HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council-Agenda Packets-5/20/2010.~w:.- City of Colleyville
~~ ~ Agenda
,:.:.
City Council Worksession
City Hall
100 Main Street
Colleyville, Texas 76034
817. 503.1000
www.colleyville.com
Thursday, May 20, 2010
6:00 PM
Executive Conference Room
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION
2a Presentation and discussion of regionalization of public safety
communications and jail services
2b Update of the General Fund and Debt Service Fund Financial Forecast
2c Review and discussion of agency support and in-kind services
2d Discussion of health insurance renewal and bid process
2e Presentation and discussion of a long-term strategy to link Colleyville's
wellness program and health benefits plan
2f Review and discussion of the City's retirement plan through Texas
Municipal Retirement System
2g Review and discussion of the 2010 Compensation Analysis
2h Presentation of the 2010 Employee Opinion Survey
3. ADJOURNMENT
I hereby certify the above agenda was posted on the bulletin boards at City Hall on Friday,
May 14, 20 , by 5:00
C this Singleton, TRMC, CMC
City Secretary
Any matter on this agenda may, at the discretion of the governing body, be opened for public
comment and discussion.
If you plan to attend this public meeting and have a disability that requires special
accommodations, please advise the City Secretary at least 48 hours in advance at
817.503.1133, and reasonable accommodations will be made to assist you.
City of Colleyville Page 1 Printed on 5/14/2010
.~4,
~ City of Colleyville 100 Main Street
Colleyville, Texas 76034
~,,::: Agenda Briefing 817.503.1000
www.colleyville.com
File Number:
File Type: Presentation and
Discussion
Status: Presentation and
Discussion
Version: 1
Requester: Police Department
Agenda Date: 05/19/2010
Agenda No.: 2a
Controlling Body: City Council
Worksession
Final Action:
File Name: Presentation and discussion of regionalization of public safety communications and jail services
Attachments: Public Safety Regionalization Presentation.pdf
History of Legislative File
Version: Date: Acting Body: Action Text:
1 05/19/2010 City Council
Worksession
1 05/20/2010 City Council
Worksession
Title
Presentation and discussion of regionalization of public safety communications and jail
services
Explanation
In 2009, it was determined acost-benefit analysis should be conducted to explore the
possibilities of participation in a regional dispatch and jail that would increase efficiency and
effectiveness in detentions and 911 communications. As a result, the feasibility of
participation in a regionalization opportunity was included as a part of the 2010 Annual
Workplan for the police and fire departments. Work on this project was delayed until
second quarter of Fiscal Year 2010 (FY 2010) pending the selection of new police and fire
chiefs.
In January of 2010, the regionalization research resumed following the appointments of
Chief Dye and Chief Shelley to their respective positions. The chiefs met and agreed upon
a course of action, which included the identification of any suitable partners, acost/benefit
analysis and a level of service study. The scope of the research included a review of the
number of calls for service each year for the Colleyville Police and Fire Departments;
availability and compatibility of regional partners; affect on current operations; and an
analysis of the Colleyville Police Department jail, as it would be impacted by the removal of
any dispatch personnel.
The initial stage of the regionalization study focused on the identification of any suitable
partners. It was recognized that the jail, in addition to dispatch, needed to be included in
any regionalization efforts due to the fact that Colleyville Police dispatchers are also tasked
with monitoring the jail population and assisting with jail paperwork, thus intertwining the two
City of Colleyville Page 1 Printed on 5/14/2010
Agenda Briefing Continued
operations. Over the last several years, most area police and fire chiefs have been
discussing regionalization as a means to eliminate redundancy and operate at more
efficient levels. An analysis of Colleyville dispatch and jail workloads concluded that the
combined workload for the City does not solely justify astand-alone operation if a suitable
partner can be identified that offers the same or enhanced levels of service and cost
avoidance through the elimination of a jail operation. The search for a suitable partner
focused on available physical space, as well as similar city demographics, size, levels of
service, dispatch and operational protocol, and records management systems. After a
thorough search and review of area agencies, it was determined the Keller/Southlake
dispatch and jail center is a potential match for Colleyville.
The Keller/Southlake dispatch and jail center has been jointly operating since 2007. Police
and fire calls for service are handled for both agencies out of the City of Keller dispatch
center and both cities utilize the Keller jail to book and house prisoners. The Colleyville
police and fire chiefs independently met with their Keller counterparts to research and tour
the Keller facility. Each was pleased with the physical accommodations, as well as the
similar protocol, standards of operation and service levels. Additionally, City staff leadership
met with city staff leadership from the City of Southlake and discussed their satisfaction with
the joint operation. The Southlake officials indicated they are extremely pleased with the
regional operation and believe it enhances Southlake's level of police and fire service while
also allowing them to operate more efficiently from an operational perspective, as well as
from a fiscal standpoint. Staff agrees the Keller/Southlake regional center offers a suitable
partnership for Colleyville dispatch and jail operations.
Regionalization with Keller/Southlake is feasible for several reasons. Keller and Southlake
have been successfully operating together for almost three years and all three cities have
similar demographics and expectations of service. The chiefs from the three cities are
committed to successful regionalization and attentive stewardship of city resources in terms
of cost effectiveness and providing enhanced levels of service. The cities of Colleyville,
Keller, and Southlake currently share the same records management systems, operating
standards, and dispatch protocol, as well as contiguous borders with mutual aid compacts
already in place. Colleyville has a need for jailers and the regional center offers the
capacity to house prisoners from the three cities with room for expansion. Regionalization
appears to be the future direction for small and medium size agencies in order to reduce
redundancy and improve service and staffing levels, especially in the midst of challenging
budget times.
The overall purpose of adding Colleyville to the Keller/Southlake regional dispatch and jail
center is to achieve a more effective and efficient delivery of public safety services to all
three communities while reducing redundancy. The advantages of regionalization with
Keller/Southlake include:
Improved public safety services to all three communities;
Increased exposure to other departments enhances inter-departmental cooperation;
Reduction of redundancy of operations;
Less time in handling prisoners resulting in increased time on the streets for officers;
Better utilization of building and technical resources;
City of Colleyville Page 2 Printed on 5/14/2010
Agenda Briefing Continued
Increased training time for employees;
Cost savings and cost avoidance;
Sufficient staffing for a dedicated fire dispatcher;
Improved sharing of police and fire data; and
Improved compliance with national standards.
If regionalization does occur, Colleyville residents will experience no differences in calling
911 and the levels of police and fire service will not be adversely affected. Since Colleyville
shares a contiguous border with Keller and Southlake, regionalization would allow
dispatchers to dispatch other agencies, if they are closer, to calls near the city's borders.
This could result in faster response times for public safety services as the other agencies
could provide emergency assistance until the primary city agency arrives on scene. If
Colleyville does join with Keller and Southlake, the regional dispatch and jail center would
never expand past the three cities in order to ensure and maintain high levels of service.
The City of Colleyville 911 Communications Center has eight full-time positions currently
consisting of one supervisor, six dispatchers, and one vacancy. The only identified
disadvantage of regionalizing with Keller/Southlake would involve the elimination of City of
Colleyville positions. If regionalization occurs, then at least four Colleyville employees
would be transferred to City of Keller employment since the regional center is located in
Keller. Any openings prior to the proposed transition date of October 1, 2010 would also be
held for Colleyville dispatchers making it possible for additional positions to be transferred.
Furthermore, other area police chiefs have committed to giving preference to Colleyville
dispatchers should they have any openings in their respective dispatch centers prior to
October 1. All Colleyville dispatchers transferring to Keller would be placed on a pay scale
closest to their current salary and would receive an additional stipend for working in a
regional center and assuming additional responsibilities. After one year of successful
employment with Keller, the Colleyville dispatchers would be placed on the seniority list and
given full credit for their past years of service in Colleyville in regard to longevity pay,
vacation accrual and shift bidding. Colleyville dispatchers would be subject to a
pre-employment drug screen prior to becoming City of Keller employees and their TMRS
benefits would transfer.
The total costs of the regional center would be shared among the three cities and paid in
direct proportion to their respective dispatch and jail workloads. Currently, the Colleyville
dispatch operations consist of eight total positions while the three city concept would
facilitate 21 total positions consisting of one manager; one supervisor; two shift supervisors;
and 17 dispatchers. The Colleyville operation typically has two dispatchers working on each
shift while the regional center would have four dispatchers and one supervisor on each shift.
The increased staffing in the regional center would facilitate more opportunities for training,
allow for a dedicated fire dispatcher and provide future cost savings through shared
expenditures for required technology upgrades. The Colleyville portion of the
communications component in the regional center would equate to 16% of the total
workload while Keller and Southlake would be responsible for 42% each. The current
annual cost for 911 communications for the City of Colleyville is $491,958. The annual cost
under a regional agreement would be $275,067 resulting in a savings of $216,891 for
communications.
City of Colleyville Page 3 Printed on 5/14/2010
Agenda Briefing Continued
The Colleyville Police Department does not employ any jailers and prisoners are booked in
and monitored by patrol officers and dispatchers. If Colleyville joins the the regional jail, it
would consist of six full-time jailers and one supervisor. The regional jail would average a
daily prisoner population of nine prisoners and has capacity for 14 prisoners. Additionally,
the Keller jail has Live Scan and AFIS digital fingerprinting and warrant verification systems,
which are two items currently not in place in the Colleyville jail. The Keller jail also meets
Texas Commission on Jail Standards, Texas Police Chief's Recognized Best Practices
Standards and the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA)
National Standards. Colleyville officers currently expend approximately 2,400 hours a year
booking and checking on prisoners, which equates to 1.14 officers annually. Under the
regional concept, jailers would book in prisoners and care for them so Colleyville officers
would only encumber about 800 hours, or 0.38 officers, a year transporting prisoners to
Keller. The Colleyville portion of the jail activity would be 24% of the total workload with
Keller encumbering 48% and Southlake 28%. Current annual costs for the jail in Colleyville
are $35,888 and regional jail costs would be $99,297 annually, which is an additional
$63,409 each year. The removal of the jail from the Justice Center would result in cost
avoidance due to the loss of prisoner care responsibilities.
A summary of annual costs are as follows:
Current Annual Costs
Communications $491,958
Jail* $35,888
Total $527,846
*Jail costs of $35,888 include hard costs of $7,888 and soft costs (prisoner medical
transports) of $28,000.
