfrastructure through reliable and consistent maintenance, development and enhancementof existing and new facilities and aesthetics of parks, trails and open spaces of Los AlamosCounty.

pp , , , Interfund charges 443,091 722,156 606,765 17% Capital outlay 26,495 10,486 16,296 (22%)

2,021,947$ 2,361,997 2,186,374 4%

FTE Summary: Regular (full & part time) 17.00 17.00 17.00 0% Casual, Student,& Temp. 5.20 4.93 4.55 (6%) [1]

22.20 21.93 21.55 (1%)

[1] Increase due to difference between budgeted vacancies and filled positions and also higher healthbenefit participation. Also slight decrease in temporary wages.

53


Recreation Division Mission

Recreation Program Budget

% Avg.


Expenditures by Sub-Program: Aquatic Center 1,309,525$ 1,470,189 1,369,558 2% Golf 967,649 1,003,029 1,086,572 6% [1] Rink 410,675 407,941 201,121 (30%) Other Recreation 571,547 631,858 776,033 17% [2]

3,259,396$ 3,513,017 3,433,284 3%

Expenditures by Fund: General 2,285,379$ 2,503,212 2,341,486 1% Golf 967,649 1,003,029 1,086,572 6% Aquatic Center Gift Fund 3001 3,115 2,934 (1%) State Shared Revenue (Rec) 3,367 3,661 2,292 (17%)

3,259,396$ 3,513,017 3,433,284 3%

To provide a variety of recreational opportunities for the citizens and visitors of Los Alamos County.

COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT - RECREATION

Expenditures by Type: Salaries 1,525,031$ 1,603,278 1,619,517 3% Benefits 469,254 522,217 540,226 7% Contractual services 210,423 231,031 234,663 6% [1] Other services 87,367 64,632 69,908 (11%) Materials / supplies 269,163 355,333 431,582 27% [2] Interfund charges 685,324 719,866 515,762 (13%) Capital outlay 4,480 6,225 9,995 49% [2] Fiscal Charges 8,354 10,435 11,631 18%

3,259,396$ 3,513,017 3,433,284 3%

FTE Summary: Regular (full & part time) 28.50 28.50 30.50 3% Casual, Student,& Temp. 16.07 17.14 18.11 6%

44.57 45.64 48.61 4%

[1] Conceptual design work funding on the new Golf Course Club House included in FY 2009.

[2] One time capital purchases made in FY 2009.

54


Community Agencies / Cultural Services and Senior Services Program Budgets

% Avg.


Expenditures by Program: Cultural Services 454,014$ 584,735 546,960 10% Senior Services 283,042 307,550 276,279 (1%)

737,056$ 892,285 823,239 6%

Expenditures by Type: Salaries 10,919$ 11,206 12,029 5% Benefits 5,946 6,818 8,234 18% Contractual services 692,018 837,538 1,066,032 24% Other services 437 456 765 32% Materials / supplies 0 7,974 4100 N/A Interfund charges 27,736 28,293 26,919 (1%)

737,056$ 892,285 1,118,079 23%

COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT - COMMUNITY AGENCIES/CULTURAL SERVICES

55


Administration Division Mission

Administration Division Budget

% Avg.


Expenditures by Type: Salaries $ 156,948 166,636 169,891 4% [1] Benefits 41,171 40,753 38,439 (3%) [1] Contractual services 134,922 173,894 10,920 (72%) Other services 7,986 8,077 9,930 12% Materials / supplies 5,142 13,365 5,491 3% Interfund charges 3,773 2,133 4,042 4% Capital outlay 0 0 0 N/A

To ensure that the community has a balanced program of cultural, informational and recreational opportunities.

COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT - ADMINISTRATION

NOTE: For budget reporting purposes, the Administration Division is allocated over all ofthe general fund divisions within Community Services. The allocation is based on thenumber of FTEs within each division. The allocated amounts are included in the interfundcharges line item.

Total to be allocated 349,942$ 404,858 238,713 (17%)

FTE Summary: Regular (full & part time) 2.50 2.00 2.00 (11%)

Administration Division Allocation

% Avg.


Programs before allocation: Library $ 2,029,300 2,110,216 2,512,301 11% Parks 1,807,041 2,082,434 1,953,936 4% Recreation 3,125,196 3,355,358 3,433,284 5%

6,961,537 7,548,008 7,899,521 7%

Allocation amounts: Library 121,996 141,854 82,408 (18%) Parks 93,746 105,346 59,554 (20%) Recreation 134,200 157,659 96,751 (15%)

349,942 404,859 238,713 (17%)

Programs after allocation: Library 2,151,296 2,252,070 2,594,709 10% Parks 1,900,787 2,187,780 2,013,490 3% Recreation 3,259,396 3,513,017 3,530,035 4%

$ 7,311,479 7,952,867 8,138,234 6%

[1] Increase due to allocation differences between Admin budget and Community Agencies/Cultural Servicesbudget.

56


Program Purpose



Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures '06-'0976,423$ 121,996 141,854 82,408 3%

Program Expenditures/Budgets 1,862,798$ 2,029,300 2,110,216 2,512,301 10%29.09 28.89 29.53 27.50 (1.9%)

Program Expenditure/FTE 64,036$ 70,242$ 71,460$ 91,356$ 13%

Comprehensive Plan References - Vision StatementsExpand education

Strategic Council Goals Supported by Program ResourcesMaintain Quality Essential Routine Services


COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT LIBRARY PROGRAM

CSD Administrative Overhead

FTE's

In FY 09, Circulation increased 2.9%, and number of visits increased 3.3%. In FY09, the library implemented the RFID, and within a few weeks circulation involved 60% voluntary self-check. The Library has also begun the process of completing a comprehensive inventory of the

ll ti f th fi t ti i fift

Enhance youth activities

The purpose of the Library Division is to provide easy and equal access to a variety of ideas, current information and library services to citizens and visitors of Los Alamos County, thereby enriching lives through a connection to the greater world.

collection for the first time in over fifteen years.

The libraries offer a full slate of programs for children and adults all year round, as well as special events, exhibits and ever expanding collections and services, focusing on the general collection, as well as on special materials such as foreign language materials and large print materials. The library has an art gallery which features world-class shows that rotate monthly, a regular film series and author talks. Children’s programs abound, and the library also has a teen following.

Self Check‐Out in Use at Mesa Public Library, Los Alamos, NM

57



ResultsCPM = Measure maintained by ICMA Center for Performance Measurement


B 84% 85% 1.2%

CPM-B 92% 92% 0.0%

CPM-B 92% 92% 0.0%

B 95% 94% (1.1%)Estimated %

Change '08-09

CPM 24.8 25.5 2.9%Estimated %

ANNUAL RESULTS

Circulation Rates per Registered Borrower

% citizens surveyed rating availability of materials good/excellent [1]

In addition to offering their own events, the libraries also participated in community-wide events, such as the 60th Anniversary Celebration, Health Fairs sponsored by local health organizations, and the Chamber of Commerce's event called the Next Big Idea. This past fall, the library staff hosted librarians from our sister city, Sarov, Russia, and we participated in a cultural exchange, with promises of a continued relationship in the future.

% citizens surveyed who have used the library in past 12 months

% citizens surveyed rating library services good/excellent [1]

Performance MeasuresBIENNIAL OUTCOMES/RESULTS

Public Internet usage continued to rise, and wireless Internet service was added this year at the libraries.

% citizens surveyed rating library customer service good/excellent

ForecastEstimated %

Change '07-09CPM 339,895 358,216 374,358 4.9%CPM 34,074 N/A

CPM 15,167 N/ACPM 273,749 270,944 278,444 0.9%CPM 40,626 42,137 41,629 1.2%

Forecast

CPM 108.00$ 111.80$ 123.58$ 7.0%Library operating and maintenance expenditures per capita

ANNUAL EFFICIENCIES

# circulations

[1] CPM measures the ratings with 2 separate questions, one for materials rating vs. one for services rating. The Los Alamos County community survey has combined materials and services into one question. For comparative purposes, until questions align to CPM, OMB has made the assumption that ratings for materials and services were equally important.

# attendees at library-sponsored programs# library visits (persons entering)# uses of public internet computers

SEMI-ANNUAL OUTPUT MEASURES

# reference transactions

58



HOW THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT LIBRARY PROGRAM STACKS UP

HOW THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT LIBRARY PROGRAM STACKS UP

22.1 23.7

24.8 25.5

11.1 11.4 12.7

FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009

Circulation Rates per Registered Borrower ‐ Los Alamos Comparison to CPM Median

Los Alamos CPM Median

Min

25th%-ile

Median

75th%-ile

LAC

Max

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00

2008 Total Annual Circulation per Registered

59



Min

25th%-ile

Median

75th%-ile

LAC

Max

22% 42% 62% 82% 102% 122% 142% 162%

2008 Registered borrowers as % svc area

Min

25th%-ile

Median

75th%-ile

LAC

Max

0 150 300 450 600 750 900 1,050 1,200 1,350 1,500 1,650 1,800 1,950

2008 Attendance at library-sponsored programs--Total per 1,000 population

60


Program Purpose



Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures '06-'0969 998$ 93 746 105 346 59 554 (5 2%)

COMMUNITY SERVICES DEP'T. PARKS & CEMETERY PROGRAM

CSD Ad i i t ti O h d

The purpose of the Parks Program is to provide maintenance, design, and development of trails, open space and outdoor recreational facilities, including the perpetual care of Guaje Pines Cemetery, so the public can have a safe and enjoyable outdoor recreational experience.

Los Alamos youth enjoying the LA Skatepark near Mesa Public Library

69,998$ 93,746 105,346 59,554 (5.2%)Parks Expenditures/Budgets 2,165,302$ 1,807,041 2,082,434 1,953,936 (3.4%)Cemetery Expenditures/Budgets 116,167$ 121,160 174,217 172,884 14.2%

22.37 22.20 21.93 21.55 (1.2%)Program Expenditure/FTE 101,988$ 86,856 102,902 98,692 (1.1%)

Comprehensive Plan References - Vision StatementsProtect environment

Improve mobilityUpgrade infrastructurePreserve our past




FTE's

Improve recreation

The Los Alamos County Parks Division has developed an "Integrated Maintenance Plan" (IMP) for all park sites and facilities. The IMP is a tool to identify the cyclic maintenance tasks and replacement requirements of facilities and estimated costs over a period of years. A five-year renovation cycle for tennis courts has been implemented.

According to the budget analysis and the fees collected, the Guaje Pines Cemetery cost of provided services is subsidized by 75%. The Parks Division has gathered comparison rates from public cemeteries in similar economic comparable towns and counties. From this data the Parks Division will present a new fee schedule in FY2010 which will enable the County to begin to recoup the costs of the cemetery.

61



ResultsCPM = Measure maintained by ICMA Center for Performance Measurement


B 88% 91% 3.4%

B 89% 88% (1.1%)

% of residents surveyed who rate the condition of County parks, including tot lots and playgrounds as either good or excellent% of residents surveyed reporting they used a County trail in the last 12 months for hiking

The highlights of the Parks Division's accomplishments over the past year include the completion of the skatepark and the award of two CIP projects: the Canyon Rim Trail and the lighting for the North Mesa Sports Complex, which are currently in progress. The New Mexico Recreation and Parks Association recognized the skatepark and the improvements to Overlook Park Road with awards. The Division has contracted for new outdoor toilet facilities at Camp May and North Mesa Picnic Grounds, as well as new pavilions at the picnic grounds and Overlook Park. Other highlights include landscaping and setting of the sculpture at the roundabout, participation in the Central Avenue Streetscape, tree planting throughout the County, and renovation of the Crow's Nest at the rodeo grounds.


PARKS AND TRAILS BIENNIAL OUTCOMES/RESULTS

% of residents surveyed reporting they visited a County park in the last 12 months

B 74% 77% 4.1%

B 83% 87% 4.8%Estimated %

Change '08-09CPM 32 50.7 58.4%CPM 248 271.1 9.3%

CPM 86.9% 81.3% (6.4%)

CPM 13.1% 18.7% 42.7%

Estimated % Change '08-10CPM 298.36$ 291.20$ (2.4%)

CPM 3.31 2.31 (30.2%)

CPM 0.43 0.43 0.0%

Estimated % Change '08-10

CPM 41,323 44,210 7.0%

CPM 19.87 21.25 6.9%

Estimated % Change '07-09

41 32 39 (2.5%)

Estimated % Change '07-092,955$ 5,444$ 4,432$ 22.5%

25% 23% 18% (15.1%)

Percentage of park acreage that is developed

Percent of Cemetery operating expenses recovered through fees and charges

Expenditure per interment or burial provided

PARKS INPUTS (STAFF TIME)

CEMETERY OUTPUT MEASURE

a County trail in the last 12 months for hiking, walking, or bicycling

PARKS ACREAGE INDICATORSDeveloped park acres per 1,000 populationTotal park acres per 1,000 populationPercentage of park acreage that is undeveloped

%of residents surveyed who rate the condition of County hiking and bicycling trails as either good or excellent

# interments or burials provided

CEMETERY COST INDICATORS

Hours paid for parks maintenance activities, except golf

Total paid FTE's for all park maintenance activities except golf

PARKS STAFFING PER ACRE INDICATORSExpenditures per acre

Paid park maintenance FTE's per 100 acres of total park land

Paid park maintenance FTE's per 100 acres of developed park land

62



HOW THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DEP'T. PARKS & CEMETERY PROGRAM STACKS UP

Min

25th%-ile

Median

75th%-ile

LAC

Max

0.30 20.30 40.30 60.30 80.30 100.30

Developed park acres per 1,000 population

Min

25th%-ile

Median

75th%-ile

LAC

Max

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

% of Developed Park Acreage

63



HOW THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DEP'T. PARKS & CEMETERY PROGRAM STACKS UP

Min

25th%-ile

Median

75th%-ile

LAC

Max

Paid park maintenance FTE's per 100 acres of developed park land

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Min

25th%-ile

Median

75th%-ile

LAC

Max

$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $9,000

Expenditures per acre

64


Program Purpose

Program Expenditure, Budget and Full Time Equivalent (FTE) History


Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures '06-'0985,329$ 134,200 157,659 96,751 4%

Program Expenditures/Budgets 3,081,508$ 3,125,196 3,355,358 3,433,284 4%45 30 44 57 43 64 47 60 2%

COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT - RECREATION PROGRAM

The purpose of the Recreation Program is to provide a variety of indoor and outdoor recreational opportunities to citizens and visitors of Los Alamos County so they can have a safe, enjoyable recreational experience that is fee supported.

FTE's


Los Alamos youth and families enjoying some of the many healthful and fun recreational opportunities provided.

45.30 44.57 43.64 47.60 2%Program Expenditure/FTE 68,024$ 70,119$ 76,887$ 72,128$ 2%

Comprehensive Plan References - Vision StatementsImprove recreation



In a continuing effort to provide the citizens of Los Alamos quality programming, the Recreation Division routinely evaluates current programs for effectiveness. Programs may be modified and even eliminated should the participation trends indicate the need for a change. Staff is continually seeking new program ideas to expand the many offerings to citizens. Because of the current fiscal constraints in the FY2011 and FY2012 budgets, the Division will continue to review and revise the many programs and events in order to provide the most effective services to the citizens of Los Alamos County. This last year, the Recreation Division eliminated the Viva Recreation Day in May due to low participation, poor weather, and a high dedication of staff resources.

FTE s

Enhance youth activities

The Los Alamos County Recreation Division is committed to meeting the recreation needs of all County citizens and visitors. The Division provides recreation and competitive activities through our facilities and assists local organizations and agencies that offer programs to the community. As part of its programming, the Recreation Division offers several classes on a contract instructor basis.

Two capital projects for Recreation Division facilities were approved by County Council in the FY2010 budget for Phase I funding to develop design schematics and cost estimates. The first project is the renovation or demolition and rebuild of the Golf Course clubhouse and the second is for a Leisure Pool addition to the Aquatic Center. Information from the Phase I studies will be presented to Council for construction funding approval.

65



ResultsNote - Where actual results are unavailable, these are new measuresCPM = Measure maintained by Center for Performance Measurement at ICMA


175,614$ 182,212$ 173,234$ (0.7%)

As we removed this event from our schedule, we initiated the Movies in the Parks series which provided FREE movies for families in different neighborhood parks throughout the summer. This program was hugely successful with an average of 200 people each week for our first summer. The Recreation Division also initiated a number of teen activities and events throughout the summer. The most successful was held at the new Skate Park where a large number of teens competed in various skate tricks for prizes. The big surprise at this event was the very large number of spectators that included parents, grandparents, and general public.