Regionalization Annual Costs
Communications $275,067
Jail $99,297
Administrative* $38,000
Total $412, 364
*Administrative costs include information services, administration, and human resources
costs.
The estimated savings for the first year would be approximately $115,482; however, there
would be some one-time equipment and configuration costs (approximately $30,000) as the
addition of Colleyville to the regional center would require adding a console in the dispatch
center. It has been recommended that future costs would be determined on a three-year
average of the dispatch and jail workloads for each of the three cities.
If regionalization occurs, the recommended transition date would be October 1, 2010 and
the initial contract would be for six years to coincide with the Southlake agreement. In 2016,
upon the expiration of the initial six year term, there would be an option for two additional
City of Colleyville Page 4 Printed on 5/14/2010
Agenda Briefing Continued
five-year terms. The contract would include an option for exiting the regional center upon a
24-month written notification. The City of Keller would make annual notifications to the City
of Colleyville regarding the estimated costs for the upcoming budget year by May 30 and no
more than 5% could be added to that estimate prior to October 1 of the same year.
Performance measures would be agreed upon by all three cities and monthly reports would
be provided to each agency. The police and fire chiefs from all departments would be joint
decision makers regarding operations, protocol and standards with the Keller police
administration handling day-to-day personnel matters. The Colleyville Municipal Court
would share duties in the arraignment of prisoners and joint processes regarding the
collection of fines and bonds would be agreed upon.
If regionalization occurs, the Tarrant County 911 District is interested in leasing the
Colleyville dispatch center space for use as a permanent 911 back-up site for northeast
Tarrant County. Tarrant County 911 is willing to sign a lease on the same cycle as the
regional agreement and is also amenable to a 24-month written notice of cancellation.
Tarrant 911 would pay the City of Colleyville, on an annual basis, to lease the space
vacated by Colleyville dispatch and has also agreed to help with the aforementioned
one-time costs of moving into the regional center. By using the Colleyville space as a
back-up site, Tarrant County 911 would be responsible for keeping the communications
equipment up-to-date and in good working condition. As a result, this would strengthen any
exit strategy and require only the rehiring of personnel to move dispatch and the jail back to
Colleyville should that be necessary in the future.
Should City Council desire, this item will be placed on the June 1 Pre Council agenda for
consideration and to address any additional questions and receive final direction from
Council. If approved, the relocation planning process would begin immediately following the
June 1 City Council meeting and a contract would be drafted. The public information
process would also commence and arrangements would be made to handle after-hours
traffic at the Justice Center.
It is estimated that regionalization would result in cost savings; however, the main focus of
the regionalization proposal is to provide enhanced levels of public safety service for
Colleyville citizens and facilitate the removal of prisoner care responsibilities. Staff
recommends proceeding into contract negotiations with the City of Keller for regional
dispatch and jail services.
City of Colleyville Page 5 Printed on 5/14/2010
PUBLIC SAFETY
REGIONALIZATION
Communications and Detention Center
Services
Colleyville - Southlake -Keller
Purpose
Adding the City of Colleyville to the Keller /
Southlake Regional Dispatch and Jail
Center will achieve a more effective and
efficient delivery of these key public safety
services to Colleyville while reducing
redundancy.
Advantages
• Improved public safety services to all
three communities
• Increased exposure to other
departments enhances inter-
departmental cooperation
• Reduces redundancy of operations
Less time handling prisoners/increased
time on patrol in Colleyville
Advantages
•Better utilization of building and technical
resources
•Increased training time for employees
•Cost savings and cost avoidance
•Dedicated fire dispatcher
•Improved sharing of police and fire data
•Improved compliance with national
standards
Noticeable Differences to
Colleyville Residents?
• Seamless service - Colleyville residents
will experience no differences in calling
the 911 Regional Center as opposed to
calling Colleyville 911 dispatch
• Levels of service will remain the same
or improve
• Enhanced coverage for areas near
contiguous borders
Disadvantages
• Loss of Colleyvilie employees
Feasibility
• Track record of success. Keller and
Southlake have been operating a merged
center since 2007
Understanding and commitment from
police and fire administrators that
consolidation of services is cost effective
and offers enhanced service
• Similar demographics and expectations of
customer service
Feasibility
• Colleyville, Keller, and Southlake currently
utilize same records management
systems, standards of service, and
dispatch protocol
All three communities share a contiguous
border and Police/Fire/EMS mutual aid
compacts already in place
• Regional Dispatch and Jail Center in
Keller has capacity for expansion
Feasibility
• All three cities would like to improve
staffing levels of dispatch centers and jails
but face budget obstacles to do so
• Future direction for small to medium size
departments
• Cost avoidance through eliminating need
for dedicated jail staffing
Staffing and Workload
Analysis
Current Staffing Levels
Colle, vile
Dispatch
- 1 Supervisor
- 7 Dispatchers
Regional Center
Dispatch
- 1 Manager
- 1 Supervisor
- 2 Shift Supervisors
- 17 Dispatchers
Jail
- Officers and
dispatchers jointly
manage jail operations
Jail
- 6 Full-time Jailers
- 1 Supervisor
Dispatch Activity Comparisons
Activity Keller Southlake COlleyville Total
Increase
Radio 36% 38% 18% 92% 18
Traffic -
POlice
RadlO 4% 2% 2% 8% 2
Traffic-
Fire
POlice 101,949 102,768 42,959 247,676 17
Calls
Fire Calls 2,427 1,780 1,430 5,637 25
Phone 73,840 60,414 22,578 156,832 14
Calls
9-1-1 14,452 12,677 7,560 34,689 22
Calls
Dispatch Operations
• Regional Center Workload Percentages -
Based on 2009 Total Police and Fire Calls
- Colleyville 16%
- Southlake 42%
- Keller 42%
• Total Regional Center Dispatch Staffing = 21
- 17 dispatchers, 1 manager, 1 supervisor, 2 shift supervisors
• Positions staffed based on needs analysis
• Increased staffing will facilitate dedicated fire dispatcher for the first
time ever
• Colleyville addition would add 1 full-time position (shift supervisor) to
regional center bringing total to 21
Dispatch Staffing
~Celle.r Chief of Police: Advisory Board
~~ - Police and Fire Chiefs from Keller,
Southlake 8~ Colleyville
._ i
Regional Emergency
Communications
Manager
Regional Communications Supervisor
8:OOam-5:OOpm
M-F
Days 1 lam-7pm
Dispatcher Dispatcher
Dispatcher Dispatcher
Nights 1 7pm-lam
Shift supervisor with radio/phone
responsibilities
Dispatcher Dispatcher
Dispatcher Dispatcher
Days 2 lam-7pm
Dispatcher Dispatcher
Dispatcher Dispatcher
Nights 2 7pm-lam
Shift supervisor with radio/phone
responsibilities
Dispatcher .Dispatcher
Dispatcher Dispatcher
Relief/Power Shift
10am-10pm
How Do We Merge Colleyville
Employees
• At least four positions will be transferred
from Colleyville
- 3 Dispatchers and 1 Jailer (additional positions possible)
• Only entry test is apre-employment drug
screen
• If vacancies should occur in the months
leading up to the merger
Center, the positions will
Colleyville Dispatchers
at the Regional
first be offered to
How Do We Merge Colleyville
Employees
• Commitment made to Colleyville
employees to have them placed with other
area police agencies, if necessary
• After one year of successful employment
at the Regional Center, former Colleyville
Dispatchers will be placed on seniority list
and given full credit for their past years of
service in Colleyville in regard to longevity
pay, vacation accrual, and shift bidding
Dispatcher Compensation
• Will be placed on Keller Dispatcher pay
scale at the closest rate to their current
salary in Colleyville
• Dispatchers will receive an annual stipend
for working in the regional center for
assuming additional responsibilities in
servicing three agencies. Should result in
enhanced service through increased
retention rates and higher experience
levels
Regional Dispatch Costs and
Benefits
• Annual Estimated Cost $1,719,163
• Keller $722,048 (42% share)
• Southlake $722,048 (42% share)
• Colleyville $275,067 (16% share)
• The regional dispatch cost is $216,891 less per year to
Colleyville than costs for a stand alone operation (current
communications cost - $491,958)
• Improved service to the community and officers
/firefighters
• Improved staffing level and increased training
• Real-time information shared between the cities
• Continued future savings in splitting technology and
equipment costs
• Should reduce turnover in communications center
Jail Activity Comparisons
Keller Southlake Colleyville Total
Increase
Arrests 1,544 901 777 3,222 24
Jail Operations
• Regional Workload Percentages -
Based on 2009 Total Arrests
- Colleyville 24% (777 Arrests)
- Southlake 28% (901 Arrests)
- Keller 48% (1,544 Arrests)
• Colleyville addition would add 1 full-time jailer to Regional Center
bringing total to 6 jailers
• Total Regional Center Jail Staffing = 7
- 6 jailers, 1 supervisor
• Combined average of 9 prisoners a day with the addition of
Colleyville
• Keller jail capacity = 14
Jail Operations
• Colleyville will now have jailers to free up
Patrol Officers from jail check
responsibilities
• Regional jail meets Texas Commission on
Jail Standards, Texas Police Chief's
Recognized Best Practices Standards,
and CALEA National Standards
• Regional Jail has Live Scan /Automated
Fingerprint Identification System (APIs)
capabilities
Regional Jail Costs and Benefits
Total Annual Estimated Costs - $413,737
• Keller - $190,319 (48% share)
• Southlake - $124,121 (28% share)
• Colleyville - $99,297 (24% share)
• Cost avoidance
• Colleyville will pay an additional $63,409 over current
costs, but will gain 6 detention officers
• Colleyville Police Officers will no longer be encumbered
with jail responsibilities
• 2009 time committed to booking and checking on
prisoners = 2,369 officer hours = 1.14 officers
• Estimated time committed to prisoners in the regional
concept = 800 officer hours = .38 officers
Regional Administrative Costs
Police Department Administration Annual Cost $160,000
- Colleyville $4,000 (2.5 % share)
- Southlake $7,200 (4.5% share)
- Keller $148,800 (93% share)
Human Resources Departm ent Annual Cost $400,000
- Colleyville $8,000 (2% share)
- Southlake $16,000 (4% share)
- Keller $376,000 (94% share)
Information Services (IS) Annual Cost $1,050,000
- Colleyville $26,000 (2.5% share)
- Southlake $26,800 (2.6% share)
- Keller $997,200 (94.9% share)
Total Annual A dministrative Costs $1,610,000
- Colleyville $38,000 (2.4% share)
- Southlake $50,000 (3.1 % share)
- Keller $1,522,000 (94.5% share)
Colleyville Recurring Costs for
Regional Center Participation
Dispatch
Jail
Administrative
$275,067
$99,297
38 000
Total Estimated
Annual Cost -
$412,364
ANNUAL COSTS SUMMARY
• Current Annual Costs
- Communications $491,958
- Jail * $35,888
TOTAL CURRENT COSTS- $527,846
• Annual Regionalization Costs
- Communications $275,067
- Jail $99,297
- Administrative $38,000
TOTAL REGIONALIZATION COSTS - $412,364
• Estimated Annual Savings for First Year - $115,482
*Jail costs of $35,888 include hard costs of $7,888 and soft costs
(prisoner transports) of $28,000
One-Time Equipment and
Configuration Costs
• Computer $2,000
• Dispatch Furniture $2,000
• Additional Phone/radio recording licensing fee $850
• Dispatch Wireless Headset $1,100
• Gold-Elite Radio Console $15,900
• Motorola Installation Cost x,,840
• Estimate Total $30,690
• One-time start-up equipment and installation costs to be reimbursed
by the City of Colleyville upon documentation of purchase by the City
of Keller
• Possible subsidizing by Tarrant County 9-1-1 District in pursuance of
the existing Justice Center space as an official communications
back-up site for northeast Tarrant County
Interlocal Agreement
Considerations
• Contract would commence October 1, 2010 and
run through September 30, 2016 (6 yrs.)
• Option for an additional two five-year terms
• Coincides with Southlake agreement
• 24-month written cancellation notification clause
for all cities
• Keller to make yearly notification of estimated
annual operating costs to each city by May 30t"
for the following fiscal year
• No more than a 5% increase can be added to the
May estimate for the October 1 start date
Interlocal Agreement
Considerations
• Both Cities to agree upon performance
measures and monthly service documentation
• Monthly Reports to be furnished to the City of
Colleyville by Keller Communications Manager
• Keller to involve personnel from Colleyville on
communications/technology issues through
formation of standing committees
• Joint court processes -arraignments, fine/bond
collections
Next Steps
If approved:
-Staff recommends start date of October 1,
2010
-Begin relocation process with area agencies
for employees not transferring to Keller
-Approve interlocal agreement
-Commence public information process
- Develop procedures for Justice Center
regarding after-hours traffic
~ City Mall
~~~~~~~~~-~ City Of VD~~eyV~~~e 100 Main Street
Colleyville, Texas 76034
Agenda Briefing 817.503.1000
www.colleyville.com
File Number:
Version: 1
File Type: Presentation and
Discussion
Agenda Date: 05/20/2010
Status: Presentation and
Discussion
Controlling Body: City Council
Worksession
Requester: Office of the City Agenda No.: 2b Final Action:
Manager
File Name: Update of the General Fund -Debt Service Fund Financial Forecast
Attachments: 2011 General Fund Preliminary Projection.pdf General Fund & Debt Service Fund Financial
Forecast-Including Fire Staffing (FY 2011 update).pdf
History of Legislative File
Version: Date: Acting Body: Action Text:
1 05/19/2010 City Council
Worksession
1 05/20/2010 City Council
Worksession
Title
Update of the General Fund and Debt Service Fund Financial Forecast
Explanation
Attached is the preliminary General Fund revenue estimate for Fiscal Year (FY 2011) and
below is a discussion of the revenue categories. Also attached is an update of the General
Fund and Debt Service Fund financial forecast.
Ad Valorem Tax: Currently, FY 2011 assessed valuation is projected to be
$3,476,096,996. This includes a .57% decrease over FY 2010 valuation and an estimated
value loss of $44,413,848 ($158,069 in ad valorem tax revenue) for the Over 65 and
Disabled tax freeze. The collection rate is projected at 98.5%. Projected delinquent
revenues are based upon FY 2010 estimated collections and a slight decline is projected for
penalty and interest due to a slightly higher current year collection percentage.
Franchises Tax: The franchise revenue for Oncor Electric and Atmos Gas is based upon
discussions with the franchise holders. There is a decrease in Tri-County Electric's
franchise payment as limited housing growth is occurring in their franchise area and the FY
2010 franchise payment was lower than projected. A slight decrease is projected in
telephone franchise fees, due to elimination of land lines and conversion to internet cable.
A slight increase is projected in refuse revenue due to slightly higher anticipated commercial
usage. Cable fees are projected to increase due to the telephone providers entrance into
the cable and internet market, and growth seen in their customer base and services.
City of Colleyville Page 1 Printed on 5/1M2010
Agenda Briefing Continued
Sales Tax: Sales tax receipts are projected to increase 1 % over the current year projection
of $2,333,639, due to the recent package store election. However, the FY 2010 sales tax
budgeted revenue was $2,561,375 and the FY 2010 projection is a 8.9% decrease (almost
$228,000). Mixed beverage tax is projected to be flat at $72,000 based upon FY 2010
quarterly allocations received in October, January and April averaging around $18,000 per
quarter.
Fines: Fine revenue, alarm, and library fine revenues are projected to remain flat for FY
2010. While it is anticipated fewer citations will be written in FY 2011, it is currently
anticipated that enhanced warrant collection efforts and recent conversion to a court of
record will yield the same amount of revenue for FY 2011.
Licenses and Permits: Revenues are based upon 82 new residential permits and five new
commercial permits for FY 2011. The estimated total revenues are almost $148,000 less
than the FY 2010 budget.
Charges for Service: FY 2011 Charges for Service revenue is over $34,000 lower than FY
2010 primarily due to projected lower recreation revenues and Colleyville Center rental fees,
due to economic conditions. Additionally, ambulance revenue is projected lower due to
lower collections from fewer transports having insurance coverage. Other revenues within
the category are relatively flat for FY 2011.
Miscellaneous /Transfers-In: Due to the investment interest rates to levels around .75%,
interest income is projected to be $75,000, which is $25,000 less than the FY 2010 budget.
The Utility Fund transfer is projected to be flat.
Expenditures
As FY 2011 departmental budgets are still being submitted, for contextual purposes the FY
2010 General Fund adopted budget was $18,981,970. This included an expenditure of
$702,000 for Saddlebrook street improvements that were funded from a drawdown of
available cash. Eliminating that non-recurring expense provides an expenditure base of
$18,279,970 for estimation purposes. Current revenue projections are $17,747,376 with a
revenue versus expenditure gap of $532,594. Prior to the August 2010 budget
worksessions, expenditures will be reviewed for reductions, so that a balanced budget is
presented to the City Council.
Financial Forecast
Also attached is an update of the General Fund and Debt Service financial forecast for FY
2011 through FY 2019, incorporating preliminary FY 2011 revenue projections and the
aforementioned FY 2010 expenditure base. Without new revenue sources, expenditures
will need to be reduced over the forecasted period, as is evidenced in the update. This
forecast will be updated for City Council in August 2010 at the budget worksession,
incorporating proposed FY 2011 expenditure levels.
City of Colleyville Page 2 Printed on 5/14/2010
FY 2011 GENERAL FUND REVENUE -PRELIMINARY PROJECTION
FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 10 FY 11
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET PROJECTED PROJECTED
GENERAL FUND
AD VALOREM TAXES
5101-CURRENT TAXES 8,875,764 9,634,051 10,226,024 10,232,149 10,072,720
5102-DELINOU ENT TAXES 62,479 77,127 72,000 66,000 66,000
5103-PENALTY & INTEREST 74,075 81,582 55,000 67,000 55,000
TOTAL AD VALOREM TAXES $9,012,318 $9,792,760 $10,353,024 $10,365,149 $10,193,720
FRANCHISE TAXES
5201-ONCOR ELECTRIC 869,180 885,325 828,667 818,484 815,000
5202-TRI-COUNTY ELECTRIC 110,560 124,580 125,000 108,334 110,000
5203-ATMOS GAS 338,969 476,945 352,000 341,528 345,000
5204-AT &T 126,011 123,931 122,000 120,000 118,000
5205-VERIZON/OTHERS 51,172 46,378 45,000 45,000 44,000
5206-GARBAGE/RECYCLING 125,363 124,741 126,000 126,000 128,000
5207-CABLE TV 196,806 236,102 225,000 265,000 265,000
TOTAL FRANCHISE TAXES $1,818,061 $2,018,002 $1,823,667 $1,824,346 $1,825,000
SALES TAX
5301-1%SALESTAX 2,478,981 2,482,595 2,561,375 2,333,639 2,356,976
5302-MIXED BEVERAGE TAX 82,532 74,197 72,000 72,000 72,000
TOTAL SALES TAX $2,561,513 $2,556,792 $2,633,375 $2,405,639 $2,428,976
LICENSES & PERMITS
5411-BUILDING 679,452 391,956 452,487 340,000 348,924
5412-PLUMBING 77,248 43,657 54,151 42,200 43,257
5413-MECHANICAL 57,230 34,120 34,180 29,000 28,868
5414-ELECTRICAL 68,921 36,515 44,940 37,000 37,568
5416-CITY LICENSE 68,027 48,180 58,265 39,000 37,372
5417-BUILDING PLAN REVIEW FEE 133,171 60,736 51,146 51,146 59,753
5418-NEW BUSINESS 2,216 2,641 2,190 2,190 3,372
5419-ANIMAL 940 876 1,400 1,400 900
5420-SIGN PERMITS 8,035 6,010 8,093 6,000 5,463
5421-FENCE PERMITS 5,805 3,650 3,675 5,000 4,920
5423-FIRE PERMIT FEES 12,550 10,963 12,000 8,500 1,000
5424-IRRIGATION PERMIT FEES 0 6,997 6,800 10,000 10,214
TOTAL LICENSES & PERMITS $1,113,595 $646,301 $729,327 $571,436 $581,611
FINES
5611-FINES 1,050,522 892,725 825,000 863,000 825,000
5612-FINES-ALARMS 51,525 51,930 45,000 45,000 45,000
5630-LIBRARY FINES 28,494 25,872 23,124 23,124 23,124
TOTAL FINES $1,130,541 $970,527 $893,124 $931,124 $893,124
FY 2011 GENERAL FUND REVENUE -PRELIMINARY PROJECTION
FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 10 FY 11
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET PROJECTED PROJECTED
GENERAL FUND
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
5511-PLANNING AND ZONING 8,669 5,448 4,645 4,645 6,765
5512-PLAT FEE 20,918 4,625 4,450 4,450 4,988
5514-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 1,375 625 1,313 1,313 1,250
5711-SALE OF MATERIAL 2,204 795 1,409 750 783
5712-WEED MOWING 6,948 7,218 7,500 10,000 14,770
5718-ANIMAL IMPOUNDMENT FEE 4,454 2,332 2,500 2,825 2,825
5721-AMBULANCE 253,018 236,389 245,000 245,000 240,000
5722-RECREATION PROGRAM 230,487 259,624 184,900 166,410 175,525
5811-ENGINEERING & INSPECTION 169,313 1,172 10,000 10,000 10,000
5812-CH GS & REIMBURSEMENTS 5,775 0 200 200 200
5845-LOT DRAINAGE INSP FEE 19,350 8,500 7,000 8,500 10,250
5855-FIELD USE CHARGE 18,720 23,085 18,100 21,485 20,500
5873-COLLEYVILLE CENTER FEES 259,152 237,964 244,400 200,000 210,000
5874-NON-RESIDENT FEE 24,170 22,840 21,900 21,440 21,000
TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICE $1,024,553 $810,617 $753,317 $697,018 $718,856
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE
5828-DARE OFFICER REIMB 85,517 89,792 89,792 89,792 89,792
TOTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVE $85,517 $89,792 $89,792 $89,792 $89,792
MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE
5714-SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY 0 26,105 3,000 3,000 5,000
5716-INTEREST INCOME 352,069 266,691 100,000 65,000 75,000
5719-MISCELLANEOUS 94,144 73,305 55,000 88,000 55,000
5832-ANTENNA LEASE 74,305 48,251 30,208 69,000 65,000
5790-USE OF AVAILABLE CASH 0 0 702,000 702,000 0
5867- LOAN I LEASE PROCEEDS 0 0 981,238 981,238 0
TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE $520,518 $414,352 $1,871,446 $1,908,238 $200,000
TRANSFERS IN
5872-TRANSFER FROM UTILITY FD 661,936 816,297 816,297 857,541 816,297
TOTAL TRANSFERS IN $661,936 $816,297 $816,297 $857,541 $816,297
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES $17,928,552 $18,115,440 $19,963,369 $19,650,283 $17,747,376
O
N w
Q
~ U
Z
W Z
O
a?