Performance MeasuresTOTAL RECREATION DIVISION PER CAPITARecreation expenditures per 1,000 populationNet total Recreation Division fees,

The satisfaction for Recreation Division services continues to be high with a 92% satisfaction rate for the Golf Course and 83% for Recreation Programming. There was an 18% increase in the number of 9-hole golf rounds this year from 29,221 to 34,558, a 4% increase in aquatic visits from 86,843 to 90,275, and an increase of 2 new Recreation Programs and 5 new Special Events. The Recreation Division recognizes the importance citizens and visitors have for good activities.

(76,515)$ (96,749)$ (103,946)$ 16.6%

CPM (14.97)$ (7.84)$ (16.97)$ 6.5%

(12.31)$ (8.91)$ 72.4%

33.81$ 27.26$ (80.6%)49.30$ 45.55$ 51.90$ 2.6%

70% 68% 67% (1.9%)

B 91% 92% 0.4%116.75 N/A

99.8 N/A31,374 29,221 29,553 (2.9%)

CPM 29,221 34,558 18.3%296 N/A

Net Golf Course revenue (loss) per 9-hole rounds played

Golf Course expenditure per capita

Expenditure per 9-hole round of golf played

# 9-hole rounds played / service day

# golf course service days

# golf visits provided

% golf customers satisfied or very satisfied

charges and rental revenue (loss) per 1,000 population

Net golf revenue (loss) per capitaGOLF COURSE SERVICES

# 9-hole rounds of golf played

% golf expenditures offset by fees & other revenue

# golf visits / service day

66



Estimated %FY2007 Actual

FY2008 Actual

FY2009 Actual

Average Annual Change '07-'09

(11.77)$ (12.01)$ (11.73)$ (0.2%)

(55,442)$ (56,199)$ (58,326)$ 2.6%

72,925$ 72,959$ 74,120$ 0.8%

32% 23% 25% (11.8%)

CPM 87,457 86,843 90,275 1.6%328 N/A275 N/A

(11.38)$ (8.24)$ (5.83)$ (28.4%)

(12,340)$ (10,409)$ (6,661)$ (26.5%)

20,399$ 19,699$ 10,349$ (28.8%)

18.81$ 15.59$ 9.06$ (30.6%)

B91% 90% (0.4%)

209.4 N/A20 130 23 451 20 731 1 5%

Net Aquatic revenue (loss) per visit accommodated

% rink customers satisfied or very satisfied

Aquatic expenditure per 1,000 population

ICE SKATING RINK SERVICESNet rink revenue (loss) per visitNet rink revenue (loss) per 1,000 population

WALKUP AQUATIC CENTER SERVICES

# aquatic visits accommodated# aquatic center service days# aquatic visits / service day

# f ilit i it d t d t i k

Net aquatic revenue (loss) per 1,000 population

Total annual program expenditure per rink visit accommodated

% aquatic center expenditures offset by revenues

Total annual program expenditure per 1,000 population

# of facility visits / service day20,130 23,451 20,731 1.5%

99 N/A# facility visits accommodated at rink# service days.

67




(1.56)$ N/A

2.55$ N/A

(1,883)$ N/A3,064$ N/A

809 N/A

20,013 23,088 21,844 4.5%27 N/A2 N/A

B81% 83% 2.5%

1.84$ N/A20.95$ N/A

115% N/A82.2 N/A

4,191 N/A51 N/A0 N/A

# ongoing recreation program participants accommodated

ONGOING RECREATION PROGRAMS

Net recreation revenue (loss) per 1,000 populationExpenditure per 1,000 population# of program participants accommodated per program

Net recreation revenue (loss) per ongoing program participantExpenditure per ongoing recreation participant

# ongoing Recreation Programs# new programs

Expenditures per day camp participant

# day campers / service day

% day camp expenditures offset with fee revenue

# day campers accommodated


# day camp service days# day campers turned away

% ongoing recreation program participants satisfied or very satisfied (biennial community survey)BEAR CAMPNet revenue per day camp participant

0 N/A

(6.57)$ N/A

8.00$ 12.00$ 13.05$ 27.7%

(2,253)$ N/A

3,663$ 6,188$ 4,479$ 10.6%

36% 35% 50% 17.0%

736 353 (52.1%)8,499 9,570 6,353 (13.5%)

13 18 38.5%# spec event participants# 1-time spec events

% spec event expenditures offset by fees & other revenue

Net Revenue (loss) per special event participant accommodatedExpenditure per special event participant accommodatedNet Special Event Revenue (loss) per 1,000 population

# special event participants per special event

# day campers turned away

Special Event Expenditure per 1,000 population

SPECIAL EVENTS

68



HOW THE GOLF COURSE REVENUE AND USAGE COMPARES

Min

25th%-ile

Median

75th%-ile

LAC

Max

($11.00) ($6.00) ($1.00) $4.00 $9.00 $14.00

2008 Net revenues per capita -- golf only

2008 # 9-hole Rounds of Golf Played per

Min

25th%-ile

Median

75th%-ile

LAC GOLF COURSE

Max

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

2008 # 9-hole Rounds of Golf Played per Capita

69



HOW THE AQUATICS PROGRAM USAGE COMPARES

Min

25th%-ile

Median75th%-ile

Walkup Aquatic Center

Max

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

2008 # participants per capita --Aquatics programs

70


Program Purpose

Program Expenditures and Budget


Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures '06-'09Expenditures/Budgets 299,112$ 283,042 307,550 276,279 (2.6%)

Comprehensive Plan References - Vision StatementsImprove recreation

Improve mobility


Narrative Discussion and AnalysisVehicle trips provided by the Senior Center depend upon the requests they get from people who are in need of this service. County staff and Senior Center staff make estimates each year based on past history knowing that there is likely to be a different depending upon the need for the

i

COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT - SENIOR SERVICES PROGRAM

The purpose of the Senior Services Program is to provide recreational, educational and social programs, congregate meals, and transportation services to residents age 50 and over so they can maintain an active, independent life.

Provide healthcare

ResultsNote - Where actual results are unavailable, these are new measures


B 77% 82% 6.3%

31% 32% 33% 3.0%

2,263 2,348 2,410 3.2%# meals served 17,829 22,439 21,328 9.4%

10,838 9,479 9,569 (6.0%)

31.27$ 128.51$ 123.00$ (4.3%)3.29$ 4.15$ 5.00$ 23.2%8.06$ 5.79$ 6.00$ (13.7%)

service.

Expenditure per meal served

ANNUAL RESULTS % community seniors served by senior centerSEMI-ANNUAL OUTPUT MEASURES

Performance MeasuresBIENNIAL OUTCOMES/RESULTS

% seniors rating services good to excellent

Expenditure per vehicle trip provided

# seniors served by senior center

# vehicle trips provided to seniors

Expenditure per senior served by senior center

SEMI- ANNUAL EFFICIENCIES

71


COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT - SENIOR SERVICES PROGRAM

Indicators for Meals Served at the Senior Center

17,829

22,43921,328

FY2007 FY2008 FY2009

# Meals Served to Seniors at the Senior Center

$3.29

$4.15

$5.00

FY2007 FY2008 FY2009

Expenditure per meal served

72


Program Purpose

Program Expenditures and Budget


Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures '06-'09Expenditures/Budgets 378,708$ 454,014 584,735 546,960 13%

Comprehensive Plan References - Vision StatementsRevitalize downtown

Expand educationEnhance youth activities

Strategic Council Goals Supported by Program ResourcesDiversify the Economy and Revitalize Los Alamos and White Rock Downtowns


COMMUNITY SERVICES CULTURAL SERVICES PROGRAM

The purpose of the Cultural Services Program is to provide social and educational programs to residents and visitors to the community so they can enjoy their special events, concerts, visual and performing arts and cultural programs participation experience.

Preserve our past

The percentage variance from the FY10 adopted budget over the FY09 actual budget is attributed to the addition of one full year of contract expenses to our budget this year for Familyattributed to the addition of one full year of contract expenses to our budget this year for Family Strengths Network. This contract is for domestic them to address.domestic violence/child abuse issues. Last year, the Community Services budget paid only a partial amount on this contract. This budget year the contract was transferred over from the Police Department , and therefore the entire amount of the contract was paid out of the Community Services Administration Budget. In addition, the Public Health rental services agreement is part of element is part of this budget and the rental amount went up approximately 24%. This increase is required by our agreement with the owner.With regard to the estimated average annual changes, the results of the biennial survey are unknown from year to year and staff estimates the actual year based on the previous year. In addition, it is difficult to estimate visitors to the various facilities, such as the Historic Museum as there are variables which staff cannot anticipate that affect the number of visitors.

73



ResultsNote - Where actual results are unavailable, these are new measures


B

77% 76% (1.3%)

29,031 30,093 34,567 9.1%

15,246 14,842 17,592 7.4%

4,167 9,023 8,535 43.1%

21 21 22 2.4%

11,890 N/A

12,503 N/A

12,000 N/A

CORE OUTPUT INDICATORS

# free community concerts provided

# times youth aged 8-13 attended an FCYAC event or program

# NMSU cooperative extension participants served

Historical Society: # paid staff hours per year

# participants served through Historic Society programs

# participants served through Arts Center programs# participants served through Arts Council programs

CONTRACT PROGRAM INPUTS

Performance MeasuresBIENNIAL OUTCOMES/RESULTS% residents surveyed through the community survey that rated free community concert series as either "good" or "excellent"

13,000 N/A2,000 N/A

12 N/A60 N/A50 N/A

Historical Society: # volunteer hours per yearArts Council: # paid staff hours per yearArts Council: # volunteer hours per yearArt Center: # paid staff hours per yearArt Center: # volunteer hours per year

74



2.12$ 2.01$ 1.86$ (6.3%)3,774$ 3,361$ 3,429$ (4.7%)

12.56$ N/A

6.63$ N/A

2.13$ N/A

1.70$ N/A

1.06$ N/A

Expenditure per Arts Center participant served, including visitors and attendees

Expenditure per Arts Council participant served, including visitors and attendees

EFFICIENCIES BASED ON DIRECT COUNTY CONTRACT EXPENDITURES

Expenditure per Historic Museum participant served, including visitors and attendees

Total Aggregate Expenditure per participant served by the Historic Society, Arts Center and Arts Council combinedExpenditure per free community concert

Contract expenditure per youth attendee of FCYAC program or event

Contract expenditure per NMSU cooperative extension participant

# of Participants and Visitors by Cultural Services P b Fi l Y

2007 2008 2009

# participants served through Historic Society programs 29031 30093 34567

# participants served through Arts Center programs 15246 14842 17592

# participants served through Arts Council programs 4167 9023 8535

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000Program by Fiscal Year

75


LOS ALAMOS FIRE DEPARTMENT

76


Description

Mission

Budget


With the intent to protect life and property, the Fire Department develops anddelivers fire protection to Los Alamos County and Los Alamos National Laboratory(LANL). The department responds to fire and rescue calls; maintains capabilities forfire suppression, crash-fire-rescue service, and hazardous material and otherincident responses; and provides state-of-the-art training to ensure the highest levelof personnel safety and effectiveness. The department also ensures compliancewith the fire services cooperative agreement with LANL (Department of Energybeginning October 1, 2009).

We dedicate our efforts to provide for the safety and welfare of the citizens andvisitors of the County of Los Alamos, our community, the Department of Energy, andthe Los Alamos National Laboratory through the preservation of life, theenvironment, and property.

Fire (Enterprise)84.3% Fire (Non‐

contract)2.7%

Fire (General Fund)11.6%

Fire Marshal (State Grants)1.3%

EMS (State Grants)0.1%

Expenditures by Fund

77


%Avg.


Expenditures by Fund: Fire (Enterprise) 14,728,365$ 14,945,913 17,423,422 11% Fire (Non-contract) 0 1,408,549 554,000 32% Fire (General Fund) 0 0 2,398,485 38% Fire Marshal (State Grants) 329,775 309,965 261,026 45% EMS (State Grants) 12,987 3,283 23,025 (35%)

15,071,127$ 16,667,710 20,659,958 15%

Expenditures by Type: Salaries 8,063,979$ 8,025,261 8,708,594 16% Benefits 3,481,661 3,494,404 4,226,176 6% Contractual services 327,419 339,538 395,867 59% Other services 229,869 126,854 197,733 54% Materials / supplies 544,321 655,486 977,276 13% Interfund charges 2,320,394 2,297,234 5,493,734 10% Capital outlay 103,484 320,384 106,578 272% Debt Service 0 1,408,549 554,000 N/A

15,071,127$ 16,667,710 20,659,958 15%



Regular (full & part time) 141.00 141.00 148.00 1%

FTEs by Division: Emergency Medical 2.00 2.00 3.00 0% Fire Life Safety 3.00 3.00 4.00 0% Operations 125.00 125.00 131.00 1% Training 1.00 1.00 3.00 33% Administration 10.00 10.00 7.00 0%

141.00 141.00 148.00 1%

Budget Summary

In the November 2006 election, voters passed a new GRT fire excise tax that tookeffect on July 1, 2007. Amounts received from this new tax will be used to repay theEconomic Development Fund for the construction of the Fire Station 3 capitalproject.

78


Program Purpose



Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures '06-'09Contract Expenditures/Budgets 14,705,268$ 14,728,365 14,945,913 17,423,422 5.8%General Fund, Grants, Non-Contract 319,302$ 342,762 1,721,797 3,236,536 116.4%

135 140 118 151 3.8%111,293$ 107,651 141,252 137,002 7.2%



The main purpose of the Fire Department is to maintain a state of readiness and to respond to emergency incidents throughout the Los Alamos County community, the Department of Energy and the Los Alamos National Laboratory so that life, environment, and property are preserved. The Fire Department also trains and qualifies its personnel to cope with real and potential emergency incidents throughout the Los Alamos County community, the Department of Energy and the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

FTE's


Public Safety underpins the entire Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement as stated in its preamble: "We will preserve our safe, small town atmosphere…."

Expenditure/FTE

Narrative Discussion and AnalysisAnnually, the Los Alamos Fire Departments Life Safety Management Division, strives to personal prevent injury, loss of life or loss of property through the creation, implementation and management of fire protection, fire prevention and various public education programs.

The Division uses many forums to accomplish these goals, meeting with children and adults of all ages, life styles & backgrounds, at schools, day care centers, detention & correctional facilities, hotels, businesses & other assembly organizations, both inside and out of the County. The focus on prevention and value of education through outreach, published information, practical demonstrations and discussions on safety helps individuals help themselves and others.

The following are just some of the events that the Fire Department sponsors or participates in, on a regular basis:

• Fire Prevention Week – During the second week of October, firefighters visit every school, day care center & senior center in the community.• Los Alamos National Laboratory Annual Picnic - • LANL Safety Day• Pojoaque Boys & Girls Club Safety Day• Fire Station Tours for children• 4th of July Celebration• Los Alamos County Annual Picnic• Community Parades• Community Functions (Chamberfest, Health Fairs, Homecoming bonfire, United Way Event, Health Council Children’s Festival, etc.)• Fire Extinguisher Training• Pojoaque Schools Career Day• Firefighters Day NM State Fair Event• Senior Centers “Smoke Detector Change Your Battery Campaign”• Fallen Firefighter Haagen Daz Ice Cream Night

The constant and consistent presentation of safety to the community results in low accident, fire and other incident rates in the community.

79



ResultsNote - In some cases, where actual results are unavailable, these are new performance measures for the Department.CPM = Measure maintained by Center for Performance Measurement at ICMA


CPM 812$ 898.00$ 1,138$ 18.4%


CPM 900 712 (20.9%)

CPM 14 3 (78.6%)

CPM 2 2 0.0%Estimated % Average Annual Change '08-'10

FIELD CARE OF PATIENTS WITH FULL CARDIAC ARREST

Of the number above above, how many were in full cardiac arrest from medical causes (not from trauma)?

Of the number of full cardiac arrest patients above, the number who exhibit a pulse upon delivery to a medical center.