01 ~
N J
W
r ¢
O °
N w
~a
r
3~
aw
zo
LL
F
N
W
'o
Z
LL
z
w
O
M M M M N m m O N O ~
N~ m ~ V~~ V O R
vooivrmrn coo
rn MMmrnmrM u1o 0
m cornvmrM OM o
N9 M fA EA d! fA
N N UN9M N~
fA
~r'~rnu'Oi~m~cmo°o °m
00~ O NrM M O t~0
m ~m Ot{'1m rM Q) M 1~
O N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O
N ~ IA (A ~
M r v m m O M O M O V
mom~mmul e»mo r
M V~ N O O M N O M
tmD ~ O ~ Q fM0 N O O N
r N 11'l Q> N O r M Ol M ll1
N N fA fA ffl V3 tl9 di fA f9 N
~ ~
~~ ~ M ONO N~ f9 to O O
~ m ~ f~ m N O? N O r
N N V' ~I1 m N T •- O O
m ~~ O7 N M N O O N
_ u1 co u~1 s r r1 Q7 M ~
O N_ N M fA fA fA fA fA 0
N tl9 ffl N
to ~
m O O~ m V m fA m fA M
~nmMVMOm u1 r
M N Om0 M N V ~ m V
~ O h 0] V) 01 r M m m
G ~ N fA H 4Y f9 (A ~i
N H ~ Vi ~
M m m m r m 0 0 O O
° M N crD 7 m tMD N ~ N ~ tOD
W N N C r O O r t0
U~ ~u°~ro~rnnc°~ a1OO rmi
N !- N H N Ni di f9 Oi
O ~U9 di ~
a
ommrnmu~lo ono
d' ° ~ 1~ ~ ~N O M ~ ~ N ~ trD
W
} lU{.I ~ m V m f9 4Y {A fA f9 m
O r N m
N ~ N9 fA ~
U ~
<n a
LL
omulrnmulmoMO o
O ~ N m m 0 0~~ O~ N
U N t0 V orp umS 001 N N W N
W p O N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_
O N ~ ~ ~ ~
O m 0 ~_ v m N o r o m
Nr O .N-~Ob9 a7 f9 r
r O O m m r N M
riro ul rimm ~ r
rlv roumimrN m n
~ O N _ Vi (A t9 fA fA r
N ~ fA fA ~
m o v
N ~ c t00 ~ m
N N N M O
o ~ ~ '? v
~
~ fA
M r O O O O
rn r r rn m
r m v ci
p ~ O ~ U7
N
b9 N
EA f9
O N N
N m
V m
< r
O
co rn ~ r
m
m O
M m
r m
O) m
N
rn
m r
~ r
~ ~
~ N
M fA
O N ~
M m
N Y
T N
O
r O r O N
N
0 O
r N N ~
r
t
0_ ~ R ~
~ N M
b9 to
a
0~
r LLS
t0 m
N N
N m
O
m ~ o M M
0 0 ~ r
V r
~
N N
~ m
~
!fl
fA tl9
O ~- O O m M
~ M M r m ~
~ T V N m
~ ~ ~ N O
r1 ~ ~ ~ ~
f9 to
~ ~
ro
~ n
M m ~ M
N
M m
N •-
tD O
T 01
O
m N
~ O
~ rl
~ ~ ~
E9 fA
o m
a m rn
~ o
r r
N V ~
°
u1
~ r v
~ v
~ ~ ~
d3 di
O N
n cmo
N di
to
r ~
~ rn
~ ~
fA
W
w
W
U O
W
w
2
'a
U
~ 5
?ZZ ~ J
Z ~~
x
¢>~ w
~
W
U~ m F
~
~
U
J
z
O
Q
m 2-.
Y V
~F'a
~ OD°D W ~ Z W j 2 02
X
LLj d'QUU (ngLL LL W ~ Q2 ~ j LL ~ Q
~ O r x~ w J W S
O ~ ° W W O O m
2
>>~aw
c W~O
waU
?x~?~
~ ~
O a
x w
~ IQ-
o ~
w O
z j
Q~
?
w°¢~
¢ V] LL J nr
LL U~~ O m F" W LL ~ Z W D ~-
H
Z
W
F-
°
Z
O
H
Z
W
O
U
O
z
w ~
~ Z
w
R' ~
W
? O
j a
z
Oe
.°~- O vi
~~
~ ~ m ~
.- W
N N ° ~
} Q N
N LL ~ i
N W Z VJ ~
Y ¢ ° W w w W N
w w~¢Qy Jg
ww~ Z¢wW ~O
QHQ Uaa7Z W W AUK ~R
C W_ Z g U Z U ° u.
p U~ w a? Q ~ m~
zz°~¢°¢ ox
w~¢~JZaz ao
OZmZt7i e2° ~ °a
U¢N¢O.-NN oX
a`e oQw et d' i W W
Of~~NOW~W N?
rn
U U O LL
W W V1 w U y Y W
~~QW Z WX ~LLwZ ~Z y W
to r W a w O~ 7~ ~ w U
Fw~'~NNornz~ jma
~zaN~z~~g~ wiz
~w wz W
y>>J¢ww ~~ d}LL¢
a ~ °a ~ ~ J LL ~ ~ ~ ~ i
as
O
N
r
O
N
LL
Z
g
W
U
W
N
H
m
W
~ M CO CD O t~ QO O (O M
O~ N O N M O c- O ~ ~ ~
FW- m W M M LC') lC) O O 0 0 M CD
U~U COM~OMOMMN~N CO
~ 00 I~ M O ~ r ~ h ~ ~
~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d9 ER b9 EA fA ~
O O ~ Efl ER EA ER ~
~ I-
i O O O O O O O M ~
W U ~ Y oMp_ aMO aMO W aMO aMO aM0 aMO_ ~
~ Z W U * oooaoowwo 0
Wag~~ ~ ~ r ~ rn
J W ~ M• 69 [~T Efl fA d9 EA H} ER
W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WUf-W
~gZ~ ooouiuiu~uS
W vvva~rnrnrn
~ w ~ J ~ v~ E» ~» E» E» F»
W. M M M M M
W W N N N N N
O a f ti~ ti ti ti
O rn rn of aS of
~ J d4 ER EA EA fR
W
W ti ti
U ~ ~
Z W ~`-
O W O
ogQ ~~
N ~ W
m J
Q
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O (~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ Z N N N N O N O O~
O O N N N N M M M M N
O m 6R d9 lfl ER EA EA ER H} ER
N
0
O
r
W
W
U
Z
W
J
w
J
m
Q
Q
f--
J
Q
Z
Z
Q
W
Q
W
W
C7 CO Lf) O CO ~ 1~ M O
00 N ~ N V c0 O~ N
O Z M O O D OO (O M O I~
C7~ NOOCOU70aotiO
O z O O In M M M M M V
O ~ d4HN4EAEAERER69E,9ER
N LL
W
~ O ~ d' ~ 00 M O O
~ O I~ ~ In r M a0 f~ to
Q M O (D N A M f~ O I~
U rn rn rn rn oo ~i o 00
N .-~ .-~.-~~-
°o ~~~~~~~~~
N
O ooo~n
O Z I o M
CEO NOM
Z oD M O O
o ~ ~ rn ~ M
O~ ~e»v~~
N W EA
J ~
Q ~ N M~ ~ cD I~ O O
W W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
} N N N N N N N N N
LL
O
O
O
0
0
u-~
O
M
M
O
N
Ef}
M
r
O
if )
N
O
O
O
N
b9
O
O
M
rn
69
rn
M
N
rn
cfl
L[)
0
O
r
N
O
r
W
J
W
J
XOD
Q
H
J
Q
Z
Z
Q
Z
O
>~
Q
~ O
~ o
Q o
W
m °
0
~ r
J d9
~ ~
W
O
Z ~
W LLl
~ U
} Z
d J
U OQO
~ ~
~ Z
~ ~
~ LL
LL U
ti ~
cfl W
r ~
N_ m
r W
EA Q
W .-
U o
Z
}
Q W
CD ~
Z Q
~~_
W H
U W
~W
W U
~ Z
~g
m
W
~ m
Z ~
W Z
~ L.L
~ W
UO
" City of Colleyville 100 Main Street
Colleyville, Texas 76034
r,~.,. Agenda Briefing 817.503.1000
www.colleyville.com
File Number:
Version: 1
Requester: Office of the City
Manager
File Type: Presentation and
Discussion
Agenda Date: 05/19/2010
Agenda No.: 2c
File Name: Review and discussion of agency support and in-kind services
Final Action:
Attachments: Fiscal Year 2011 Agency Support Requests and Review.pdf Agency Requests for Fiscal
Year 2011 Presentation.pdf
History of Legislative File
Version: Date: Acting Body: Action Text:
1 05/19/2010 City Council
Worksession
1 05/20/2010 City Council
Worksession
Title
Review and discussion of agency support and in-kind services
Explanation
During the budget preparation process, City Council has historically budgeted funding in
City Council line item 6294 Council Expense for agency contractual agreements. Staff has
prepared the attached information based on the last two year's requests and funding
allocated, and the anticipated requests of the agencies for Fiscal Year 2011 (FY 2011). The
total of FY 2011 agency requests are $54,015 compared to FY 2010 funding of $45,515.