Total number of patients served by EMS provider

EMERGENCY MEDICAL RESPONSE TIME MEASUREAverage time, in seconds, from conclusion of dispatch to arrival on scene. Calls requiring an

Performance MeasuresCORE EXPENDITURE

Per capita total Fire/EMS personnel and operating expenditures - NO VOLUNTEERS

CPM 74% 318 seconds 275 seconds (13.5%)Estimated % Average Annual Change '08-'10

CPM 97.00 60.60 (37.5%)

CPM 0 0 0%

CPM 0 0 0%

CPM 0 0 0%

CPM 0 0 0%


CPM 14 12 (14.3%)CPM 89 42 (52.8%)CPM 12 11 (8.3%)

CPM 2 0 (100.0%)

CPM 645 530 (17.8%)Estimated % Average Annual Change '08-'10

180 388 115.6%

emergency response (light/sirens; whether ALS or BLS)

Number of Acceptance Inspections (new construction)

COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION INDICATORS

TRAINING OUPUT

Average # of training hrs/yr per fulltime firefighter

Number of Fire Code Compliance InspectionsNumber of Fire Code Re-Inspections

Number of Special Inspections (complaint driven)

Number of Non-Inspection Approvals (pre-fire plans)

Total fire personnel deaths related to structure fire incidents Total civilian injuries related to structure fire incidents

STRUCTURE FIRE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Total fire personnel injuries related to structure fire incidents

Total civilian deaths related to structure fire incidents

Total fire structure incidents per 100,000 population

80



HOW THE LOS ALAMOS FIRE DEPARTMENT STACKS UP

$812

$898

$1,084

$126 $132 $126

$‐

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009

Los Alamos CPM Median

Per capita total Fire and EMS personnel and operating expenditures for fire departments staffed without volunteers

Los Alamos Fire Department FY2008

FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009

Min

25th%-ile

Median

75th%-ile

LAFD

Max

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Per Capita total Fire and EMS personnel and operating expenditures

81




318

275

302 296 310

Average time, in seconds, from conclusion of dispatch to arrival on scene. Calls requiring an emergency response

(light/sirens; whether ALS or BLS)Los Alamos CPM Median


FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009

Min

25th%-ile

Median

75th%-ile

LAFD

Max

150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Average time in seconds from conclusion of dispatch to arrival on scene, requiring an emergency response (lights and sirens, Advanced and Basic Life

Support)

82




97.00

60.60

96.00

86.00

98.40

FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009

Total fire structure incidents per 100,000 populationLos Alamos CPM Median


25th%-ile

Median

75th%-ile

LAFD

Max

10 60 110 160 210 260 310 360 410 460

Total fire structure incidents per 100K population

83


Department Organization

Department Summary

LOS ALAMOS POLICE DEPARTMENT


Animal Control5%

Detention18%

Consolidated Dispatch18%

Operations61%

xpenditures by Program

General Fund86%

Police14%


84


Description

Mission

Budget Summary%

Avg.FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 AnnualActual Actual Actual Change

Expenditures by Program: Animal Control 355,584$ 346,272 364,669 1% Detention 1,327,853 1,010,935 1,268,302 (2%) Consolidated Dispatch 1,058,374 1,307,888 1,269,437 10%

O ti ** 4 184 968 3 935 341 4 115 784 (1%)

POLICE DEPARTMENT

The Los Alamos Police Department responds to calls for service, investigates crimesand accidents, and serves as a resource to local and surrounding communities, otherlaw enforcement agencies and other organizations. The Los Alamos PoliceDepartment is involved in programs including, but not limited to, crime prevention,Region III Drug Task Force, domestice violence, preventative DWI efforts, juvenilejustice initiatives, animal services, volunteer programs, (e.g. reserves, patrol, detention,animal control) and emergency management coordination.

The mission of the Los Alamos Police Department is to provide for law enforcement and public safety services that help to give the people of the community a safe and secureenvironment through the administration of programs developed by members of thepolice department and through community and intergovernmental partnerships.

Operations** 4,184,968 3,935,341 4,115,784 (1%)6,926,779$ 6,600,436 7,018,192 1%

Expenditures by Fund: General 6,808,760$ 6,474,211 6,947,259 1% State Grants 118,019 126,225 70,933 (22%)

6,926,779$ 6,600,436 7,018,192 1%

Expenditures by Type: Salaries 3,687,441$ 3,786,379 3,891,670 3% Benefits 1,409,511 1,430,975 1,543,829 5% Contractual services 459,016 369,403 348,162 (13%) Other services 330,950 236,997 299,818 (5%) Materials / supplies 306,777 197,189 286,554 (3%) Interfund charges 313,352 385,513 362,023 7% Capital outlay 419,692 193,980 286,136 (17%) Fiscal charges 40 0 0 (100%)

6,926,779$ 6,600,436 7,018,192 1%

FTE Summary: Regular (full & part time) 75.00 75.00 76.00 1% Casual, Student,& Temp. 0.55 0.57 0.54 (1%)

75.55 75.57 76.54 1%

By Division: Animal Control 4.55 4.57 4.54 (0%) Detention 11.00 11.00 13.00 9% Consolidated Dispatch 18.00 17.00 15.00 (9%) Emergency Management 2.00 2.00 2.00 0% Records / Administration 6.00 6.00 13.00 47% Operations 34.00 35.00 29.00 (8%)

75.55 75.57 76.54 1%

85


Program Purpose



Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures '06-'09Department Expenditures/Budget 6,404,946$ 6,926,779$ 6,600,436$ 7,240,620$ 4.2%

60.13 75.55 75.57 76.54 8.4%106,518$ 91,685$ 87,342$ 94,599$ (3.9%)





The purpose of Los Alamos Police Department (LAPD) is to provide police patrol, emergency response investigative services, records management, and emergency planning and disaster recovery services to citizens, visitors, and employees within Los Alamos so they can feel safe. The LAPD manages a Detention facility to monitor, detain and hold inmates so that their basic personal needs are met during a safe confinement, and the LAPD also provides an Animal Control Program to provide animal pick up, enforcement, sheltering, fostering and adoption services to the community so that unwanted, dangerous, or noisy animals do not negatively impact citizens.


Public Safety underpins the entire Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement as stated in its preamble: "We will preserve our safe, small town atmosphere…."

yThe Los Alamos Police Department has been working towards New Mexico State Accreditation. State accreditation requires the department to meet over 200 core standards that are considered best practices for law enforcement. The process has involved updating police department policies and upgrading equipment to meet the required standards. Scheduled completion of the accreditations process is mid-2010.

The Jail Police Judicial Complex (JPJ) is currently under construction. The new jail and court buildings are nearing completion with an expected completion date by end of December 2009. The current police department building will be vacated and construction will begin to renovate the police department spaces with an expected completion date in 2010. Upon completion of all three buildings we will have a safer jail in compliance with state and federal standards, all courts in one location, and a better police station with room for long term projected growth.

The Los Alamos Police Department continues recruitment efforts to fill all open positions. Currently, all detention positions have been filled. Officer recruitment has been expanded from local and state levels to a national level targeting certified officers. This will help fill currently vacant positions quicker and prepare for future vacancies from anticipated retirements in the department. The result for citizens is improved response times and more officers on patrol.

The Los Alamos Police Department has completed a project to allow officers to become cross commissioned law enforcement officers in designated areas of Santa Fe County that border Los Alamos County. This was done to better serve our community by quickly responding and taking care of minor traffic crashes and minor crimes that occur in these neighboring areas. This also helps the Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office during times when they have limited resources available.

86



Results

CPM = Measure maintained by Center for Performance Measurement at ICMA Estimated %FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 Average AnnualActual Actual Actual Change '08 - '09

CPM4.07 1.96 2.02 3%

1.84 1.88 2%

7% 7% 14%

LAPD Sworn FTE’s per 1,000 population

VARIANCE LAPD HIGHER (LOWER) STAFFING THAN CPM MEDIAN

VIOLENT AND PROPERTY CRIME

The police department has had several major cases in the last year. In August 2008, Los Alamos experienced its first premeditated murder in 14 years. Officers quickly arrested the suspect and the resulting investigation lead to a conviction. In 2009, officers investigated leads about possible methamphetamine manufacturing and sale in the county. The Los Alamos Police Department arrested several individuals involved in this crime that is a serious danger to Los Alamos citizens. Additional leads from the methamphetamine investigation lead to more arrests and recovery of property in several auto and home burglaries directly related to sale and distribution of the drug. The Los Alamos Police Department has continued to work with the Assistant District Attorney assigned to Los Alamos in the prosecution of all major cases. Los Alamos continues to enjoy very low rates of crime and especially violent crime as a result of proactive efforts.

The Police Department has worked at analyzing and recognizing problem traffic areas in Los Alamos County in an effort to reduce traffic accidents. Input from citizens in the community to problem traffic areas is actively and continuously encouraged. Diamond Drive construction has been a major concern of citizens and the police department. Officers have spent many hours in directed patrols of the construction zone to minimize traffic congestion, prevent backups and keep drivers safe.

CPM Median

Note - In some cases, where actual results are unavailable, these are new performance measures for the Department.

Performance MeasuresCORE STAFFING

CPM16.8 11.9 (29%)

3.25 2.70 (17%)

13.55 9.20 (32%)

35.53 37.31 5%2.95 3.35 14%

31.75 34.07 7%

CPM 86.4% 55.0% (36%)

54.5% 60.0% 56.3% (6%)

26.4% -1.3% (105%)CPM 6.5% 22.8% 250%

19.0% 19.2% 22.8% 19%

-12.7% 0.0% (100%)

CPM74% 97.37 144.13 48%

174% 57.90 63.20 9%

Los Alamos # Top Priority Police Calls per 1,000 population

VARIANCE LAPD HIGHER (LOWER) CRIME CLEARANCE THAN CPM MEDIAN

LAPD UCR Part 1 Violent

RESIDENT DEMAND FOR TOP PRIORITY CALLS

CPM Median

CPM Median

VARIANCE LAPD HIGHER (LOWER) CRIME CLEARANCE THAN CPM MEDIAN

LAPD UCR Part 1 Property

CPM Median

INDICATORSLAPD # UCR Part 1 Crimes Reported per 1,000 population:

Los Alamos # UCR Part 1 Violent

Los Alamos # UCR Part 1 Property

CPM Median Total # UCR Part 1 Crimes Reported per 1,000 populationCPM median # UCR Part 1 Violent

CPM median # UCR Part 1 Property

% UCR PART 1 CRIMES CLEARED

87


LOS ALAMOS POLICE DEPARTMENTHow the Los Alamos Police Department Staffing Level Compares

Riverside, MO ‐Highest, pop. 2,979, 9.00

Charlottesville, VA ‐ Highest, pop 40,745, 5.79

Sworn FTE's per 1,000 population

Los Alamos pop 18,150, 1.96 Los Alamos pop

18,150, 2.02

Smyrna, GA pop 49,854‐Median,

1.88

Casper,WY pop 53,003 ‐Median,

1.84

Centennial, CO pop 174,180 ‐ Lowest ,

0.92 Centennial, CO pop 175,552‐ Lowest,

0.82

Needham, MA pop 30,457, 1.85

2007 2008 2009

88


CAPITAL PROJECTS & FACILITIES DEPARTMENT

89




Department Summary

The Capital Projects & Facilities Department, CPFD, is responsible for all general fund, airportand solid waste capital improvement projects and associated project management. CPFDconsists of four divisions: Administration, Capital Project Management, Facilities andCustodial. CPFD manages all Capital Projects irrespective of the department within whichthey may be sponsored, with the exception of Utilities and Road and Storm Water Projects.Additionally, the Department also performs the functions of capital projects planning;construction and inspection; oversight of county facility construction and the ongoingmaintenance and upkeep of our facilities.

Capital Improvements

Projects92.8%


Project Management

0.3%

Facilities 3.6%

Custodial1.6%

Facilities Maintenance

Projects1.8%

General Fund91%

CPFD9%


90



% Avg.


Expenditures by Program: Project Management $ 0 0 180,953 N/A Facilities 1,711,406 1,914,324 2,200,470 13% Custodial 859,643 918,505 967,343 6% Facilities Maintenance Projects 1,885,719 1,208,173 1,122,274 (23%) Capital Improvements Projects 11,879,387 4,722,089 57,502,593 120%

$ 16,336,155 8,763,091 61,973,633 95%

Expenditures by Fund: General $ 4,456,768 4,041,002 4,471,040 0% Capital Improvements Projects 11,879,387 4,722,089 57,502,593 120%

$ 16,336,155 8,763,091 61,973,633 95%

FTE Summary: Regular (full & part time) 28.00 28.00 31.00 5% Limited term 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A Casual, Student,& Temp. 0.00 0.00 0.50 N/A

28.00 28.00 31.50 6%

FTEs by Division: Administration 0.00 0.00 3.50 N/A Project Management - General 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/Aj g Facilities 14.00 14.00 14.00 0% Custodial 14.00 14.00 14.00 0% Project Management - CIP 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A

28.00 28.00 31.50 6%

Budget Summary

In addition to the transfer of FTEs from Public Works to CPFD, Council also approved 2additional regular FTEs, a department director and a division manager, and a half timetemporary FTE for clerical assistance. Council also approved the conversion of 3 limited termproject managers to regular status. Two of these converted positions are located in theProject Management Division and one is in the Public Works Engineering Division.

In FY 2008, Council approved the reorganization of the Public Works Department which splitand transferred several divisions to the new Capital Projects and Facilities Department(CPFD). The Facilities and Custodial Divisions were transferred to the new department andthe Administration and Engineering Divisions were split, with 5 FTEs moved from Engineeringto the CPFD Project Management Division and 2 FTEs moved from PW Admin to CPFDAdmin. Capital Project funding is now shown in CPFD with the exception of road CIP projectswhich will remain and be managed in Public Works.

91




% Avg.


Expenditures by Type: Salaries $ 0 0 178,924 N/A [1] Benefits 0 0 63,221 N/A [1] Contractual services 0 0 10,668 N/A Other services 0 0 14,449 N/A Materials / supplies 0 0 15,202 N/A Interfund charges* 212,306 236,536 0 (100%) Capital outlay 0 0 0 N/A

$ 212,306 236,536 282,463 15%

FTE Summary:

The Administration Division provides the Capital Projects and Facilities Department withsupport services and courteous customer service to internal staff and the community.

CAPITAL PROJECTS & FACILITIES DEPARTMENT - ADMINISTRATION

FTE Summary: Regular (full & part time) 0.00 0.00 3.00 N/A Casual, Student,& Temp. 0.00 0.00 0.50 N/A

0.00 0.00 3.50 N/A


% Avg.


Programs before allocation: Project Management $ 0 0 173,584 N/A Facilities 1,605,253 1,796,056 2,062,923 13% Custodial 753,490 800,238 829,796 5%

2,358,743 2,596,294 3,066,303 14%

Allocation amounts: Project Management 0 0 7,369 N/A Facilities 106,153 118,268 137,547 14% Custodial 106,153 118,268 137,547 14%

$ 212,306 236,536 282,463 15%

Programs after allocation: Project Management 0 0 180,953 N/A Facilities 1,711,406 1,914,324 2,200,470 13% Custodial 859,643 918,505 967,343 6%

$ 2,571,049 2,832,829 3,348,766 14%

[1] Increase due to transferring positions from the Project Management Division. This senior office specialistposition replaces the capital projects division manager position.

92


Project Management Mission

Project Management Program Budget

% Avg.

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY2009 Annual

The purpose of the Capital Improvements Projects is to provide major replacements andimprovements to general County infrastructure.

The purpose of the Facilities Maintenance Projects is to provide major maintenance of theCounty’s building infrastructure so the buildings can continue to meet the needs of thecommunity.

The Project Management Division provides the County of Los Alamos residents, Council,Boards and Commissions, and Departments with professional project management expertiserequired to build new, and maintain existing, County infrastructure. The Division providesoversight to the Facilities Maintenance Projects and the Capital Improvement Projects.

CAPITAL PROJECTS & FACILITIES DEPARTMENT - PROJECT MGMT

Actual Actual Actual Change

Expenditures by Type: Salaries $ 0 0 192,788 N/A Benefits 0 0 (33,272) N/A Contractual services 0 0 0 N/A Other services 0 0 3,016 N/A Materials / supplies 0 0 6,799 N/A Interfund charges 0 0 11,622 N/A Capital outlay 0 0 0 N/A

$ 0 0 180,953 N/A

FTE Summary:Regular (full & part time) Gen Fund 0.00 0.00 1.75 N/ARegular (full & part time) CIP Fund 0.00 0.00 4.25 N/A

Limited Term CIP Fund 0.00 0.00 1.00 N/A0.00 0.00 7.00 N/A

93


Facilities Division Mission

Facilities Program Budget

% Avg.


Expenditures by Type: Salaries 625,678$ 666,544 700,242 6% Benefits 189,903 227,281 252,108 15%

Provide preventive facilities maintenance, major repairs, work space planning support,emergency facilities-related support, review of contract documents for contracted facilitiesconstruction and maintenance projects, and provide small construction projects with itslicensed contractor staff.

CAPITAL PROJECTS & FACILITIES DEPARTMENT - FACILITIES

Contractual services 55,413 58,370 264,308 118% [1] Other services 39,326 43,969 42,680 4% Materials / supplies 162,192 169,471 204,595 12% [2] Interfund charges 630,754 734,917 736,338 8% [3] Capital outlay 7,833 13,429 [4] 0 (100%) Fiscal charges 307 343 199 (19%)

1,711,406$ 1,914,324 2,200,470 13%


[1] Increase in contracts for outside repair service of fire alarms, elevators, overhead doors, etc.[2] Increase in supplies to be more in line with actual costs.[3] Increase due to overlap of utilities between old building and new buildings to be occupied in FY 2010.[4] FY2008 Increase for tool boxes, shelving, etc.