Keep Colleyville Beautiful requested funding for the first time in Fiscal Year 2010 (2010).
The FY 2010 request was for $5,000, $3,000 was allocated from the Colleyville Economic
Development Corporation budget.
Grapevine Relief and Community Exchange (GRACE) requested $15,000 in FY 2009 and
FY 2010 however; $10,000 has been allocated each year.
Colleyville Heritage High School Project Graduation has been suspended and a request will
not be forthcoming. Keller and Grapevine High School are continuing Project Graduation
and is dependent on donations. In the past two fiscal years, $200 has been allocated to
Keller and $1,000 each to Grapevine and Colleyville Heritage.
The Mental Health Mental Retardation of Tarrant County provides a youth recovery program
for drug and alocohol addiction. No recorded services were provided to Colleyville youth in
Status: Presentation and
Discussion
Controlling Body: City Council
Worksession
City of Colleyville Page 1 Printed on 5/14/2010
Agenda Briefing Continued
2009, however, 15 youth received care in FY 2008.
The Colleyville Area Chamber of Commerce allocation for FY 2010 was $5,975, which
provided:
• 6 -'/2 pages ads in magazine
• 5 -monthly luncheon tickets
• 1 -Bronze Awards Banquet table
• 1 -Director Sponsor of EXPO
• 1 -Leadership Colleyville participant
• 1 -City membership
• 1 -display table at each of the nine monthly luncheons
For FY 2011, the Chamber is requesting $6,500 plus an in-kind City sponsorship to utilize
the Colleyville Center for the monthly luncheons, which are conducted on the first Thursday
of each month. The Chamber would provide the City of Colleyville a display table and four
luncheon tickets at each monthly membership meeting in exchange for the use of Colleyville
Center and other in-kind services for the City provided by the Chamber would be
negotiated.
Potentially, the in-kind sponsorship to utilize the Colleyville Center for nine luncheons would
be valued at $6,700:
• $2,700 9 rentals at $300
• $2,700 9 maximum catering fees at $300
• $1,350 9 linen services at $150
Annually, the City also contributes approximately $6,000 through sponsorships of other
not-for-profit organizations: Metroport Cities, Grapevine-Colleyville Education Foundation,
Northeast Chamber of Commerce, Transportation and Infrastructure Summit, and North
Texas Commission.
The City also contributes approximately 312 volunteer and paid staff hours annually to the
following community programs:
Organization/Event Estimated Hours
Keep Colleyville Beautiful 150
Garden Club (Promenade) 5
Lions Club X-Sightment Run and Breakfast With Santa 55
Library Foundation Run 15
Child Protective Service 5K 17
Shattered Dreams 40
CHS Band Boosters 5
Bransford Family Run 5
Fire and Police Alumni Associations 20
City of Colleyville Page 2 Printed on 5/14/2010
3
as
C
N
N
O
fl.
7
V
}~}~
VI
r
r
O
N
L
~"
V
i.~
C •~ ~
~~ ~ O 0 N p ~
O
L "O
~ _
~ ~ m (a ~ N ~ ~ N "O
~
~ U .Q f~ "O (n N
_ N C
N }' ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ O O O ~ ~ ~ U
0 ~
•
~ ~
O
~ N ~ N ~ ~
N N O N
t0 p
C O
~
C U (0 ~ >,
~ ~ -
~ U ~ (/~ ~ ~
-O (~ ~ S
V T ~
N ~,
~ ~, =
~ O O U) O ~ . ~ ~ U
•
L ~ ~ ~
_
V • ~
Q c
C ~
O
f
6
f6 ~
N ~
N ~
fa O
~ ~
()
V ~ O
~~ v~ ~ M OU ~ O ~ L
U C~ -
Q ~ N U ~' "a O N
O O O O O O O ~ O
O
~ O
i ~ r O
O O O O
N O
O N O
N
Q.
E!}
f!?
~
6F}
b4
~
~
6F} ~
d4
a
O m o
0 0
0 00 0
0 0
0 o
0 O °o ~ °o
~
O
Ln
r- O
O
O
O
O
O
~ O
N
O
N Q-
Q M
6F} I~
Ef}
~ ~
Ef? ~
d~? M
(f} ~
~ N
F/-} ~
6F}
f., O O O O O O O ~ O
M O O O O ~ O O O ~ O
~ d ~ Cfl O O O N O N O
p ~
C, M 00 ~ ~ ~ O N
r
N d ~ ~
~ K3 EA EfT E!} E!? Ef} ffl 6F} Efl E!}
Cf
~
I~
~
07
O
O
f`
f~
` ~
Cfl O
M O
~
~, ~ O
ti
~, O
O O
~ ~
O
d O
~ O ~
r ~~
~ M O
~ ~
' M
~ ~ ti
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O
~ m e- M C O C O ~ O
N
Ef>
E!-}
d9 O Q'
~ 0
d4
ff3 O
~ Q'
~
d~}
6F}
b4
~ ~ uj ~ f6 ~ 0 ~ fB (6 ~ O ~ N 'O N C 0
N ~--~ N
V U ~ A L N
~ ~ ~ C
(Q
~
~ +r
~ ~
~
O 7 C
Q (Q fA
U C
(~
~ N O V
~ O _
O
O
~
~
N
~
U~
C O
~
c
• >
U fa L
N~ V ~ ~ 0
U
O1 '
~ ~ ~ ~
` Z, ~ ~ ~
O O
~
N
- O
"r
°~ N E
~ ~ ~ ~ o
~
v- Q c
~ O c
+
N O_
' >
'~ ~ ~
~ ~ LJJ
~ ~_
~ ~
~
c ~ v ~ - •
~ 3 ~ v ~
~ rt
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ N N o
Q O
O i '++ (~ O (~
~ U O
O
~ C
~~ ~
~ p ~ +
~O~ ~ •Z o
~ O
~ O M V ++ ' ~ L ' C O Q
V
~ ~
~ i N ~ ~
f6 Q
~ O ~ ~
•~ O O
~ O _ ~ N O (6
p ~ Q- C
N ~ N
N _ _ _ _
' c ~ m ~ oca c
a ~ o o ~, ~ ~~~ -a ~ ~
a=iE~c ~ O
o~U ~ ° ~ ~ L
o~ m ay a ~ = c`a~•a~ o '~ ~
ca
•`
~ °) E ~ ~ ~ O O ~ ~ ~ Q" c
c
vi c p ~ o c
C N ~ v ~ d ~ "- ca
'~ ~ Q ~ O O • • O O > ~ V O ea N U
N U ~
(~ N - > tn Cf ,~
~ ,,,., C
O~ N ~ ~ N~ ~ Q- O ~ _ ~ - a t ~• •~~, ~ O C O
•
w ~ •_ ~ c H = c
c6 ~ ~ ~ ~ co ca p ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ Q. ~ ~ ~ >
~
v ~ U Q cn Z ~ ~ W ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ = O
U O to c O
~ = N .O
C t N VU N ~ C N C~ rn G~ cC e~ ca Q ~ ~ c
C 0 V v) ~ ~ ~ N
•~ V N ~
i L L N Q ~ ~ Q
LL ~
~ ~ ~ •L ~
G> ~
C~ ~
N -
d ~ ~ ~ = N ~ ~ ~ ~
Q ° ° v °ui LL
Q o ° ~ C7 a
i C7 ~ 2 ~ 1 n Y a ~ ~ ~ o .~ cn E a~i ~°
N
c
N
N
0
N
O
O ~ ~
~ ~ N
~
dT ~} EA
O O O
O ~ ~
~ ~ O
~
~ ~
O r
O
O ~ O
r Cfl '~
O
69 Ef? EA
O O
O
O O 1~
~ ~
CO
~ M
r
to ER EA
a~ ~
c ~= c
c~ 3 ca
~
~
ca ~
a
~
i
a
U > O
~ ~ Q
.~ ._
a
Q o , N
L
~
~ ~
fl ~~
.
L ~
_ ~ V ~
~ C O
~
a ~
~ .
c
c~
~ ~
~ U ~ ~
H ~ ~
O ~
a ~ ~° .~
i ~
M ~, ~
>
~ Q
Q
,
~ .
N
~ ~ ~
d to _
'
o
Z ~ ~ >
~ .c c p a e~
Q ~ a~
~ ~ V a
~ ~
H
N
O
N
C~
4~
C~
V
c~
._
L.L
L
r/ /
(~
~/ /
OC
U
N
l~A
Q
O
4~
i
0
h~
VIN
M~
W
~V
O
U
U
O
~--~
O
N
1
ca
~ "a
~
d' N ' ~
m -_ U dA
•~ N
(Q
L ,
I~ ~ ~ ._
~
Z3 ~
O ~
+
C
cv +-
C N N
~ N
~ ~ ~
_
N ~ ~ ~ Q
O ~ Q
°' ~ 3 m N
U
v
O
Q 0
O 0
~
~ Q
c-1 O
r-I O
O
~ m
u.. th
C ,
~_,+
am
d
'
~-+ ~
~' 3
Ll1
O v rl
N ~ ~(/'~
C
v
L
q~ v
v
C
~ ~ ~
a m Q
~ N
Q~ 'O
C
~ L
O V1 ~
~ Q
~
~c N v ~ I ~
C
O
'
~ GO cC ~ ~ ~ O
. O
. ~ ~ t/
)
~ O to aa"',,, to ~ ~
~ O O ~ ~
O ~
O N ~ C tip 4A = +.+ (,
.
~ ~
• ~ 'N f0 fC ~ +~+ ~ N
N ~ ~ .~ V ~ 3 ~ +.+ ~
~ N ~
~
~ ~ G1 Q. ~ ~ C Q1
~
.r-+ N
~ O Ri fC O - L ~
m
~
V
v
Q
~
C7
C7
v _
3 _
Q
~
O
~ ~
O O O O
O O
O
O
O
~ ~j O O
~
.~ r-1
~(/~ rl
~J~- O
t/~ ui
trl~
~ O ~
~
~
~
r-I O ~
+~ ~
O
d
O' crj ~ N O I\
O
~
O O ~
v O
.-,.
~ ~ ~
t ~ D
v ~ _ ~ v
I-
w c V
' v V o ~
cz/) W
U j .,..,
v
Q ~ a..,
~'' a
~ V
~ ~
~
~ ~ ,
~ O
a ~ 'p
= a O
~ ca
m
Q C~ t~
C
Y
O ,~ C
O ~
s- N GJ
. ~ cC
M L LL
O ~ v ~ O
.~ N .~ ~ s-
~ (n ~ ~ fB ~
. N
~ C N i Q ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N
~ ~ ~ ~
to ~ s.. ~ ~ ~
~ 0 .; I
~+
N d' 't3
V
'a
v O to
p ~ O ~ ~
O N O O ~
N N ~ N r-1 c~i Ll1 ~
t} Q iJ~ i/~ iJ? i1~ t/~ i/~ i/1~
O LP1
O r~-I O O O O
~ ~ O N ~ O
\ ~
\ ~
O 1 `
~.
W J
L r
V r
~ l ^
y r l ^
V r f ^
V r +w
y r
~ C O O ~ O O O
O ~ O ~ O rl I~ O
O
O ~ ~ ~ l0 d' O O C~
O l~i~ril
~ ~ ~ V /' V !' Y l
_ ~ L
O O N N
O
~ ~
cB
0O
~ ~
L
G1
~ G +
+
~ N
~ d Q 4-
~
V a
Z
v
~
O
v
~ C7 O O O j •
_ V Q ~ ~ C = ~ ~ ~ ~
a..r • H
O N ~ ~ O ~
Q O
Y ~ = ~ ~ n ~ N
Q O ~
V O
V ~
a O t c c V 1
O
O
V
i
4~
C/1
i
N
L
0
L
O
3
Vf
`~
a~+
H
'is
4J
~.+
.~
of
W
O ~ ~ ~ ~ O u") ~ O
~ to ri r-I ~' N
N
C
O
a.+
W
.~
~+
N
.~
ago
L
0
~ ~
~ _
~U
~
m
o
U
O
~
~
v ~
~
~
~
~
U
c~
}'
~
c~
v
O
O
'~
L Y
~
c/1
v
°
a
~
~
v
~
i
m
c
m
~
LL
~
~ O
cNn
~
• C~
~
~
Y C7 J J U c/') U o0 i.i
.~":. City Hall
~ City of Colleyville 100 Main Street
Colleyville, Texas 76034
~~~~~ Agenda Briefing 817.503.1000
vrww.colleyvil le. com
File Number:
Version: 1
Requester: Human Resources
Department
File Type: Presentation and
Discussion
Agenda Date: 05/20/2010
Agenda No.: 2d
File Name: Discussion of health insurance renewal and bid process
Attachments: Health Insurance Renewal and Bid Process Presentation
History of Legislative File
Final Action:
Version: Date: Acting Body: Action Text:
05/19/2010 City Council
Worksession
05/20/2010 City Council
Worksession
Title
Discussion of health insurance renewal and bid process
Explanation
This item provides an opportunity for staff to present preliminary information regarding the
health insurance renewal and bid process.
In preparing for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 budget, staff met with the City's benefits
consultant, Cooper Corporate Solutions (Cooper) to receive the preliminary projected health
insurance rate for the City's current carrier, Aetna. Cooper estimates an increase of 25.59%,
or $448,728 for all funds for FY 2011, which is based upon actual claims data for the period
of January 2008 through December 2009. Additionally, staff and Cooper conducted a
review of the current plan design, group demographics, claims to premiums loss ratios, and
payments by benefit categories. The current health insurance plan includes one plan
design, which consists of a $1,500 deductible, 100% coinsurance, $15 office visit copay,
and an out-of-pocket maximum of $1,500. This plan is supplemented by a health
reimbursement arrangement (HRA) in which the City reimburses an employee for $1,250 of
the deductible expense after the employee pays the first $250.
The claims analysis, performed by Cooper, is based on 24 months of data from January
2008 through December 2009. The average number of participants in the plan during this
time period was estimated at 178 employees and 255 dependents. The average claims to
premiums ratio was approximately 86% and includes several months such as December
2008 (100%), March 2009 (111 %), May 2009 (151 %), and June 2009 (103%) where the
ratio was at or in excess of !00%. Pharmaceutical payments top the list as the highest claim
Status: Presentation and
Discussion
Controlling Body: City Council
Worksession
City of Colleyville Page 1 Printed on 5/14/2010
Agenda Briefing Continued
dollar cost for a benefit category followed by outpatient professional services of doctors and
payments to ambulatory facilities. Fortunately, since transitioning to Aetna in October 2009,
Colleyville has experienced only one large claim at just under $29,000, compared to six
large claims valued at $381,000 as of May 2009.
Comparatively, the City's claims to premiums ratio was 84% in 2008 and 84% in 2009.
United Healthcare's (UHC, the City's previous carrier) initial renewal offers for those years
were 19.4% and 25.3%, respectively. However, the final accepted renewals were
negotiated to -1.01 % with UHC and 7.99% with Aetna for the same years. Although UHC
agreed to a 1.01 % decrease in 2008, the City actually incurred an increase of 7.55% due to
the cost of implementing an HRA. Aetna's target claims to premiums ratio is approximately
81 %.
The HRA was implemented in FY 2009 as a tool to maintain the employee deductible
expense at $250, the lowest of our comparison cities. Staff and the Employee Benefits
Committee selected a plan design that increased the actual individual deductible to $1,500;
however, the City funded reimbursement of $1,250 of this cost through the HRA. An HRA
runs on a calendar year basis. For calendar year 2009, the City's HRA utilization was
$70,351, which was an estimated budget savings of $55,649. The HRA claims experience
as of March 31, 2010, is $18,309. Staff anticipates that this year's funding of the HRA,
budgeted at 35% of maximum potential exposure, will be sufficient for the remainder of FY
2010 claims.
Based on the significance of the 25.59% projected rate increase, staff initiated the bid
process for medical and dental insurance lines in early May 2010. Staff will work with
Cooper to negotiate with Aetna and other vendors for an acceptable rate and to analyze
possible plan design changes that could further reduce costs. Any design changes will be
recommended by the Employee Benefits Committee and reviewed by the City Manager's
Office prior to presentation to the City Council. Additionally, staff is working with the
Employee Benefits Committee and Cooper to design a health benefits plan that links future
insurance premiums to the wellness program and employee health. The details of this
program will be presented to City Council in an additional agenda item during the May 2010
budget worksessions. This effort will be viewed favorably by insurance carriers, as many
employers are not proactive about managing health care costs.
Medical and dental insurance bid proposals will be reviewed in June 2010. Staff anticipates
a final presentation with recommendations to City Council in July 2010.
City of Colleyville Page 2 Printed on 5/14/2010
C6
N
DC
4~
V
a--~
C~
4~
^~
W
V
O
L
m
C~
. N
^~
W
L
>O
~~
~.~I~/
m
~V
O
U
U
c-~
0
N
1
O
N
ca
-~'-+ ~
~ p O
N p O
J ~ ~ N
Q ~ ~ ~
~ p ~ -Q
Q ~
Z p oNO N ~ U
p
W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
p o 00 ~ Q
U Cfl ~ ~' p O
W Cn ~ N ~ `~ -~ 00
.O ~ ~ ~ p
Q. p ~ N ~ N
Z ~ -~-~ ~ ~ ~ CCU
V ~ ~ - ~ U i
Q ~ c~ ~ c~
~ C6 p ~ ~ ~
~+ - ~ ~ ~ ~
~ a~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ >
Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ U o ~ ~ O
~ ~ ~. p
~ p ~ ~ - ~
H N o~Q ~ ~~
J per' ~ ~~
.~ OD o0
a ~ ~ ~ .
w •
0
O
~--+
a~
(~
a~
Q
J
W
Z
W
W
V
Z
Q
OC
Z
Z
J
Q
W
2
~~
_~
Q
.~
Q
N
n/
T
~
_
U
\°
o ~
0
0 o a o ~ ~
~
~ a, ~: ~,
Ct3 ~'-~ N C~ -'-'
~ ~-
.~
U ~
~ -
~ ca
~ .~
U
~ -
~ (~
~
Q Q ~
p ~ ~ p ~
O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ - ~ ~ L- -
~
~= U ~ > ~ U
LL Q ~ Q
LL Q ~ Q
J .-~
Q ~
Q ~ ~
_ ~ cn
~' ~ cn
W ~ ~- °~ }.