94


CAPITAL PROJECTS & FACILITIES DEPARTMENT - CUSTODIAL

Custodial Division Mission

Custodial Program Budget

% Avg.


Expenditures by Type: Salaries 483,583$ 493,086 491,964 1% [1] Benefits 176,510 175,855 199,425 6% [1] Contractual services 14,906 24,785 27,863 37% [2] Other services 6,041 5,951 5,324 (6%) Materials / supplies 53,256 67,139 69,409 14% Interfund charges 125,347 151,689 173,357 18% [3] Capital outlay 0 0 - N/A

859,643$ 918,505 967,343 6%

Provide regular daily custodial-type maintenance on County facilities as well as Event Supportfor community uses of various County-owned facilities including night and weekend hours.


[3] Increase in administration budget allocation.

[2] Increase for contractual custodial service due to increase of square footage of maintained facilities.

[1] Difference between budgeted vacancies and filled positions.

95


Program Purpose



Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure '06-'0919,227$ 14,906 24,785 27,863 13.2%

100,500$ 106,153 118,268 137,547 11.0%Operating Expenditure 637,393$ 738,584 775,452 801,934 8.0%

14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 0.0%45,528$ 52,756 55,389 57,281 8.0%



The purpose of the Custodial Program is to provide cleaning, planned maintenance, and event support services to County staff and facility users so they can have nice looking, reliable and timely use of County facilities.

CAPITAL PROJECTS & FACILITIES DEPARTMENT CUSTODIAL PROGRAM

The Custodial Division increased pest control and window washing contracts in FY'09 due to customer requests.


FTE'sProgram Expenditure/FTE

Administrative Overhead

According to the International Facilities Manager Association, the average per square foot cost for City/County buildings is $1.42. The County is $1.60. The County continues to provide event service support for afterhours and weekends.

FY'09 the Custodial Division was working short staffed by 2 FTEs.


Estimated %FY2008 FY2009 Average AnnualActual Actual Change '08 - '09

CPM 1.21$ 1.60$ 32%

75% n/a

Customers rating custodial services overall as either excellent or good

CUSTODIAL COST PER SQUARE FOOTTotal costs per square foot


CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

96


CAPITAL PROJECTS & FACILITIES DEPARTMENT CUSTODIAL PROGRAM

HOW THE CUSTODIAL PROGRAM COMPARES

Min

25th%-ile

Median

75th%-ile

LAC

Max

2008 TOTAL Facilities Expend per sq ft - Custodial Service - In-house only w/o security

$0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 $4.50 $5.00 $5.50 $6.00

97


Program Purpose



Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure '06-'09138,034$ 63,246 72,142 264,308 24.2%100,500$ 106,153 118,268 137,547 11.0%

Operating Expenditure 1,687,564$ 1,542,007 1,723,914 1,798,615 2.1%14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 0.0%

120,540$ 110,143 123,137 128,473 2.1%

Comprehensive Plan References: Vision StatementsUpgrade infrastructureProtect environment



The purpose of the Facilities Program is to provide routine maintenance, repair, and event support services to facility users so they can have timely and reliable use of County facilities.

CAPITAL PROJECTS & FACILITIES DEPARTMENT FACILITIES MAINTENANCE PROGRAM


FTE'sProgram Expenditure/FTE

Administrative Overhead

Narrative Discussion and AnalysisIncreases in FY'09 Facilities expenditures were the cost of leasing modular buildings at Ashley Pond and Lavy Lane and a full year of utility costs at White Rock Fire Station #3.

The International Facilities Association Benchmarks for 2009 report an average cost of $2.20 per square foot for City/County Government facilities. The Facilities Division at $2.41 per square foot is 10% higher. Communities with colder climates average 20% increased facility maintance costs.

FY'09 the Facilities Division was working short staffed by 1 FTE.

98


CAPITAL PROJECTS & FACILITIES DEPARTMENT FACILITIES MAINTENANCE PROGRAM



CPM1.19$ 2.41$ 103%

HOW THE FACILITIES MAINTENANCE PROGRAM COMPARES

REPAIR COSTSAll facilities total repair expenditures per square foot


LAC

2008 TOTAL Facilities Expend per sq ft - Repair & Maintenance Service - In-house w/o utilities

Min

25th%-ile

Median

75th%-ile

Max

$0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 $4.50 $5.00

99


PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

**Expenditures for these two Enterprise Funds are shown in the Public Works Department,but these two divisions report directly to the County Administrator’s Officebut these two divisions report directly to the County Administrator s Office.

100



Department Summary


The Public Works Department is comprised of the following areas of responsibility: engineering and surveying, project management, equipment and fleet maintenance, street maintenance, traffic operations and maintenance, transit, and support of Major Maintenance and Capital Improvement programs. For budget presentation, the Environmental Services and Airport Divisions are included in this summary. These two divisions report directly to the County Administrator's Office.

Traffic8%

Transit11%

Environmental Services23%

Airport1%

Capital Projects ‐Roads28%


Engineering/Surveying3%

Equipment14%

Pavement12%

8%

General Fund89%

Public Works11%


101


% Avg.


Expenditures by Program: Engineering 762,972$ 697,155 673,098 (6%) Equipment 3,173,152 3,197,529 3,013,258 (3%) Pavement 1,787,300 2,071,368 2,648,204 22% Traffic 1,405,673 1,589,681 1,711,261 10% Transit 0 1,568,268 2,433,731 100% Environmental Services 3,725,890 3,181,735 4,979,785 16% Airport 207,524 433,269 266,368 13% Street Maintenance Projects 531,529 56,063 105,378 (55%) Capital Projects - Roads 0 5,546,117 6,092,144 100%

11,594,040$ 18,341,185 21,923,227 38%

Expenditures by Fund: General 3,955,945$ 4,358,204 5,032,563 13% Equipment Fund 3,173,152 3,197,529 3,013,258 (3%) Transit 0 1,568,268 2,433,731 100% Environmental Services 3,725,890 3,181,735 4,979,785 16% Airport 207,524 433,269 266,368 13% State Shared Revenue 531,529 56,063 105,378 (55%) Capital Projects - Roads 0 5,546,117 6,092,144 100%

11,594,040$ 18,341,185 21,923,227 38%


(100%)


Limited term 2.00 3.00 0.00 (100%) Casual, Student,& Temp. 2.19 2.21 1.55 (16%)

74.44 97.46 92.80 12%

FTEs by Division: Administration 5.15 5.17 3.14 (22%) Engineering/Surveying 7.00 7.00 5.25 (13%) Equipment 10.00 10.00 11.00 5% Pavement 14.00 14.00 16.00 7% Traffic 11.53 11.53 11.41 (1%) Transit 0.00 22.00 22.00 100% Environmental Services 19.26 19.26 18.75 (1%) Airport 1.50 1.50 1.50 0% Capital Improvements Projects 6.00 7.00 3.75 (21%)

74.44 97.46 92.80 12%

Budget SummaryFor presentation, Environmental Services and Airport are included in this section even though they report directly to the County Administrator. All other divisions included here report to the Public Works Director.

In FY 2008, Council approved the reorganization of the Public Works Department which split and transferred several divisions to the new Capital Projects and Facilities Department (CPFD). The Facilities and Custodial Divisions were transferred to the new department and the Administration and Engineering Divisions were split, with 5 FTEs moved from Engineering to the CPFD Project Management Division and 2 FTEs moved from PW Admin to CPFD Admin. More detail can be seen in the the CPFD Department Summary. Capital Project funding is now shown in the new department with the exception of road CIP projects which will remain and be managed in Public Works.

102




% Avg.


Expenditures by Type: Salaries 288,199$ 300,209 223,660 (12%) Benefits 90,576 96,077 69,699 (12%) Contractual services 8,349 8,308 9,624 7% [1] Other services 11,207 13,219 11,817 3% Materials / supplies 10,473 11,789 9,123 (7%) [1] Interfund charges* (173,049) (193,067) 11,993 107% [1] Capital outlay 10,898 0 25,190 52% [2]

246,653$ 236,535 361,106 21%

FTE Summary: Regular (full & part time) 5.00 5.00 3.00 (23%) Casual, Student,& Temp. 0.15 0.17 0.14 (3%)

5.15 5.17 3.14 (22%)

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - ADMINISTRATION

The Administration Division provides the Public Works Department with support servicesand courteous customer service to internal staff and the community.


% Avg.


Programs before allocation: Engineering 709,896$ 646,256 615,051 (7%) Pavement 1,681,148 1,969,570 2,471,300 21% Traffic 1,318,249 1,505,843 1,585,106 10%

3,709,293 4,121,669 4,671,457 12%

Allocation amounts: Engineering 53,076 50,899 58,047 5% Pavement 106,152 101,798 176,904 29% Traffic 87,425 83,838 126,155 20%

246,653 236,535 361,106 21%

Programs after allocation: Engineering 762,972 697,155 673,098 (6%) Pavement 1,787,300 2,071,368 2,648,204 22% Traffic 1,405,673 1,589,681 1,711,261 10%

3,955,945$ 4,358,204 5,032,563 13%

[2] Purchase of a vehicle in FY 2009.

[1] Cost allocation differences between Public Works and Capital Projects and Facilities based on 7 monthsof operation with the 2 departments.

*Interfund Charges - Admin Allocation for Facilties and Custodial in FY 2007 and FY 2008 have beenmoved to the Capital Projects & Facilties Department.

103


Engineering/Surveying Mission

The purpose of the Street Maintenance Projects is to provide major maintenance of the roadway infrastructure including pavement, curb/gutter, sidewalks, and storm drains, so that reasonably safe streets are provided for the community.

The purpose of the Capital Improvements Projects is to provide major replacements and improvements to general County infrastructure.

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - ENGINEERING/SURVEYING

The Engineering Divison is responsible for the design, construction and supervision of municipal improvements within the public right-of-way. It also provides technical and administrative expertise for technical review, contracting, budgeting, scheduling, procuring, managing, and overseeing countywide engineering projects in the capital improvements program, road replacement and street maintenance projects. Provides oversight of improvements completed in conjunction with private developments and coordinates a variety of programs to ensure County operations comply with County, State and Federal regulations. Works closely with developers to ensure public improvements are built in accordance to County Construction Standards. Serves on Interdepartmental Review Committee to review development applications and advises the planning and zoning commission, other boards and commissions and County Council.

The Survey Division provides survey support to County owned properties to properly assess boundaries and support in the vacating and granting of easements, the disposal and leasing of County owned real property, as well as other types of real property and land related transactions. Also provides survey support for the County’s Capital Improvement Program and activities.

Engineering/Surveying Program Budget

% Avg.


Expenditures by Type: Salaries 528,199$ 521,988 430,973 (10%) [1] Benefits 66,020 34,580 101,114 24% [1] Contractual services 5,394 944 8,693 27% [2] Other services 32,483 32,605 24,023 (14%) [3] Materials / supplies 17,487 34,921 18,099 2% [3] Interfund charges 68,563 72,117 88,695 14% [3] Capital outlay 44,826 0 1,501 (82%)

762,972$ 697,155 673,098 (6%)

FTE Summary:Regular (full & part time) Gen Fund 7.00 7.00 5.25 (13%)Regular (full & part time) CIP Fund 4.00 4.00 3.75 (3%)

Limited Term CIP Fund 2.00 3.00 0.00 (100%)13.00 14.00 9.00 (17%)

[1] Allocation differences between general fund salaries and benefits and capital improvement fund salariesbenefits.

[3] Cost allocation differences between Public Works and Capital Projects and Facilities based on 7 monthsof operation with the 2 departments.

[2] Increase in maintenance contracts for plotters.

104


Fleet Equipment Division Mission

Fleet Equipment Program Budget

% Avg.


Expenditures by Type: Salaries 435,919$ 441,222 490,280 6% Benefits 130,524 134,709 163,090 12% Contractual services 56,542 68,196 68,608 10% Other services 45,504 44,142 46,733 1% Materials / supplies 906,227 1,180,129 1,173,573 14% [1] Interfund charges 390,619 14,097 297,190 (13%) Capital outlay 1,207,817 279,789 773,784 (20%)

3,173,152$ 3,197,529 3,013,258 (3%)


PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - FLEET EQUIPMENT

Respond to County equipment needs using creativity, flexibility, training depth, and technical expertise. Provide equipment to operating divisions on a rental rate recovery basis.

[1] Increase in fuel costs, auto repair supplies, tools and shelving. Much of the increase in fuel and suppliesis due to the increase in Fleet with the Transit function.

105


Pavement Division Mission

Pavement Program Budget

% Avg.


Expenditures by Type: Salaries 626,031$ 714,183 783,305 12% [1] Benefits 268,222 300,272 364,274 17% [1] Contractual services 40,044 297,992 613,115 291% Other services 14,455 14,566 11,647 (10%) Materials / supplies 181,998 219,816 336,135 36% Interfund charges 656,550 524,539 534,441 (10%) [2] Capital outlay 0 0 5,287 100%

1,787,300$ 2,071,368 2,648,204 22%


PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - PAVEMENT

Provide both planned and responsive monitoring and repair to minimize the life-cycle cost of our County transportation system and to ensure safe, comfortable and reliable infrastructure.

[1] Increase for snow and ice removal.

[2] Decrease in interdepartmental charges for fuel and also for the maintenance and replacement of equipment/vehicles.

106


Traffic Division Mission

Traffic Program Budget

% Avg.


Expenditures by Type: Salaries 573,064$ 568,192 580,864 1% Benefits 216,900 208,784 220,632 1% Contractual services 136,793 104,734 11,948 (70%) Other services 39,831 34,771 32,946 (9%) Materials / supplies 128,911 262,592 341,969 63% Interfund charges 227,177 257,019 322,520 19% Capital outlay 82,997 153,589 200,382 55% [1]

1,405,673$ 1,589,681 1,711,261 10%


The Traffic Division provides the County of Los Alamos with professional Traffic Engineering services; multi-modal transportation support; maintenance, operation, and repairs of all traffic control devices; and routine or emergency services for other transportation related items.

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - TRAFFIC

Casual, Student,& Temp. 1.53 1.53 1.41 (4%) 11.53 11.53 11.41 (1%)

[2] Increase for signal cabinet replacements, server switching module, power transfer switch, and asweeper/vacuum for parking lot and curb maintenance.

107


Transit Division Mission

Transit Program Budget

% Avg.


Expenditures by Type: Salaries $ 0 655,968 895,716 37% [1] Benefits 0 307,099 391,092 27% [1] Contractual services 0 71,470 45,093 (37%) [2] Other services 0 57,410 70,634 23% Materials / supplies 0 183,741 58,938 (68%) Interfund charges 0 292,580 589,198 101% [3] Capital outlay 0 0 383,060 100% [1]

$ 0 1,568,268 2,433,731 55%

FTE Summary:Regular (full & part time) 0 00 22 00 22 00 0%

Improve and strengthen mobility in Los Alamos County and the surrounding region through an effective, efficient, and dependable transit system.

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - TRANSIT

Regular (full & part time) 0.00 22.00 22.00 0%

[1] Increases due to expanded service in Fall 2008 (with the approval of 2 FTEs) and the proposed service expansion as a result of the North Central Regional Transit District initiative. Includes 7.5 new FTEs and 3 buses.

[2] Outside contracts decreased as the old fleet of buses from LA Bus are either overhauled or replaced.Also decrease in outside contracts for painting of buses.

[3] Increase mainly due to increase in replacement collection rate.

108



Environmental Services Division Mission

Environmental Services Program Budget

% Avg.


Expenditures by Type:

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - OTHER FUNDS - ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

The Environmental Services Division accounts for the operation of the County landfill, commercial and residential refuse collection, curbside and drop off recycling, and composting of yard waste.

Provide a comprehensive Solid Waste Management program that includes collection, transportation, recycling and disposal of solid waste.

Salaries 778,914$ 819,898 822,595 3% Benefits 303,739 306,378 312,092 1% Contractual services 1,298,264 358,187 2,395,915 36% Other services 40,773 40,950 49,687 10% Materials / supplies 140,754 472,267 200,200 19% Interfund charges 906,237 1,178,995 1,156,700 13% Capital outlay 218,828 5,060 31,138 (62%) Fiscal charges 38,381 0 11,458 (45%)

3,725,890$ 3,181,735 4,979,786 16%

FTE Summary: Regular (full & part time) 18.75 18.75 18.75 0% Casual, Student,& Temp. 0.51 0.51 0.00 (100%)

19.26 19.26 18.75 (1%)

109


Airport Division Mission

Airport Program Budget

% Avg.


Expenditures by Type: Salaries 85,090$ 171,261 91,687 4% Benefits 21,582 29,975 23,297 4% Contractual services 16,167 189,277 76,273 117% Other services 8,117 6,140 7,051 (7%) Materials / supplies 10,897 17,627 5,692 (28%) Interfund charges 59,036 7,552 62,368 3% Capital outlay 6,635 11,437 0 (100%) Fiscal charges 0 0 0 100%

207,524$ 433,269 266,368 13%


PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - OTHER FUNDS - AIRPORT

The Airport Division will maintain and enhance the Los Alamos Airport to ensure safe air transportation and mobility is maintained.

110


Program Purpose



Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures '06-'09PW Administrative Overhead 46,661$ 53,076 53,305 58,047 7.5%Expenditures/Budget 641,225$ 709,896 643,850 615,051 (1.4%)

6.50 7.00 7.00 9.06 11.7%98,650 101,414 91,979 67,886 (11.7%)




PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING PROGRAM

General Fund FTE'sExpenditure/FTE

Improve mobilityUpgrade infrastructure

The purpose of the Engineering Program is to provide project management, civil design, survey and inspection services to County departments and private contractors so they can make thrifty, timely and informed decisions.

In 2009, construction of Diamond Phase II was completed and construction of Diamond Phase III began and is ongoing. Central Avenue Pedestrian Crossing and Streetscape project was completed. Engineering Division managed the storm drain

ResultsCPM = a measure defined and collected by ICMA's Center for Performance Measurement


0% -2.2% 0.2% (0.7%)

CPM

89% 89% 0.0%

Paved lane miles assessed as being in satisfactory or better condition as a percentage of paved lane miles assessed

Performance MeasuresCORE OUTCOMESPercent year over year increase in the pavement condition index

improvements to Central, 9th Street, and Iris Street. Storm Drain Pipe Rehabilitation occurred in the Diamond Phase IV Area including Sullivan Field. Staff managed the demolition of the buildings on Tract A‐11, the construction of NM 502 improvements and ABS Access Road, and inspected the roadway infrastructure for the Entrada Business Park, and other smaller in the County. The Division supported multiple smaller drainage and concrete projects throughout the County. Staff supported the CP&FD and Utilities Department in their projects.

The County recently contracted with IMS Infrastructure Management Services to collect pavement condition data on all Los Alamos County roads. The pavement condition data was collected in 2005 and helped establish the original pavement condition indexes which are now outdated. The County will utilize GBA Master Series for the pavement and assets management. The new pavement condition data will help the County assess the pavement condition index on recent roadway construction projects as well as all other roads and streets in the County. This data will help establishing the pavement condition degradation curves in the GBA Master Series data base and will guide the County in prioritization of pavement maintenance, rehabilitation and reconstruction projects. The combination of road construction and pavement maintenance projects has helped improve the overall Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for the county's roadway infrastructure.

111


Program Purpose



Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures '06-'09342,252$ 1,264,359 347,985 842,392 35.0%

Operating Expenditures/Budget 1,799,975$ 1,908,793 2,849,544 2,170,866 6.4%10.00 10.00 10.00 11.02 3.3%

179,998$ 190,879 284,954 196,993 3.1%




PUBLIC WORKS - FLEET EQUIPMENT PROGRAM

The purpose of the Fleet Program is to provide vehicle maintenance, repair and replacement services to County staff so they use safe and reliable County vehicles.


Improve mobilityProtect environment

Capital and Contracts

During the FY09 reporting period the Fleet Division was able to measure the baseline for the hours billed as a percentage of hours available. The result of 62% indicates that we will be redoubling our efforts to increase shop productivity and ensure we accurately document all maintenance andefforts to increase shop productivity and ensure we accurately document all maintenance and repairs.

Also, during the fiscal year we were able to establish a baseline for the hours available per vehicle maintained by central fleet operations; the result of 51.5 hours demonstrates our employees commitment to each vehicle and the amount of maintenance and/or repairs each requires in any given year. Some of the most common practices in the shop is to perform a complete “safety check” on each unit in addition to the scheduled preventative maintenance. The safety check entails checking the brakes, steering, leaks, lights and tires. In addition, safety checks are preformed on a weekly basis for certain fleet units such as packers, side loaders, and transit buses. These routine safety checks could result in repairs being performed to correct an identified issue with the unit; such as a hydraulic leak. The Fleet Division also responds to service calls out in the field; which include, flat tires, jump starts, fuel, etc. The final baseline set in FY09 is the current number of FTEs in the central fleet operation which is currently at eleven.

In FY10 the Fleet Division will be upgrading our fueling infrastructure and our Equipment Management System. The upgrades will allow for more accurate fuel accountability and better fuel usage records; the AIM2 which will be installed on all automotive units utilizes smart technology and will only dispense fuel to recognized County units. The upgrade to the equipment management system will allow us to track our productivity more efficiently, enter data real time, and will expand our reporting capability. These two systems will allow more accurate reporting of ICMA data in the coming fiscal years.

112



ResultsAll measures in this program are from the ICMA Center for Performance Measurement (CPM)The program needs to establish mileage reader cards in order to manage with these indicators. Estimated %

FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 Average AnnualActual Actual Actual Change '07 - '09Performance Measures

CORE STAFFING INDICATORS

The AIM2 Fuel Master Card Reader, Close-Up

CPM

62.0% N/A

CPM

51.50 N/A

CPM11.01 N/A

N/A

CPM

N/A

CPM

N/A

CPM

N/A

Buses: Total maintenance expenditures per mile driven

Solid Waste Packers: Total maintenance and preventative maintenance expenditures per vehicle

INDICATORS

Hours billed as a percentage of hours available

Hours available per vehicle maintained by central fleet operations

Fleet maintenance FTE's in the central fleet operation

CORE MAINTENANCE EFFICIENCIES

Solid Waste Packers: Total maintenance expenditures per mile driven

Police vehicles: total maintenance and preventative maintenance expenditures per vehicle

113



CPM

N/A

CPM

N/A

Police vehicles: total maintenance expenditures per mile driven

How does the Fleet Program Compare?

Medium vehicles: Total maintenance and preventative maintenance expenditures per vehicle

Min25th%-ile

Median

75th%-ile

LAC 2009

Max

2008 Hours billed as a percentage of hours available

Min

25th%-ile

Median

75th%-ile

LAC 2009

Max

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275

2008 Hours available per vehicle maintained by central fleet

operation

Median

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00%

114


Program Purpose



Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures '06-'09Capital and Contracts 173,351$ 40,044 297,992 618,402 52.8%

100,500$ 106,152 121,835 177,121 20.8%Operating Expenditures/Budget 1,473,854$ 1,641,104 1,651,541 1,852,681 7.9%

14.00 14.00 16.00 16.63 5.9%105,275$ 117,222 103,221 111,406 1.9%


Strategic Council Goals Supported by Program ResourcesImprove transportation and mobility


PUBLIC WORKS - PAVEMENT PROGRAM

The purpose of the Pavement Program is to provide maintenance of roadways, sidewalks, right-of-ways, and storm water drainage systems to the traveling public so they can move around the County in a safe and reliable manner.

FTE'sOperating expenditure/FTE

Improve mobility

PW Administrative Overhead

Th P t Di i i i h d ith th ibilit f it i i i d i t i i

• To provide responsive, quality maintenance of our transportation system to ensure safe, comfortable and efficient roads and streets, while minimizing citizen inconvenience. to provide consistent, timely and quality road and associated structure routine maintenance or replacement in order to ensure appropriate life cycle usage and to provide for measurable return on investment of expenditures in our transportation system.• To implement an annual pavement preservation program to upgrade our county road and street system by performing in-house major street maintenance projects as well as contracting out the larger, more technical or specialized projects.• To perform special and necessary road, sidewalk, curb and gutter and drainage maintenance or construction projects promptly, professionally, and within established budgets, schedules, and quality control practices.• To provide sufficient and cost effective snow and ice control operations on county roads, streets, parking lots and walkways in a timely and aggressive manner in order to ensure the safety of our citizens, a minimal disruption to our public education community, a minimal disruption to our local business community and economy and a minimal disruption to the services provided by our local government.• In addition, our division is somewhat unique in that in addition to serving the Public Works department, we also provide our services to other departments of Los Alamos County. For example, most of our emergency work orders come from the Los Alamos county department of public utilities (gas, water, sewer and electric). We are also aware that we have some 18,000 “Customers” to whom we make our division available to and encourage their assistance in alerting us to concerns that affect needs and safety of our citizens.

The Pavement Division is charged with the responsibility of monitoring, repairing and maintaining the surface transportation system in Los Alamos County. As a division, we have discussed and subscribed to public works department policies and objectives as follows:

115



• To provide responsive, quality maintenance of our transportation system to ensure safe, comfortable and efficient roads and streets, while minimizing citizen inconvenience. • To provide consistent, timely and quality road and associated structure routine maintenance or replacement in order to ensure appropriate life cycle usage and to provide for measurable return on investment of expenditures in our transportation system. • To implement an annual pavement preservation program to upgrade our county road and street system by performing in-house major street maintenance projects as well as contracting out the larger, more technical or specialized projects. • To perform special and necessary road, sidewalk, curb and gutter and drainage maintenance or construction projects promptly, professionally, and within established budgets, schedules, and quality control practices. • To provide sufficient and cost effective snow and ice control operations on county roads, streets, parking lots and walkways in a timely and aggressive manner in order to ensure the safety of our citizens, a minimal disruption to our public education community, a minimal disruption to our local business community and economy and a minimal disruption to the services provided by our local government. • In addition, our division is somewhat unique in that in addition to serving the Public Works department, we also provide our services to other departments of Los Alamos County. For example, most of our emergency work orders come from the Los Alamos county department of public utilities (gas, water, sewer and electric). We are also aware that we have some 18,000 “Customers” to whom we make our division available to and encourage their assistance in alerting us to concerns that affect needs and safety of our citizens.

As a division, pavement staff have willingly partnered into the adoption of performance indicators that are tracked to indicate the effectiveness of our division operations. Through performance p g pappraisals on each employee, we track our individual performance and contributions to the successful operation of the pavement division.

FY 09 work accomplishment highlights by program:

Right of way maintenance• work plan was to mow 210 acres of our r-o-w at an estimated cost of $224.75 per acre

Actual acreage mowed was 250 acres at a cost of $91.82 per acre; variance due to work efficiencies gained by systematic approach.

• work plan was to perform 450 employee hours of weed control/removal within county street r-o-w at an estimated cost of $37.75 per hour

Actual weed control/removal was 560 employee hours at a cost of $38.27 per hour

• work plan was to perform 2,160 lane miles of street sweeping at an estimated cost of $90.84 per lane mile

Actual street sweeping was 3,090 lane miles at a cost of $32.88 per lane mile; variance due to an increase in frequency of sweeping.

116


PUBLIC WORKS - PAVEMENT PROGRAMPavement maintenance

• work plan was to perform 260 employee hours of pot hole patching at an estimated cost of $67.94 per hour

actual pot hole patching was 805 employee hours at a cost of $43.20 per hour; variance due to reducing the normal pot hole crew by one employee and assigning to other work programs needing additional labor.

• work plan was to perform 30 lane miles of crack sealing of asphalt streets at an estimated cost of $3,012.86 per lane mile

actual crack sealing was 28 lane miles at a cost of $2,353.75 per lane mile; variance due to the recurring crack sealing program on streets that are in the pavement preservation schedule and required less material, labor and equipment resources to complete the sealing during this period.

• work plan was to expend $875,114 in pavement preservation surface treatments (fog seal, overlays) performed by contractors funded and managed by the pavement division

Actual pavement preservation expenditures to contractors was $1,119,666 (FOG SEALS - 209,834 s.y. at cost of $112,091; surface overlays - 97,798 s.y. at cost of $1,007,575); variance due to the use of snow and ice budget funds and available funding from other pavement division budget areas to fund additional overlay work to take advantage of the contract prices in effect during fy 09.

Concrete maintenance

Snow and ice control

• fy 09 budget estimate for labor, equipment, de-icing materials and on-call contract was $551,363

Actual snow and ice expenditures FY 09 were $451,517.75; variance due to requiring less snow and ice response than anticipated.

Concrete maintenance

• Work plan was to replace 1,720 l.f. of curb and gutter at an estimated cost of $80.75 per l.f.

Actual curb and gutter replacement was 1,734 l.f. at a cost of $35.90 per l.f.; variance due to materials cost not increasing as high as anticipated.

• Work plan was to replace 2,170 s.f. of sidewalk at an estimated cost of $20.77 per s.f.

Actual sidewalk replacement was 5,450 s.f. at a cost of $12.65 per s.f.; variance due to materials cost not increasing as high as anticipated.

• work plan was to build 4 each ADA access ramps in sidewalks at an estimated cost of $3,436.36 per each

Actual ADA ramps installed was 10 each at a cost of $2,162.70 each; variance due to materials cost not increasing as high as anticipated.

117




E ti t d %

Special projects or work requests from other county departments or divisions

• work plan estimated $87,707 in other department work requests for labor, equipment and materials

Actual cost in FY 09 for other department support was $131,278.98; variance due to the nature of this work, which is reactionary to other department needs.

In conclusion, the pavement division prioritizes all of our work based on one or more of the following criteria:1) the safety of the public as related to streets,sidewalks,drainage structures and public right of way;2) the needs of our business community;3) the needs of our education community;4) the protection of county investment in all county assets;5) the functionality of infrastructure assets;6) the aesthetics of right of way improvements in our community;7) the value added result of our maintenance or replacement efforts and expenditures.


Footnote 1 CPM 81% 90% 5.7%FY2009 Forecast

CPM 2,861 3,373 3,090 2.6%

FY2009 Forecast

Estimate % Avg Annual Change

'08-09

CPM 37.75$ 32.88$ (12.9%)

CPM 24.04$ 25.23$ 5.0%

CPM 8,241$ 6,478$ (21.4%)

Operating and maintenance expenditures for street sweeping per lane mile for which the jurisdiction is

Snow and ice control expenditures per capita

Road rehabilitation expenditures per lane mile for which the jurisdiction is responsible.

Footnote 1 - The CPM median for this measure was 81% in FY2007. Their 2009 data report is not yet available.

Performance MeasuresCORE OUTCOME% citizens surveyed reporting road conditions as in either good or mostly good conditionOUTPUT INDICATOR# linear miles swept

CORE EFFICIENCIES

118



HOW THE PUBLIC WORKS - PAVEMENT PROGRAM STACKS UP

65 jurisdictions reported data for this calculation. Of those 65 reporting, OMB removed the following 4 jurisdictions as they had unusually high expenditure levels per day. They were: Rockford, IL $89,524, Sioux Falls, SD $65,788, Tacoma, WA $33,740, St. Cloud, MN $27,796/ snow/freezing conditions day.

Min

25th%-ile

Median

75th%-ile

LAC

Max

$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $9,000 $10,000 $11,000 $12,000 $13,000

2008 Exp Snow and Ice Control Expenditures per Snowy or Freezing Conditions Day

Min

25th%-ile

Median

75th%-ile

LAC - $24.04

Max

$0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00 $25.00 $30.00 $35.00

2008 Snow & ice control expenditures per capita

119



HOW THE PUBLIC WORKS - PAVEMENT PROGRAM STACKS UP

Min

25th%-ile

Median

75th%-ile

LAC

Max

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275

2008 # days with freezing/snow conditions at any time during day

Min

25th%-ile

Median

75th%-ile

LAC - $37.75

Max

$0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300

2008 O&M expenditures for street sweeping per lane mile swept

120


Program Purpose


FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 % Avg. AnnualActual Actual Actual Actual Adopted Change

Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Budget '06-'09PW Administrative Overhead 82,698$ 87,425 83,838 126,155 118,148 15.1%Capital and Contractual Expense 285,691$ 219,790 258,323 212,331 227,200 (9.4%)Operating Expenditures/Budget 1,066,190$ 1,098,458 1,247,520 1,372,775 1,444,701 8.8%

11.52 11.53 11.53 10.97 11.37 (1.6%)92,551$ 95,270 108,198 125,139 127,063 10.6%



Narrative Discussion and AnalysisThe Traffic program enhances the quality of life for Los Alamos County residents and visitors by establishing

PUBLIC WORKS - TRAFFIC PROGRAM

The purpose of the Traffic Program is to install and maintain traffic control equipment, manage roadwork zones, support special events, and provide analysis services to the traveling public, police, fire, and road construction crews so they can travel and work more efficiently and in a safe environment.