Z °' ~ ° ~ a~
~ O ~ ~ ~
W a~ o ~~ ~ ~ ca
o .~ ~
~,~ n ~ ~ _~
~ ~ ~ U ~ U ~
~ L ~ cn ~ ~ N
U ~ ~ ~ ~
to o ~ ~ ~ i
Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
._ ._
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ C6 ~ o ~ v
-~ ~ c~ ~ ~ ~
Q = .° ~ m
w ~
J
W
Z
W
DC
W
U
Z
a
oc
z
J
Q
W
I
~--~
a--+
z
L
.~
L
U
O
c~
.~
a~
Q
.~
N
C6
O
Z
.~
N
t~
N
_~
(~
Q
.~
O
a~
O
U
O
N
.~
0
U
m
N
O
W
0
O
(CS
a~
0
U
N
~+_
N
N
~U
O
U
`' "' City Hall
' ~ City of Colleyville 100 Main Street
Colleyville, Texas 76034
~,~.;. Agenda Briefing 817.503.1000
www.colleyville.com
File Number:
Version: 1
Requester: Human Resources
Department
File Type: Presentation and
Discussion
Agenda Date: 05/20/2010
Agenda No.: 2e
Status: Presentation and
Discussion
Controlling Body: City Council
Final Action:
File Name: Presentation and discussion of a long-term strategy to link Colleyville's wellness program and
health benefits plan
Attachments: Linking Benefits to Wellness slides.pdf Attachment A -Benefits-Wellness Committee
Members.pdf Attachment B - FY 2011-2012 Program Structure.pdf Attachment C - FY
2011 Program Calendar.pdf
History of Legislative File
Version: Date: Acting Body: Action Text:
1 05/19/2010 City Council
Worksession
Title
Presentation and discussion of a long-term strategy to link Colleyville's wellness program
and health benefits plan
Explanation
Background
In Fiscal Year 2005, the City first implemented the Fit and Well in Colleyville wellness
program to offer employees the opportunity to develop healthier lifestyles. Since then,
program enthusiasm and participation has waned while health care costs have trended
upward. In an effort to encourage employee wellness and to help manage health insurance
costs, the City has begun developing along-term strategy of linking the wellness program to
the employee health benefits plan. In February 2010, the Employee Benefits Committee
and Employee Wellness Committee were combined into one team (Attachment A). The
Benefits/Wellness Committee (the Committee) worked with the city manager, the human
resources manager, and the City's benefits consultant, Cooper Corporate Solutions
(Cooper) to create and implement a program that will encourage a healthier workforce and
be a catalyst for more affordable medical insurance premiums for both employees and the
City.
Strategy and Program Development
The Committee evaluated best practices of
programs, both how they were structured and th
thorough discussion, the Committee determined
participation-based, and three-tiered program
numerous successful wellness/benefit
e content of their activity menus. After
a hybrid, or combined outcomes- and
would offer flexibility and incentive
City of Colleyville Page 1 Printed on 5/14/2010
Agenda Briefing Continued
(Attachment B) and be of long-term benefit to Colleyville.
Currently, the City offers employees one medical plan option. The City fully subsidizes the
cost for employee medical insurance and covers 75% of dependents' medical premiums.
The recommended program would include three tiers, each subsidized at a different level.
Assuming current subsidy levels remain, the Committee established a 7% differential
between each tier. The chart below illustrates the subsidy levels at each tier.
Subsidy Levels Tier III Tier II Tier I
Employee 86% 93% 100%
Dependent 61% 68% 75%
All employees would begin at the Tier III subsidy level and earn their way to Tiers I and II
through one of two methods. To reach Tier I, the first option would be to achieve in-range
health scores in four out of five risk factor categories, including waist circumference, blood
pressure, glucose, LDL cholesterol and HDL cholesterol. Acceptable ranges are
established by the medical staff at Cooper Aerobics Center. In the first year of the program,
the alternative would be to participate in a specified level of wellness activities. In the
second year of the program and in subsequent years, Tier I could also be achieved by
improving the health score over the prior year's data in four out of five categories and
participating in a lesser amount of wellness activities. To achieve Tier II in the program's
first year, employees could participate in wellness activities at a lower level than the Tier
requirements. After the first year, employees could improve in four out of five categories
and participate in a lesser amount of wellness activities to achieve Tier II. Employees not
achieving in-range health scores or choosing not to participate in any wellness activities
would remain in Tier III. In addition, the Committee determined that tobacco users would
not be eligible for Tier I, regardless of health factors or participation beginning with the
second year of the program. In August 2011, all employees will be required to sign a
tobacco affidavit to state whether they have used tobacco in the prior six-month period. Tier
II will be the highest premium subsidy level a tobacco user can achieve through meeting or
improving health factors, or completing wellness activities. However if employees cease
tobacco use during the year, there will be quarterly opportunities to update the affidavit and
attain the higher tier, effectively lowering the employee's premium cost mid-year.
The Committee also recommended that spouses be included in the program as they
represent a notable portion of the plan population, approximately 22%. Spouses could
achieve a different tier than the employee, and the premium subsidy would be administered
accordingly. The tobacco policy would apply to spouses as it would to employees. Other
dependents were not included in the program due to the statistical fact that dependent
children, particularly those ages 18 to 25, tend to be low utilizers of the plan in addition to
the difficulty in administering different rates for dependents versus spouses. Additionally,
part-timers would be eligible to participate in screenings and wellness activities even though
they would not qualify for City health insurance benefits at this time. Newly hired full-time
employees and spouses added to the plan during the plan year (outside of open enrollment)
would enroll at Tier III, unless they submitted to Cooper before the first day of benefit
eligibility medical information that qualified them for a higher tier.
Cooper would monitor who achieves which tier through management of the screenings and
results, activity point calculations and whether the employee and spouse are in different
City of Colleyville Page 2 Printed on 5/14/2010
Agenda Briefing Continued -
tiers. Cooper will report the information to Human Resources for determining appropriate
premium payroll deductions.
Lastly, the Committee considered statistical data on the City's employee population to
design a comprehensive program of wellness activities. During the City's annual Health Fair
in October 2009, Cooper conducted screenings and health risk assessments. Employees
and their spouses were invited to participate; 85 out of the 197 employees on payroll at that
time, or 43% of the employee population, participated in the screenings, and 81 employees,
or 41 %, participated in the health risk assessments. Cooper presented an analysis of
Colleyville's aggregate employee health, highlighting the risk factors that need addressing.
The recommended program will target those areas and focus on weight management,
nutrition, and fitness in the first year. Included activities are assigned certain point values
and consist of screenings; health risk assessments; online courses; challenges; health
seminars; attendance at the health fair; an employee picnic physical activity; and a walking
club (Attachment C).
Again, the ultimate goal of the program is two-fold. The primary purposes are to positively
affect the health and well-being of Colleyville employees and to proactively address the
rising costs of health care. These goals will be achieved through risk-factor-focused
wellness programming supported by a financial incentive via amulti-tiered subsidy with the
benefits plan.
Program Timeline
October 1, 2010 - 1st year =Risk factor screenings; Activities and Education
October 1, 2011 - 2nd year =Risk factor screenings; Activities; Premiums based on Fiscal
Year 2010 results that meet the risk factor ranges
October 1, 2012 - 3rd year =Risk factor screenings; Activities; Premiums based on Fiscal
Year 2011 results that meet or show improvement in the risk factor ranges
The preceding outline is the initial three-year time frame; however, the program would
continue beyond those three years.
Committee Responsibilities
The committee will continue to evaluate, structure, and communicate the program and
activities, based on the aggregate data from the screening and health risk assessments
annually to ensure employees are getting the information and activities that fit their needs.
The Committee will also continue to participate in the insurance renewal processes. It is the
belief that a strong wellness program with positive participation will have an equally positive
effect on future renewal rates.
Summary
Employees spend a significant portion of their time at work, so the City wants to provide a
work environment that is conducive to a healthy lifestyle and create a culture of wellness in
the organization. By creating a connection between wellness and benefits, employees will
begin to understand the link between their health and cost of medical insurance. In the end,
it will promote long-term lifestyle change. The Committee has designed a wellness program
that will likely reduce illness and medical claims, and subsequently premium costs, and
increase productivity and attendance, benefitting both employees and the City as a whole.
City of Colleyville Page 3 Printed on 5/14/2010
Agenda Briefing Continued --
Based on the plan's current population and premium pricing, and assuming a bell curve
distribution, the City can anticipate an annual savings of $107,873 after full implementation
of this program in fiscal year 2012.
Assuming subsidy levels as mentioned in the above text and current premium pricing, the
chart below illustrates potential changes to employee medical premium costs. The bolded
numbers reflect the current monthly premium costs to employees.
Employee Monthly Premium Costs
EE Tier III EE Tier II EE Tier
EE Only $63.72 $31.86 $ -
EE + Spouse Tier 3 $244.97 $232.55 $220.12
EE + Spouse Tier 2 $201.00 $190.81 $180.61
EE + Spouse Tier 1 $157.03 $149.07 $141.10
EE + Child(ren)* $166.86 $126.72 $91.03
EE + Family Tier 3 $385.21 $372.78 $360.36
EE + Family Tier 2 $316.07 $305.87 $295.68
EE + Family Tier 1 $246.93 $238.96 $231.00
*Dependent children would be placed on the same tier as the employee.
City of Colleyville Page 4 Printed on 5/1M2010
• •
O
._
~-
m
._
J
a--~
Ca
_0
Q
U
a~
c~
O
~+-
hA
a~
0
Q
(/')
-F-~
(/')
.~
c~
ca
^~
W
5...
0
~--~
t~A
m
V
O
U
~_
U
N
O
N
cv
0
V
a--+
fa
.
N
Q
~
~
O _
•~
~
~ N
~
~
o ~
`~
~
O
U
~ CaA
.~_
~
N -
~ ~
~
~
.
• ~
N ~ ~
~ ~
U
v ~ ~ a~
~ ~
~ (/~
~ Q~
~,
'
(/~ Q ~
o 0
U . U
L
O
~ ~
~ L
'+-' O
~'
~ ~ o
N
~ N
to ~
U U
~
Q
~
~ ~
~
v O v ~ p v
~- ~ 'N O 4`~-- N ~ N
O cn >
~
~
U
~
• ~-'
~ v
~ ~
QJ ~
L
~ ~
~
~
Q Q
~ ~
Q
a~-+
~
N ~
f~
~ ~
fB
Q Q (/) 0 ~ ~ N ~L ~ L
~ ~ v a-' U }' +~ ~ ~ N ~
Cn ~ ,~, ~ ~_ ~_ -
~ U U
tip Q ~ N ~ i ~ J ~ ~
~ o v ~ ' Q ~ ~, ~ p ~
> .
~
0
~~ ~
w -
p
~ O
U >
~- N
+-~ '-
p ~
~
~`_' v U , ~ ~ a.. w
~ ON a-+ ~ i- ~ O ±-' -~ ~ ca
~ J
/~ /C6 ~ ~~ ~ fa
o ~ ' ~ U
w O ~ C
7 _ O ~ ~
N ~
~-
~
Q
~
~
0
~ S
G
~
~
Q
~' ~ v v •~ ~ ~ c~ •v ~ ~- .
N
Q~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ L
~ v~ oC ~ ~ ~G oC w w U Q ~
~
.
i
N
ClA
c~
N
U
L
O
N
oc
C6
L
v
N
w
L
Q~
t]A
C
a.,~,
U
N
w
v
tQ
E
L
0
L
a
Q
O
Q
Q~
f~
U
-~
4-
O
V
O
(~
s
.~
-N
U
fB
CQ
V
.~
Q ~
..