Improve mobility

This year alone, Traffic staff performed 589 traffic signal and flasher repairs or replacements, including traffic signals (red, yellow, green and green arrow, walk, don’t walk, and pedestrian timer signals) and flashing caution lights (fire and school flashers). At first glance, the increase from $403.50 in FY08 to $705.98 in FY09 per traffic signal and flasher repair may seem extreme, but upon further examination this increase is easily explained by a significant budget increase in FY09 for traffic signal components and due to the transition to ICMA reporting methods. When Council originally approved roundabouts as part of the Diamond Drive reconstruction project, only a minimal amount was budgeted for FY08 traffic signals repairs and upgrades on Diamond Drive in anticipation of roundabouts replacing the signals. However, once roundabouts were removed from the Diamond Drive reconstruction design, additional money for traffic signal replacement/maintenance was budgeted for FY09 to make up for routine work that was not budgeted or performed in FY08. Due to the transition from LA Scores to ICMA reporting methods, the number this year does still include repairs or replacement of portable traffic signals, such as devices used to alert drivers about roadwork or traffic delays, or any traffic signal controllers, wiring, and related equipment.

The Traffic program enhances the quality of life for Los Alamos County residents and visitors by establishing and maintaining devices and systems that regulate traffic flow and allow people to move throughout the community safely and efficiently. Properly placed and properly functioning traffic signals, flashers, streetlights, traffic signs, pavement and curb markings, and traffic work zones often go unnoticed when provided with excellence, but play an integral role in people’s daily journeys from point A to point B. The Traffic program’s motto, not unlike other County services, could be “When We Go Unnoticed, We’re Doing Our Job Right!”

121


In addition to the measured activities described above, the Traffic program also performs professional traffic engineering services including traffic impact studies, traffic counts, speed zone studies, traffic calming,

In FY09, 274,814 linear feet of lanes were striped, compared to 305,495 in FY08. This number decreased in FY09 because the Diamond Phase 2 & 3 contractors assumed responsibility for striping within the project limits. In addition to the measured activities described above, the Traffic program also performs professional traffic engineering services including traffic impact studies, traffic counts, speed zone studies, traffic calming, pedestrian walk-ability, bicycle accessibility, crash analysis, and various other traffic engineering studies and reports. The Transportation Manager also serves as the staff liaison to the Transportation Board.

In FY09, the Traffic program managed 290 work zones, down from 337 in FY08. In FY09, there were fewer work zones in White Rock because the Grand Canyon Road Rehabilitation Project and other concrete repairs were completed in FY08. Also, there were fewer work zones in FY09 than FY08 related to fog seal operations and electric and water utility repairs. Whenever a work zone effects traffic, the responsible entity, whether County staff or an outside contractor, must submit their proposed traffic control plan and apply for a traffic control permit with the Traffic program. Each traffic control plan is reviewed, modified (if needed), and approved by the Traffic Safety Specialist, who also inspects, monitors, and makes adjustments to the actual work zone according to MUTCD and ATSSA standards.

The Traffic program also operates a sign shop and fabricates all street, directional, information, facility, and any other signs needed by the County. Of the 1143 signs fabricated, maintained or repaired by Traffic staff in FY09, 200 were new signs fabricated and installed. The remaining signs accounted for in the overall number are maintenance or repairs made to existing signs due to vandalism, other damage, or normal wear.


FY2010 Estimated %FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 Adopted Average AnnualActual Actual Actual Target Change '07 - '09

358 337 290 350 (10.0%)241,101 305,495 274,814 298,000 6.8%

906 1,135 1,143 1,000 12.3%

322 411 308 370 (2.2%)

CPM 125 504 589 125 117.1%#DIV/0!

CPM 403.50$ 705.98$ 400$ 75.0%

g g g p , , p , g,pedestrian walkability, bicycle accessibility, crash analysis, and various other traffic engineering studies and reports. The Transportation Manager also serves as the staff liaison to the Transportation Board.

Expenditures per traffic signal repair

# traffic signs fabricated, maintained or repaired

# flasher maintenance repairs performed

Performance MeasuresOUTPUTS# work zones managed# linear feet of lane lines striped

# traffic signal maintenance repairs performedEFFICIENCIES

122


HOW THE PUBLIC WORKS - TRAFFIC PROGRAM STACKS UP

‐

$403.50

$705.98

Arlington, VA ‐Median, $498.84

Arlington, VA ‐Median, 525.00

Santa Fe, New Mexico ‐Highest, 800.00

Santa Fe, New Mexico ‐Highest, $800.00

Dallas, Texas ‐ Lowest, $300.00

Dallas, Texas ‐ Lowest, 200.00

$‐

$100.00

$200.00

$300.00

$400.00

$500.00

$600.00

$700.00

$800.00

$900.00

2007 2008 2009

Expenditures per traffic signal repairLos Alamos Actual Arlington, VA ‐Median Santa Fe, New Mexico ‐ Highest Dallas, Texas ‐ Lowest

123


Program Purpose



Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures '08-'09Capital and Contracts -$ - 71,470$ 428,153 499.1%Operating Expenditures/Budget -$ - 1,496,798$ 2,005,578 34.0%

0.00 0.00 22.00 23.16 5.3%-$ - 68,036$ 86,597 27.3%




PUBLIC WORKS - TRANSIT DIVISION

The purpose of the Transit Program is to provide safe, efficient, and dependable transportation choices to the traveling public of Los Alamos County so they will experience improved mobility throughout the community.


Improve mobility

yAs indicated on the Los Alamos County Community Survey conducted in September of 2008, 43% of citizens surveyed indicated that someone from their household had used transit at least once in the prior month. The Community Survey is conducted every two years, so although a more recent percentage is unavailable at this time, this number well exceeds the FY10 Adopted Goal of 25%. This percentage will likely increase when the survey is conducted in September 2010 because ridership has increased significantly. As of September 30, 2009, Atomic City Transit has completed 2 years of operations during which time yearly ridership increased from 254,502 in Year 1 to 403,342 in Year 2.

Based on these numbers and unofficial feedback from citizens in the community, it can be concluded that Atomic City Transit has attained overwhelming success and support from citizens since the County took over operations in October 2007. Currently the system offers 4 fixed routes serving the neighborhoods in Los Alamos and White Rock, one fixed route serving the downtown loop, as well as Dial-a-Ride service. The neighborhood and downtown routes are serviced once per hour all day Monday through Friday with enhanced AM & PM peak service added in October 2008. The downtown loop is serviced every 20 minutes. Dial-a-Ride service is available to those who have a documented disability or those who are age 60 and over. Dial-a-Ride is a "curb-to-curb" service that operates from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Citizens are asked to call 661-RIDE between 7:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. up to three days in advance to reserve a ride. The General Public may also use Dial-a-Ride, but to ensure availability for the disabled or elderly the general public may only reserve the ride on the day of the requested ride. Service is scheduled to expand throughout the next 10 years, with 2 new routes serving the Eastern Area and a new school and youth summer route planned for FY10.

124


PUBLIC WORKS - TRANSIT DIVISION

On October 16th, 2008, employees celebrated Atomic City Transit’s 1st Birthday by cooking and serving over 1300 hotdogs to riders and the general public over the lunch hour on the Fuller Lodge Lawn. Attendees were treated to hotdogs, chips, cake, cookies and Atomic City Transit giveaways. Riders also picked up copies of the new Ride Guide, reflecting the enhanced AM & PM peak services.

Also in October 2008, Atomic City Transit received first place honors in the 29th Annual American Public Transportation Association (APTA) AdWheel Awards for the “Atomic City Transit Ride Guide” entry in the Print Category, Schedule Notice/Timetable Subcategory. The awards, which recognize excellence in public transportation marketing and communications, were presented at a ceremony on October 6, in San Diego during the APTA 2008 Annual Meeting and International EXPO. Nearly 750 entries were submitted in this year’s competition. The Ride Guide was recognized for innovative thinking and creating a piece that truly works in the community it serves. Rather than simply mimicking industry standards, County staff focused on simplicity to create a comprehensive easy-to-use Ride Guide that includes an overall system map showing connectivity, individual route maps using innovative timepoints and simplistic schedules for each route, along with basic instructions and general information. The Ride Guide has been available on buses, at special events, and at various distribution points throughout Los Alamos and White Rock since April 2008.

In April 2009, Atomic City Transit earned an Award of Achievement from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Region 6 for the highest percentage growth in transit ridership in New Mexico for a Non-Urbanized Area Transit Program for FTA FY2008. Also in April 2009, Atomic City Transit received the System of the Year award from the New Mexico Department of

Results

Estimated %FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 Average AnnualActual Actual Actual Change

43% N/A

Footnote 1 142,286 391,338 N/AFootnote 1 227,510 430,180 N/A

4.77$ N/A

EFFICIENCIESDirect, variable operating cost per transit mile provided, excluding capital

# miles of service provided

Footnote 1 - The FY2008 actual is for the 9 month period October 2007 through June 30, 2008.

Performance MeasuresRESULTS% citizens surveyed that indicated someone from their household had used transit at least once in the prior monthOUTPUTS

Transportation for the 2008 Section 5316 Job Access and Reverse Commute service. Both awards were presented at the New Mexico Passenger Transportation Association’s Annual Conference.

# one-way passenger trips

Note-Total bus maintenance expenditures per mile driven is an ICMA CPM measure for which Fleet Program is accountable.

125


Program Purpose

Program Expenditures, Budget and Full Time Equivalents (FTE)FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 % Avg. AnnualActual Actual Actual Actual Change

Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures '06-'09Capital/Contracts/Fiscal Charges 903,915$ 1,555,473 363,247 2,438,511 39.2%Operating Expenditures/Budget 2,394,487$ 2,170,417 2,818,488 2,541,275 2.0%

19.26 19.26 19.26 18.74 (0.9%)124,324$ 112,690 146,339 135,607 2.9%


Strategic Council Goals Supported by Program ResourcesMaintain quality and essential routine servicesEnhance environmental quality and sustainability


ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION

The purpose of the Environmental Services programs is to provide convenient, consistent, economical and comprehensive recycling and disposal services to Los Alamos County residents and businesses that result in a clean community; to operate a transfer station to conveniently and cost-effectively process wastes in an environmentally sound facility, and to implement the Environmental Sustainability Initiative to enhance environmental quality and sustainability in Los Alamos County.


Protect environmentUpgrade infrastructure

In FY09 construction of the LEED Gold Certified Eco Station facility was completedIn FY09, construction of the LEED Gold Certified Eco Station facility was completed. Requirements of the $100,000 grant from New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources were met, full payment was received and hundreds toured the showcase facility. Waste processing operations began in the transfer station in March 2009. The cost of hauling waste will cause the net revenue per ton processed to be negative in FY10. Therefore, a rate study and rate increase are scheduled for FY10. One third of the material brought to the solid waste facility was recycled in FY09, a decrease from FY08 due to less concrete recycled likely due to the economic down turn. Residential recycling rates remained at 17%, exceeding the state's rate of recycling of 12.4%. A survey using ICMA CPM measures indicates that Los Alamos County Environmental Services achieved a 16% increase in the number of citizens rating recyling services as either excellent or good. Some waste continues to be buried in the old County Landfill to meet final design grades. A utility scale solar installation is planned on the closed landfill and closure construction scheduled to begin in April 2010.

Residential curbside recycling side loader.

126


ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISIONResultsCPM indicates a measure developed by the ICMA Center for Performance Measurement.


71% N/A45.00$ N/A70.00$ N/A57.25$ N/A

Footnote 1 $2 $8 $5 51.5%Footnote 2 40% 46% 34% (7.8%)

15% 17% 17% 6.5%10% 11% 12.4% 13.1%


CPM

13.1% 14.9% N/A

Footnote 3 CPM 79% 93% 5.6%

CPM70% 86% 7.1%

Performance MeasuresRESULTSLAC tipping fee as a % of benchmark

Los AlamosTeton County, WY Transfer St.Prescott, Arizona Transfer St.

Net revenue per ton processedTons recycled as % of total tons % residential waste recycled by State of New Mexico Recycling Rate


Recycling Collected for Residential AND Commercial Accounts combined (excludes recyling and refuse delivered by other entities): Recycling tonnage as a % of total refuse and recycling tonnage

% citizens rating residential collection good or excellent

% citizens rating residential recycling service good or excellent


FY09 Actual Change '07 -1039,633 46,451 38,306 (1.7%)15,533 21,209 11,465 (14.1%)25,532 24,336 24,300 (2.4%)

FY09 Forecast Change '07 -10

12.62$ 12.56$ 13.09$ 1.8%17.07$ 20.26$ 15.75$ (3.9%)

Footnotes: 1. New cost to haul waste from transfer station will cause drop in net revenue per ton in FY10. Rate study will be completed and rates increased in FY10. 2. Decrease in large project concrete recycling caused lower overall diveration rate. Curbside and other rmaterials remained steady. 3. Citizen perception of trash and recycling services improved.


OUTPUTS# tons processed# tons recycled# commercial dumpster pick ups

EFFICIENCIESCost per Commercial dumpster pick up Average monthly cost per customer

Brand New Eco-Station

127


ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION

HOW THE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION STACKS UP

Los Alamos Actual, 0.131


Mesa, AZ pop 493,077 ‐

MEDIAN, 0.12

Mesa, AZ pop 493,077 ‐

MEDIAN, 0.139

McHenry, IL pop 24,493 ‐ HIGHEST ,

0.424

Savannah, GA pop 29 O S

Savannah, GA pop

Decatur, GA pop 19,168 ‐ HIGHEST,

0.41

Recycling Collected for Residential AND Commercial Accounts combined: Recycling tonnage as a % of total refuse and recycling tonnage compared to

CPM

147,295 ‐ LOWEST, 0.01

147,295 ‐ LOWEST, 0.013

2007 2008 2009



Andersen Township, OH pop 45,277 ‐MEDIAN,

133.1

McHenry, IL pop 24,493 ‐ HIGHEST ,

360.9

Decatur, GA pop 19,168 ‐ 2nd

HIGHEST, 342.7

Yuma, AZ pop 93,212 ‐ LOWEST, 1

2008 2009

Recycling Pounds Per Capita Compared to CPM

128


Program Purpose



Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures '06-'09Capital and Contracts 671,037$ 6,635 200,714 - (100.0%)Operating Expenditures/Budget 190,936$ 200,889 232,555 266,368 12%

1.50 1.50 1.50 1.96 9%127,291$ 133,926 155,037 135,902 2.2%



ResultsICMA's Center for Performance Measurement (CPM) does not benchmark municipal airports.

Estimated %

LOS ALAMOS COUNTY AIRPORT

The purpose of the Airport Program is to provide aircraft operating areas, storage facilities and terminal facilities to aircraft owners, operators and passengers so they can safely and efficiently complete their travel to and from the county.


Improve mobilityUpgrade infrastructure


100% 100% 100% 0.0%

93% 73% 69% (13.9%)

Footnote 1 11,199 13,255 13,244 8.7%74 74 73 (0.7%)

#DIV/0!

2,715$ 3,143$ 3,649$ 15.9%Expenditure per based aircraft

EFFICIENCIES

Footnote 1 - This is not an actual count. It is an extrapolated estimate of a periodic actual sampling during the year as based on an accepted Federal Aviation Administration method of reporting.

RESULTS% take offs and landings without an accident or incident attributed to airport facilities

% available aircraft parking spaces on leaseOUTPUTS# takeoffs and landings accommodated# based aircraft


129


LOS ALAMOS COUNTY AIRPORT

11,199

13,255 13,244

Actual Actual Actual

FY2007 FY2008 FY2009

# takeoffs and landings accommodatedFootnote 1 Linear (Footnote 1)

130


UTILITIES DEPARTMENT

131



Department Summary

Los Alamos County (LAC) Utilities Department's function is to provide our customers withquality electric, natural gas, water, and wastewater services to meet current and futureneeds and to achieve the highest level of customer satisfaction.


Electric Production

61%

Water Production7%

Water Distribution4%

Wastewater8%

Expenditures by Program/Subfund

Electric Distribution

8%

Gas12%

132



% Avg.


Expenditures by Program: Electric Production 38,817,771$ 43,314,805 33,217,039 (7%) Electric Distribution 5,364,675 4,043,598 4,429,467 (9%) Gas 8,490,488 8,538,893 6,784,303 (11%) Water Production 2,689,683 3,201,684 3,611,379 16% Water Distribution 3,546,058 2,171,155 2,201,776 (21%) Wastewater 12,709,924 4,776,755 4,170,259 (43%)

71,618,599$ 66,046,890 54,414,223 (13%)

Expenditures by Type:Salaries 4,582,017$ 4,885,589 5,448,220 9% [1]Benefits 1,553,235 1,602,290 1,855,541 9% [1]Contractual services 50,566,718 45,049,774 31,956,293 (21%)Other services 1,182,533 1,282,979 1,121,110 (3%)Materials / supplies 1,329,094 1,353,290 1,039,697 (12%)Interfund charges 2,737,405 2,875,516 3,105,497 7%Capital outlay 688,588 221,234 199,549 (46%)Fiscal charges 8,979,009 8,776,218 9,688,316 4%

71,618,599$ 66,046,890 54,414,223 (13%)

FTE Summary:Regular (full & part time) 86 00 85 00 86 00 0% Regular (full & part time) 86.00 85.00 86.00 0%

Casual, Student,& Temp. 7.13 5.75 5.12 (15%) 93.13 90.75 91.12 (1%)

By Division: Electric Production 7.00 7.00 7.00 0% Electric Distribution 38.00 38.00 41.00 4% Gas 25.74 25.37 25.83 0% Water 10.25 10.25 10.25 0% Wastewater 10.13 10.13 9.13 (5%)

91.12 90.75 93.21 1%

[1] Six FTEs transferred from LANL - Power System Operators.

133


UTILITIES DEPARTMENT - ELECTRIC

Division Description

Electric Production Program Budget

% Avg.


Revenue and Expenditure Summary: Revenues 35,438,841$ 41,126,727 39,506,603 6% Expenditures 38,817,771 43,314,805 33,217,039 (7%) Net Revenues (Exp.) (3,378,930)$ (2,188,078) 6,289,564 286%

Expenditures by Sub-Program:El Vado Generation 352,293$ 366,746 396,123 6%Abiquiu Generation 377 094 315 130 315 450 (9%)

The Utilities Electric Production and Distribution Divisions manage the County's electricgeneration and transmission resources to meet the electric energy requirements for LACcustomers and the DOE's LANL in the most cost-effective manner. The ProductionDivision Director is chairman of the LAC/DOE Operating Committee which sets policy forthe combined LAC/DOE power pool. The Distribution Division is responsible formaintenance, operation, and repair of all electric distribution lines and equipment ownedby the County of Los Alamos to provide delivery of electric power to its customers.

Abiquiu Generation 377,094 315,130 315,450 (9%)Contract Administration 7,363 9,997 - (100%)Load Control 631,821 711,790 1,022,559 27%Transmission - PNM 1,080,451 1,037,855 1,061,411 (1%)Transmission - Other 1,916,878 2,020,629 1,622,325 (8%)Purchased Power 12,082,436 15,690,255 13,272,060 5%Debt Service 8,485,276 8,758,194 9,099,117 4%Property Taxes 275,123 268,822 273,143 (0%)Insurance 101,070 174,547 - (100%)San Juan Operations 12,670,719 13,016,003 10,992,332 (7%)Interdepartmental Charges 242,318 199,909 220,386 (5%)

Eng/Admin O/H 559,392 292,644 550,851 (1%)

San Juan Plant Adjustment (5,627,756) NACapital Expenditures 35,537 452,284 19,038 (27%)

38,817,771$ 43,314,805 33,217,039 (7%)

Expenditures by Type:Salaries 487,526$ 540,092 826,900 30%Benefits 165,383 190,217 276,206 29%Contractual services 28,243,297 33,082,353 21,862,784 (12%)Other services 457,443 506,960 342,390 (13%)Materials / supplies 116,677 43,104 50,975 (34%)Interfund charges 852,364 572,622 739,629 (7%)Capital outlay 14,697 94,364 19,038 14%Fiscal charges 8,480,384 8,285,093 9,099,116 4%

38,817,771$ 43,314,805 33,217,038 (7%)


134


UTILITIES DEPARTMENT - ELECTRIC

Electric Distribution Program Budget

% Avg.


Revenue and Expenditure Summary: Revenues 2,630,873$ 2,717,641 2,588,969 (1%) Expenditures 5,364,675 4,173,450 4,429,467 (9%) Net Revenues (Exp.) (2,733,802)$ (1,455,809) (1,840,498) 33%

Expenditures by Sub-Program:Supervsn, Misc. Dir. Admin. 492,383$ 471,534 410,396 (9%)Substation Maintenance 87,484 20,991 14,331 (60%)Switching Station Maint. 7,919 12,629 2,863 (40%)Overhead Maintenance 277,827 304,134 503,347 35%Underground Maintenance 294,248 601,514 239,316 (10%)Meter Maintenance 69,895 52,298 54,037 (12%)Interdepartmental Charges 192,844 191,340 221,586 7%Eng/Admin O/H 767,374 632,802 886,858 8%In Lieu Taxes 304,733 324,689 352,206 8%Debt Service 462,937 582,434 580,607 12%Capital Expenditures 2,407,031 849,233 1,163,920 (30%)

5,364,675$ 4,043,598 4,429,467 (9%)

Expenditures by Type:Salaries 2,103,396$ 2,095,671 2,323,707 5%Benefits 674,519 640,470 764,797 6%Contractual services 1,873,401 1,090,877 1,526,575 (10%)Other services 402,325 438,916 456,527 7%Materials / supplies 660,490 675,756 400,972 (22%)Interfund charges (1,281,167) (1,402,734) (1,648,500) 13%Capital outlay 457,672 13,517 24,782 (77%)Fiscal charges 474,039 491,125 580,607 11%

5,364,675$ 4,043,598 4,429,467 (9%)


135


UTILITIES DEPARTMENT - GAS DISTRIBUTION


Gas Distribution Program Budget

% Avg.


Revenue and Expenditure Summary: Revenues 9,400,066$ 8,987,749 8,292,242 (6%) Expenditures 8,490,488 8,538,893 6,784,303 (11%) Net Revenues (Exp.) 909,578$ 448,856 1,507,939 29%

Expenditures by Sub-Program:Supervsn, Misc. Dir. Admin. 202,552$ 217,284 330,946 28%Gas Distribution 157,268 208,766 229,710 21%Gas Meters 94,440 75,642 88,942 (3%)Interdepartmental Charges 153,485 168,006 167,111 4%Eng/Admin O/H 378,877 604,418 692,742 35%In Lieu Taxes 213,928 205,976 195,443 (4%)

The Utilities Gas Distribution Division is responsible for maintenance, operation, andrepair of all gas distribution lines and equipment owned by LAC in order to provide gasservice to its customers. In addition, the division conducts gas leak safety checks on aregular basis and responds to customer gas safety requests.

Cost of Gas 6,326,192 6,701,015 4,421,498 (16%)Capital Expenditures 963,746 357,786 657,911 (17%)

8,490,488$ 8,538,893 6,784,303 (11%)

Expenditures by Type:Salaries 431,498$ 464,894 482,606 6%Benefits (6,785) (67,495) (10,153) 22%Contractual services 7,138,160 7,026,461 5,090,591 (16%)Other services 223,518 213,820 208,108 (4%)Materials / supplies 124,148 78,053 108,023 (7%)Interfund charges 564,022 823,160 861,240 24%Capital outlay 15,927 - 43,888 66%

8,490,488$ 8,538,893 6,784,303 (11%)

FTE Summary:Regular (full & part time) 19.62 19.62 20.62 3%Casual, Student,& Temp. 6.12 5.75 3.77 (22%)

25.74 25.37 24.39 (3%)

136


UTILITIES DEPARTMENT - WATER


Water Production Program Budget

% Avg.


Revenue and Expenditure Summary: Revenues 3,240,010$ 3,622,144 3,941,896 10% Expenditures 2,689,683 3,201,684 3,611,379 16% Net Revenues (Exp.) 550,327$ 420,460 330,517 (23%)

Expenditures by Sub-Program:Supervision and Oper. 788,089$ 800,418 814,246 2%Pumping Power 553,900 764,241 829,182 22%Wells 136,999 271,939 151,634 5%Booster Pump Stations 93,980 81,173 99,905 3%Treatment 27,749 45,735 26,818 (2%)

The Utilities Water Division is responsible for maintenance, operation, and repair of allwater lines and equipment owned by the County of Los Alamos to provide safe waterservices to its customers. The Water Production Division ensures water quality controlmeasures that meet or exceed state and federal regulations on safe drinking water.

Storage Tanks 10,309 17,548 10,290 (0%)Transmission Lines 19,731 25,045 54,408 66%Non Potable System 82,190 383741 130,423 26%Interdepartmental Charges 168,858 179,824 187,611 5%

Eng/Admin O/H 284,814 209,365 252,294 (6%)State Water Tax 37,218 43,754 40,599 4%Capital Expenditures 485,846 378,901 1,013,969 44%

2,689,683$ 3,201,684 3,611,379 16%

Expenditures by Type:Salaries 528,239$ 627,164 628,805 9%Benefits 185,804 223,572 224,459 10%Contractual services 756,105 686,765 1,180,493 25%Other services 70,645 84,607 77,961 5%Materials / supplies 91,731 116,139 106,662 8%Interfund charges 1,049,848 1,355,314 1,369,629 14%Capital outlay 7,311 108,123 14,778 42%

2,689,683$ 3,201,684 3,611,379 16%


137


UTILITIES DEPARTMENT - WATER

Water Distribution Program Budget

% Avg.


Revenue and Expenditure Summary: Revenues 1,898,853$ 1,687,556 1,410,453 (14%) Expenditures 3,546,058 2,171,155 2,201,776 (21%) Net Revenues (Exp.) (1,647,205)$ (483,599) (791,323) (31%)

Expenditures by Sub-Program: Supervsn, Misc. Dir. Admin. 181,948$ 155,326 216,307 9%Hydrants 38,608 77,413 42,678 5%Water Distribution 229,811 303,175 282,482 11%Water Meters 292,501 284,297 178,295 (22%)Interdepartmental Charges 95,446 97,962 99,710 2%

Eng/Admin O/H 483,467 380,805 443,996 (4%)Capital Expenditures 2,224,277 872,177 938,308 (35%)

3,546,058$ 2,171,155 2,201,776 (21%)

Expenditures by Type:Salaries 297,919$ 387,732 336,398 6%Benefits 186,669 249,676 205,447 5%Contractual services 2,239,699 716,525 859,254 (38%), , , , ( )Other services 10,811 12,891 13,510 12%Materials / supplies 157,726 211,218 126,297 (11%)Interfund charges 642,967 587,883 620,665 (2%)Capital outlay 10,267 5,230 40,205 98%

3,546,058$ 2,171,155 2,201,776 (21%)

138


UTILITIES DEPARTMENT - WASTEWATER


Wastewater Program Budget

% Avg.


Revenue and Expenditure Summary: Revenues 3,517,591$ 3,388,282 3,332,776 (3%) Expenditures 12,709,924 4,776,755 4,165,774 (43%) Net Revenues (Exp.) (9,192,333)$ (1,388,473) (832,998) (70%)

Expenditures by Sub-Program: Supervsn, Misc. Dir. Admin. 521,093$ 485,922 517,812 (0%)Wastewater Collection 319,939 382,524 493,428 24%Lift Stations 88,264 153,725 138,779 25%Effluent Irrigation 51,232 0 13,251 (49%)Wastewater Treatment 674,578 648,629 968,726 20%

The Utilities Wastewater Division is responsible for maintenance, operation, and repair ofall wastewater treatment buildings and equipment owned by the County of Los Alamos toprovide wastewater services that meet or exceed state and federal wastewaterregulations.

, , ,Interdepartmental Charges 379,817 376,959 360,088 (3%)

Eng/Admin O/H 308,547 282,931 239,865 (12%)Debt Service 0 0 0 NACapital Expenditures 10,366,454 2,446,065 1,433,825 (63%)

12,709,924$ 4,776,755 4,165,774 (43%)

Expenditures by Type:Salaries 733,439$ 770,036 849,805 8%Benefits 347,645 365,850 394,785 7%Contractual services 10,316,056 2,446,793 1,432,110 (63%)Other services 17,791 25,785 22,614 13%Materials / supplies 178,322 229,020 246,768 18%Interfund charges 909,371 939,271 1,162,834 13%Capital outlay 182,714 0 56858 (44%)Fiscal charges 24,586 0 0 (100%)

12,709,924$ 4,776,755 4,165,774 (43%)

FTE Summary:Regular (full & part time) 10.13 10.13 9.13 (5%)

139


Program Purpose



Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures '06-'0937,449,191$ 35,438,841 41,126,727 39,506,603 2%32,052,129$ 36,738,378 41,461,810 30,980,938 (1.1%)

Other Program Expenditures 1,749,971$ 2,079,393 1,852,995 2,236,100 9%NET Revenues (Exp.) 3,647,091 (3,378,930) (2,188,078) 6,289,565 19.9%

7.00 7.00 7.00 10.55 15%



Enhance environmental quality and sustainability

Narrative Discussion and AnalysisPercent of time adequate power supply is available

UTILITIES - ELECTRIC PRODUCTION

The purpose of the Electric Production Program is to provide electrical energy services to the Los Alamos County Electric Distribution Division and the Department of Energy/Los Alamos National Laboratory so they can reliably serve their customers at competitive prices.

FTE's


Capital/Contracts/Fiscal ChargesRevenues

Percent of total energy supplied from county-owned resources and long-term contracts

Revenue per megawatt hour from off-system sales

Number of megawatt hours of electrical energy supplied

Power availability quantifies the Division’s ability to forecast load requirements, schedule available long-term resources and purchase electric energy on the market to supply bulk power, each and every hour, to the County and to LANL delivery points. It does not take into account distribution outages on County and LANL distribution systems. Performance in this category is on target.

Agreements for long-term resources help ensure availability and stabilize prices. Typically, electric utilities plan to cover their entire forecasted load (plus 15 percent for contingencies such as forecasting errors or outages) with long-term resources. If adequate energy is available on the spot market, cost may be less or more than the cost of long-term resources. Performance in this category was on target.

Off-system sales are made when long-term resources obtained are greater than the hourly load. The target sale price for FY2009 was $55. The actual result of $32.91 is significantly below target. Most of the sales are made at the Four Corners Market Hub and fluctuate hourly due to supply and demand. Year to date is below target due to lower Four Corners average index price and higher volumes due to the new Kirtland/Sandia contract.

Megawatt-hours of energy supplied will be equal to the demand for energy unless a failure of the transmission system or an energy crisis occurs. Generally, it is better to exceed the forecast than to fall short, to ensure that all fixed costs of production are covered. Total energy supplied is equal to energy from long-term resources plus purchases. Energy to load equals total energy supplied less sales, plus or minus, miscellaneous interchange. LANL and LAC used eight percent less than the forecasted load.

140


UTILITIES - ELECTRIC PRODUCTION

Number of megawatt hours generated from county-owned resources and long-term contracts

Number of megawatt hours purchased short-term

Number of megawatt hours sold off-system

Cost of energy from county-owned resources and long-term contracts

Cost per megawatt hour purchased

The cost per MWh produced of $68.72 by county-owned resources and from long-term contracts remains near the long term average. Costs increased for the SJGS due to installation of additional environmental control equipment. Also, TA-3 operation expenses were higher than estimated.

The cost per megawatt hour purchased of $46.50 was significantly below the FY2009 year end forecast of $66 due to

County-owned generation includes 36.5 megawatt (MW) from the San Juan Generation Station (SJGS), 13.8 MW from the Abiquiu Hydroelectric Plant, 8 MW from the El Vado Hydroelectric Plant, and 18 MW from the DOE’s TA-3 Plant. Long-term contracts include 10 MW from the Laramie River Station, and up to 20 MW from WAPA. In total, we generated 8 percent less than the original forecast. Specifically, TA-3 generated 79 percent less than forecasted.

Short-term purchases are made hourly, daily, or monthly based on forecasted requirements to supplement long-term resources. Year to date short-term purchased energy was 6 percent below the original forecast.

Off-system sales are made when supplies exceed demand and the price covers variable plus a marginal contribution to the fixed cost of operating the County’s share of the SJGS. Estimates for the quantity of off-system sales are driven by load forecasts and variances in the availability of long-term resources. The actual off-system sales were above target due to the Kirtland/Sandia contract effective in January 2009. We purchase Kirtland/Sandia excess energy and sell off-system.

ResultsICMA's Center for Performance Measurement (CPM) does NOT benchmark publically owned Utilities.


100% 100% 100% 0.0%

85% 79% 84.7% (0.2%)

37.83$ 55.47$ 32.91$ (6.7%)

590,117 550,623 567,821 (1.9%)

501,508 435,160 481,054 (2.1%)88,609 157,189 106,694 9.7%17,312 41,726 19,927 7.3%

49.36$ 58.33$ 68.72$ 18.0%54.00$ 59.61$ 46.50$ (7.2%)

21% 23% 22% 2.4%74% 75% 78% 2.7%

the decrease in the overall market price. Real time purchases are based on market price.

Cost per MWH purchased

County load as % of total load

Performance MeasuresRESULTS% time adequate power supply is available% electricity supplied from owned resource/LT contractsRevenue per MWH of off system salesMWH SUPPLY

LANL load as % of load

LOAD

# MWH sold off system

# MWH of electrical energy supplied

# MWH from owned resources/LT contracts # MWH purchased short term

COST PER MWHCost per MWH generated from owned resources/LT contracts

141


Program Purpose

FY2010 Adopted Budget = 6,132,816$ including capital outlay, contractual services and fiscal charges



Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures '06-'093,138,994$ 2,630,873 2,717,641 2,588,969 (6.2%)1,863,531$ 2,805,112 1,595,519 2,131,964 5%

Other Program Expenditures** 1,965,920$ 2,559,563 2,448,079 2,297,503 5%NET Revenues (Exp.) (690,457) (2,733,802) (1,325,957) (1,840,498) (238.7%)

37.00 38.00 38.00 38.58 1%


Strategic Council Goals Supported by Program Resources

UTILITIES - ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION

The purpose of the Electric Distribution Program is to provide electric energy services to Los Alamos County retail customers and Los Alamos County Water Production Division so they have access to reliable service at a reasonable price. The Electric Distribution Program includes a high degree of customer contact, including the operation of the Customer Care Center. The purpose of the Customer Care Center is to provide information and payment processing services to citizens of Los Alamos County so they can have easy access to the information they need about Los Alamos County government and a convenient method for making utility and property tax payments. Note - The Customer Care Center is budgeted in the Electric Distribution fund, however its personnel serve all Utility customers, i.e. for electric, gas, water, sewer, and it also provides General County information, including answering 311 calls.


RevenuesCapital/Contracts/Fiscal Charges

FTE's****includes Customer Care expenditure and FTE's



142



Narrative Discussion and AnalysisSAIDI as a percentage of the APPA average for this region

The year-end SAIDI measure for the duration of electrical service interruptions exceeds the measure set for communities of our size by the American Public Power Association. At last year’s sustainability conference in Los Alamos, Jack McGowan of the Galvin Institute reported that the System Average Interruptible Index (SAIDI) in the United States was about 4 hours. This is the amount of time that the average electric customer could expect to be without power over the course of a year. This equates to reliability of 99.95%. When reporting their SAIDI, most utilities do not include outages caused by weather events. With weather events excluded the average SAIDI is about 1 hour, or reliability of 99.99%. The County’s SAIDI includes all outages and is currently about 2.5 hours or 99.97% reliable.

With an FY09 target of 100 percent or less than the APPA index for average, accumulated down time (60 minutes) the accumulated down time for Los Alamos is 150 minutes. This is attributable to very lengthy outages that occurred in White Rock and the North and Barranca Mesa in the first Quarter.

120

140

160

System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) in minutes for past 12 months

Percent of customers that rate electric reliability as good or excellent:

Number of payment transactions posted in-house:

Year end results are better than due to the average price for 500 kwh bill for LAC at $50.63 compared to an average for the three nearest electric utilities of $59.45

Year end results are poorer than the target most likely due to the lengthy outages in the first quarter.

The number of payment transactions posted in-house has dropped due to a contract with Los Alamos National Bank (LANB). The vast majority of transactions, including property taxes and utility payments, are being handled by LANB.

Ratio of LA County residential rate to the average residential rate of the 3 nearest electric utilities:

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Los Alamos DPU APPA Regional Average

150

60

143





142% 353% 256.7% 34.5%

89% 85% 85% (2.2%)

92% 0% 80% (6.7%)

8,892 8,877 8,733 (0.9%)

RATE BENCHMARK

# electric utility customers served


System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI), or the amount of time the average customer could expect to be without power, as a percentage of the American Public Power Association (APPA) average for this region

RELIABILITY OF SUPPLY

CUSTOMERS% electric utility customers that rate electric power reliability as good or excellent

Ratio of Los Alamos County residential rate to the average residential rate of the 3 nearest electrical utilities {see next page}

314$ 367$ 363.96$ 7.7%

0.0811$ 0.0874$ 0.0904$ 5.6%0.1063$ 0.0930$ 0.1036 N/A

119,675 124,393 121,961 1.0%Cost of Power per KWH sold# KWH sold (1,000's)

KWH SALES

Operating and Maintenance expenditures per electric utility customer served (excludes cost of power and profit transfer)

Revenue per KWH sold

144



Rates FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 Actual

LAC RATE 46.42$ 48.67$ 50.63$ Avg PNM, NORA and Jemez 52.16$ 57.46$ 59.45$ Percentage (Ratio) 89% 85% 85%

46.42

48.67

50.63

52.16

57.46

59.45

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

FY2007 FY2008 FY2009

Electric Distribution Rate Comparison

LAC Rate

Avg PNM, NORA and Jemez


87% 72% 89% 0.8%

92% n/a

82% n/a

100% 99% 96% (1.4%)

31,578 n/a

CUSTOMER CARE CENTER Performance MeasuresRESULTS% calls answered before rolling to a backup queue or going to Voice Mail

% Customers rating courtesy service attribute as either good or excellent

CUSTOMER CARE CENTER

% Customers rating knowledge service attribute as either good or excellent

% accurate payment postings (processed in-house)

# payment transactions posted in-house

145


Program Purpose



Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures '06-'098,039,771$ 9,400,066 8,987,749 8,292,242 1.0%7,851,398$ 7,154,087 7,026,461 5,134,479 (13.2%)

Other Program Expenditure 758,675$ 1,336,401 1,512,432 1,649,824 30%NET Revenues (Exp.) (570,302) 909,578 448,856 1,507,939 338.3%

27.22 25.74 25.37 22.41 (6.3%)



Narrative Discussion and AnalysisNumber of therms delivered: Actual therms was less than expected due to warmer weather. The target is set based on a ten year average.

UTILITIES - NATURAL GAS DISTRIBUTION

The purpose of the Natural Gas Distribution Program is to provide natural gas supply and services to Los Alamos County utility customers so they have an adequate supply of natural gas, safely delivered at a price at or below PNM rates.


RevenuesCapital/Contracts Expenditures

FTE's

p g y g

Percent of LAC customer rate compared to PNM customer rate

Expenditure per natural gas customer served:

Expenditure per therm of gas purchased:

Performed poorer than target. PNM lowered their gas rates and the Department of Utilities did not lower rates during fiscal year 2009.

The FY2009 year end result of $287.82 per customer served substantially exceeded the FY2009 target of $227.

Year end results were better than target due to lower market rates for gas purchased by DPU. Operating expenses per gas customer served was targeted for less than or equal to $454. The actual operating expenses were lower due, in part to open staff positions, lower than budgeted overtime, lower training expenses, uniforms and lower demand for locating gas mains. The budget for FY10 was adjusted to reflect appropriate spending levels.

146


UTILITIES - NATURAL GAS DISTRIBUTIONResultsICMA's Center for Performance Measurement (CPM) does NOT benchmark publically owned Utilities.


9,374,019 9,389,368 8,396,600 (5.4%)

88% 70% 113% 13.1%

95% 95% 0.0%

7,682 7,675 7,605 (0.5%)

305.00$ 185.13$ 287.82$ (2.9%)

0.991$ 0.932$ 1.002$ 0.5%

0.65$ 0.72$ 0.52$ (10.8%)

FY2009

Performance MeasuresSUPPLYNumber of therms deliveredRATE BENCHMARK

Percent of LAC price to PNM rate to its customers {see below}

CUSTOMERS

Expenditure per therm of gas purchased

Percent of natural gas customers rating service as good or excellent

Number of customers served

Expenditure per customer served, less COG and profit transfer

SALESRatio: Revenue per therm of gas delivered PURCHASES

FY2007 FY2008FY2009 Actual

LAC RATE 32.19$ 31.27$ 72.60$ PNM RATE 36.44$ 44.58$ 64.24$ Percentage 88% 70% 113%

32.19

31.27

72.6

36.44

44.58

64.24

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

FY2007 FY2008 FY2009

Average Gas Bill Comparison

LAC Average Bill

PNM Average Bill

147


Program Purpose



Expenditures Expenditures Expenditure Expenditures '06-'093,504,000$ 3,240,010 3,622,144 3,941,896 4%

682,831$ 763,416 794,888 1,195,271 21%Other Program Expenditure 2,103,167$ 1,926,267 2,406,796 2,416,108 5%NET Revenues (Exp.) 718,002 550,327 420,460 330,517 (22.8%)

12.00 10.25 10.25 10.32 (4.9%)




Narrative Discussion and AnalysisThousands of gallons of water produced

UTILITIES - WATER PRODUCTION

The purpose of the Water Production Program is to provide water supply and treatment services to Los Alamos National Laboratory and Los Alamos County water distributors so they can provide safe, pure water to their customers.



FTE's

In FY2007, the year we started publishing this information, there was above normal precipitation with above normal

Expenditure per thousand gallons of effluent water provided

Total operating and maintenance expense per thousand gallons of water produced



100% 100% 100% 0.0%

1,245,586 1,458,459 1,420,686 6.8%

1.0912$ 3.8046$ 1.3331$ 10.5%

2.14$ 1.76$ 1.85$ (6.9%)

Year end results were poorer than expected. The amount of effluent water provided was lower than forecasted and the expense were higher. The expenses are related to rework of the effluent pump station.

The year end result of $1.85 per 1K gallons produced was much better than expected (forecasted at $2.15). Water production output was not a factor as this was only one percent below target. Expenditure levels were reduced. Actual expenses were $2,633,974 and the target was $3,064,224.

distribution of rainfall throughout the entire year. This resulted in less water usage in FY2007 for irrigation.


Percent of water tests in compliance with SDWA standards PRODUCTIONThousands of gallons of water produced

Total Operating and Maintenance expense per 1,000 gallons of water produced

Expenditure per 1,000 gallons of effluent water provided

COMPLIANCE - SAFE DRINKING WATER

148


Program Purpose



Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures '06-'091,921,978$ 1,898,853 1,687,556 1,410,453 (9.8%)

97,966$ 2,249,966 721,755 899,459 109%Other Program Expenditure 1,099,984$ 1,296,092 1,449,400 1,302,317 6%NET Revenues (Exp.) 724,028 (1,647,205) (483,599) (791,323) (203.0%)



Narrative Discussion and AnalysisNumber of water service disruptions per 100 customers:

Capital/Contracts Expenditures

Performance on this measure of .01 disruptions per customer was better than the target of 1.39 disruptions per 100 customers. Fewer disruptions during FY09 were due in part to capital improvement projects, such as Diamond Drive, that replaced antiquated water lines. Disruptions occur mostly due to burst pipes.

UTILITIES - WATER DISTRIBUTION

The purpose of the Water Distribution Program is to provide potable and fire suppression water supply services to Los Alamos County utility customers and the Los Alamos Fire Department so they can meet their consumptive and fire protection needs at a competitive price.


Revenues

Average LAC customer 6,000 gallon bill compared to neighbors:

Operating and maintenance expenditure per customer served:



1.57 0.03 0.01 (90.5%)

2 2 2 0.0%

70% 82% 79.5% 6.9%

Performance MeasuresRELIABILITY OF SUPPLY

While the average LAC customer's water bill of $29 for six thousand gallons is less than the actual neighboring communities’ average bill of $37, the DPU performance for this measure is below the target. DPU set a target that its customers bills would be 71 percent of its neighboring communities and instead it was 79 percent. DPU increased water wholesale rates, however retail rates during 2009 remain the same.

RATE BENCHMARKAverage LAC 6,000 gallon bill as compared to neighbors {see below}

Number of water service disruptions per 100 customers

In FY2007, the measurement included capital expenditures. FY2009 expenses were higher than FY2008 expenses largely due to higher meter change out expenses in FY2009. Another factor to higher cost per customer served was that the average number of customers served declined due to billing cycle timing due to weekends and holidays.

ISO rating for water system

149


UTILITIES - WATER DISTRIBUTION

97% 0% 96% (0.5%)

7,150 7,185 7,073 (0.5%)

470$ 168$ 209.65$ (33.2%)

913,014 1,123,042 973,081 3.2%

2.17$ 2.17$ 2.32$ 3.5%

720,433 800,273 781,692 4.2%

4.68$ 4.78$ 4.74$ 0.6%

FY2007 FY2008FY2009 Actual

LAC 6,000 gallon bill 29.34$ 29.34$ 29.34$ Avg Espanola and Santa Fe

AVERAGE

CUSTOMERS

Percent of water customers rating service as good or excellent

Thousands of gallons of water purchased

[1] In FY2007, the measurement included capital expenditures.

Number of water customers servedOperating and Maintenance expenditure (excluding cost of water) per customer served [1]

Thousands of gallons of water sold

SALES

Revenue per 1,000 gallons of water sold

PURCHASES

Cost per 1,000 gallons of water purchased

AVERAGE 6,000 gallon bill 42.12$ 35.80$ 36.89$ Percentage (Ratio) 70% 82% 79.5%

29.34

29.34

29.34

42.12

35.8

36.89

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

FY2007 FY2008 FY2009

Water Distribution 6,000 gallon Water Bill Comparison

LAC

Espanola & Santa Fe

150


Program Purpose



Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures '06-'096,135,951$ 3,517,591 3,388,282 3,332,776 (18.4%)2,850,515$ 10,523,356 2,446,793 1,488,968 (19.5%)

Other Program Expenditure 2,180,532$ 2,186,568 2,329,962 2,676,806 7.1%NET Revenues (Exp.) 1,104,904 (9,192,333) (1,388,473) (832,998) (191.0%)

10.00 10.13 10.13 9.66 (1.1%)





UTILITIES - WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT

The purpose of the Wastewater Program is to provide sanitary sewer collection and treatment services to Los Alamos utility customers so they can have their wastewater safely and efficiently handled, and that downstream communities can have an environmentally safe river and effluent customers can receive inexpensive irrigation water.



FTE's

Thousands of Gallons of sewage conveyed:

Expenditure per thousand gallons of sewage conveyed:

Expenditure per thousand gallons of sewage treated:

Gallons of effluent water reused:

The actual 451,640,000 gallons conveyed was below the FY2009 forecast of 510,038,000 due to a reduction in the gallons of water sold. Sewage conveyed is based on water use by customers. The fiscal year 2010 target was lowered to 450,000,000 to more accurately reflect actual performance. Additionally, in looking back at all three years' history, it is important to recall that a new billing methodology was used during FY2007. The billing methodology that was implemented for FY2007 billed customers based on their winter water consumption average or the current month, whichever was less. This contributed to the department underbilling customers in FY2007. Therefore, in June 2007, the County Council adopted an adjustment to the methodology to eliminate underbilling.

Although the expenses were within target, the gallons of sewage conveyed were significantly below target, thereby increasing the expenditure per thousand gallons of sewage conveyed. Expenditures were within line with adopted budgets.

The change in expenditure per 1,000 gallons of sewage treated is due to 2-3 employee vacancies during FY07; lower sewage treated volumes (15% reduction in comparing FY09 to FY07 volumes) and the new treatment plant opening in FY08 (September 2007).

The target for gallons of effluent water was overstated. This target was revised to 75,000,000 for fiscal year 2010. In FY2007, the year we started publishing this information, there was above normal precipitation with above normal distribution of rainfall throughout the entire year. This resulted in less water usage in FY2007 for irrigation.

151


UTILITIES - WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT

Percent of sewage lost during conveyance:

Operating expenses per sewer customers served:

The FY2009 result for this measure was better than targeted.



98% 100% 100% 1.0%

363,182 441,351 451,640 11.5%

2.0200$ 2.0700$ 2.3004$ 6.7%

1.4068$ 1.8400$ 2.2500$ 26.5%

Expenditure per 1,000 gallons of sewage conveyed

Expenditure per 1,000 gallons of sewage treated

Percent of NDPES permit samples in compliance with environmental safety standardsPRODUCTIONThousands of gallons of sewage conveyed

Performance MeasuresCOMPLIANCE - ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY STANDARDS

Sewage lost during conveyance was higher FY2009 due to the reworking of the effluent pumping station meters.

Thousands of gallons of effluent48,026 76,344 58,042 9.9%

0.0165% 0.0000% 0.0555% 83.4%

0.01 0.04 0.03 74.1%FY09 Actual

91% 0% 91% 0.0%

6,830 6,945 6,734 (0.5%)

1,765$ 373$ $ 417 11.8%

Percent of sewage lost during conveyance

Number of sewer customers served

Thousands of gallons of effluent water reused

Number of sewer back-ups per 100 customers

Percent of sewer customers rating collection services as good or excellent

Operating expenses per sewer customer served

CUSTOMERS

RELIABILITY OF SUPPLY

152


final los alamos fy2009 performance report 04.05.10

Documents