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
a~ ~
~ U
~ ~
C~ ~
~~--+ ~
~ ±'
aA ~
•~ ~
N ~
~ ~
_~ ~
U ~
.~ O
~• 1
~ O
~ -
ca ,
~ +~
~ ~
DC ~
t/')
O
-i--~
U
f6
U
L
Q~
N ~
N ~
~ ~
~ L
~ O
~~
~ a~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ Ca
~ +~
N ~
U ~
~~ O
V }'
Q
O
~ ~
a--+ ~,
N ~
.~ ~
W
O ~
~ ~>
O O
~ ~
I I
N
. cn
O
4-
U ~
Q ~
O v
U ~
U ~
fB .~G
O ~
~ ~
fII C6
~ ~
~ N
~ Q
I I
a--~ a--~
~ ~
(/'~ (n to
~ -N '~
to (/') to
Q~ Q~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
(n (~ (~
Q~
._
._ ~~ ._
'~ ' N
~~
~ V ~ V ~ ~ V
~ Q ~` Q ~ ~
~ Q
~ ~ ~
• ~ cri ~
~ vi ~
~ vi
~ ~ ~ ~ aA
r-~I ~ N ~ ~ M ~
~
c --I ~ N ~ M ~
~ O ~ O ~ _
~ O ~
N v
~ N N
O N N
~ ~
O ~ ~
O ~
N ~ ~
O
C~ ~ V ~ V ~
O ~ V
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
O t/1 c~ ~ c,/)
L
O
oc
O
~C
~
O
oC
a
O
.-
O
O
a--+
0
0 0
I~ 00 ~-I
.~, lD lD
~ +~ a--~
4~ ~ ~
~ 4~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ 4~
~ ~ Q
Q ~ ~
~ 0
~ ~
O 0 0
N o m ~
4~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ o 0 0
a~ a~ a~
~ ~ ~
~ ~
o - o - o
._
~ - -
~ ~ ~ - -
~ ~ -
~
~ ~ w I- w ~ w
V1
~~
N
c~
4~
~_
ca
~ Q
L ~
V
N ~ ~
V ~
~ O
~ ~ ~ ~
~ - ~
~ ~ ~ ~ O
U
~ .~ ~ V
N
V cn ~ cn .~
~~ ~ ~ ~
.- ~ p p ~ t0
~ U ~ ~ ~
~ N ~ U U p ca
~ p ~ p - ~_
m = ~ ~ ~
V
~ Q~
~ _
L •- -_
~ ~ i
I..n . ~ ~_
~+- ~ ~--
O ~ +.~,
.~.., ~ ca
~ ~ +~
O ~ ~
d' +6
~ N
~ ~ ~
~ ~~ O ~
~ > •-
._ ~ ~
~ O ~
a- Q ~ ~
~ ~ ~ a~
._ ~ ~
p i ~ ~
~ O ~ ~
Q N ~ ~ ~
.. • - ~ O cn
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ a, ~ o
•V Q ~ ~ ~ Q
L ~ ~ ~ ~ .~
~ W ~ _ +-~ Q
• • • •
L
•
oa
.N
v
D
E
~a
a4
0
L
a
^~l
W_
L
_~
O
l~~
O
O
O
Q
01
W O
~ O
O N
t ~
N
~
~ ~
~ ~
s a
0
00
L
L
O
L
O
N
~+
L
00
a~
y--
O
saa/(o~dua3 #
d'
N
M
N ~
O
r
0
o~o~o~o~o
d' M M N N ~ ~
w./
p ~~
-I--~
~\
w.I
~ • -
^ , ~ -E--~
Q ~ V
N ~ Q
~ L
.~ .N ~ ~
~_ DC ~
~ ~
~^^~ ca cn ~- ' -
V a~ a~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
t/1 t~A O ~ ~ ' ~ 4.~ U
t/1 . ~ ; ~ U ~ cry ~ ~ t~A
4~ ~ ~ ~ = s ~ O ,~
._
c~ c~ -
~ ci Q O c~ _ = w
N - r ~ O ~ N aO0 ~ ~
N
U N
~ ~
v O
°~' M
M O
~` O
ti M
o M
o 00
o
O o
o
m ~~
M 0.
= ~-
M M
O ti
i~ ~
~ 00
~ 00
M O
N O
N
~,/`~
1 ~
t L
O
M
N
1~
00
00
N
O
I~
N
07
C~
O
M
I~
O
~
~+ F- d' t~ 00 00 CO O O ~
O O
~
L
~ Efl Ef} ~} ~} ~} H-} Ef} H}
/^,
~/ /~
~
~ -
Ln
r
00
~
V'
lf)
O
M
Q. _ ~ CO to ~ ~ O~ O N
W ~
~ r
O ~'
I` Op
r N
O N
~ M
O M
O N
M
M I~ M M O O O r
Ef}
Ef?
EF}
ff}
EF}
Ef? ~
4fl ~--
Efl
•~
N
-
~ N
r ~
O O
r M
O CO
M 00
CO O
O
.
~ L
I- O
N O
~ r
r r
O O l(7 r
N
U M N
s
V ~ ~~
s.
a -
~ ~
~ ~
00 ~
o N
r~ M
r~ ti
oo CD
rn
~+ L
O r
M N
M O
O ~
~t O
N N
f~ ~
O M
M
~
c ~--~ N ~ ~- ~ M M N
O
~
`~
~
__
ti
O
O
O
M _
N
O
07
L-
O M
O d'
~ ~
O I~
~ CO
~ lf> CO CO
N
^
YL W (
V N M M
.~ 'V
~ •-
~ ~ ~.
O
. M N r
T O O O ~ ~ ~
~ a Q a -~ ca cB cB
W W W W W W W W
W W W W W W W W
.~
L
~.
L
U
+-+
U
N
~+-
i
c
a~
m
z
L
W
0
-l--J
^~ •-h~
^W1 ~J
W W
-~--~
~ •-
~ to
O ~
. _ 4~
~ ~
U ~
~ ~-
O ~
V
~1
~ 4-~
l- J
W
L
V ~
~ ~
m ~
^~
W
L
.^,
-~
4~
4~
4~
N
n~
W
^~
^r1
W
-I--~
W
V
i
C6
V
4~
T
O
V J
O
V
4~
-1--~
W
4-
W
-I--~
. N
0
i
C~0
O
N
•
^,
i
N
W
C~
V
Attachment A Benefits/Wellness Committee Members
Theresa Fox, Utility Billing Supervisor - 22 yrs.
Steve Thompson, Desktop Support Specialist - 3 yrs.
Renee Garrett, Senior Center Supervisor - 5 yrs.
Mike Almy, Parks Equipment Operator - 4 yrs.
Marilyn Gilbert, Colleyville Center Office Assistant - 4 yrs.
Ken Tywater, Utility Superintendent - 11 yrs.
Erica Gill, Adult Services Librarian - 6 yrs.
Eddie Moran, Fire Lieutenant - 11 yrs.
Chuck Tinsman, Police Officer -15 yrs.
Raymon Cannon, Community Services Officer - 11 yrs.
Andrea Renegar, Emergency Management Coordinator - 4.5 yrs
Sunny Lindsey, GIS Coordinator - 5 yrs.
Amy Shelley, Planning and Zoning Assistant - 5.5 yrs.
N
U
N
O
N
O
O
N
LL
m
E
v L
O
ww
W
W
.;
O
V
V
r
r
N
LL
a~
raj
W;
a~
O
U~
W
C
•
~_ ~ ~
~ ~ A~``
W
W ~
A~
W
~
0
~_
• L
Q r
r
Q.
~
N ~
~ Q
N ~
N
U ~
~ N ~
~
N ~
~ ~_ ~ N
~
~ ~ ~ 0
~
N N
P
~
.
~ N
~ L
L.
L
~
O O •O
Q ~ Q
r
O
}r
L N
L 0 _
~
N
A~
W
~ 0
~1Q
i ~
~ ~ AQ~~
_
~
~
~ U L
~
~
O ~
- ~ ~
(n ~ C
LL N
~
~ ~ N
a
w
W
~- O O o
d ~ ~ ~
r~ m co
a
.c a
~ o
,
~
c
m
V1 y
~. p
~ ~
L
,OAo
V l ~
a
~ a
(~ C
L
U
Q.
O
V
L
W
.;
0
V
0
•.+
V
N
r
N
LL
~a
a
O
U
W
~
~
N
~ AN/~A~ W L
W
/'~
^'
4J ~ O
• L
0 ~ Q
~
N ~
~ ~
N ~
N
N ~ N ~
U
N ~ ~
~ ~
~
~ ~ ~
Q M
~
~ ~ ~ N
~ N '
~ ~
~ ~
~ N LL
~
.
O
L
O O O
Q r Q
r
O
~r
L N
L 0 _
~ ~ ~ ~
A
L
~ ~ ^
``
~ U i
N ~ C
~' ~
~ _ N
~ fn L.L ~
.-.
~ .-.
N
a
w
o 0 0
~,
ti cfl c~
~
~ o
\
\° \°
d O
a
.
y
~ ~
~ ~+ ~+ is
d
V
C
i/1 v
z
Q ~
C
_~ v
Oa
^~ ~
W ~
{J a
(~ C
y_ c
li
L
U
Q
0
U
o ~
E `m
~~_
N L
.X ~ ~_
~ U ~
~' O
~a ~
~,oa~
a ~~ ~
~, :a'
U ~ ~
>+ ~ ,tA
C ~
o ~ ~
~ O
f3 ~ >
U ~
L N ~
C
U ~' ~
U ~ ~
L
~ N
O -
+r L
Q
~%
w
a:
a.
w
•
~'
0
U'
a
W o 0 0
~ ~ ~ ~
d ~ ~ ~
F-
d ~ ~ ~
.
y
H `'
d
d
~ ~
F: d
I~ F:
C
m
v
C
C
O
(Q
Q
~U
ca
Q
N
N
C
N
3
0
m
a~
c
J+
C
f0
Q
N
N_
O
N
O
w
A
.N
E
.~
a~
L
Q
.~
L
N
.~
N
Q
fB
C
LL
N
O Z~~
a~
oo~'~N
c ~ ~ a .-
U 7 ~ ~ f6
N o 7.
~•Xw U~ ~
~ f0 ui T > N
o ~ o c c
o.
m~~`~mo
a~
o a~i= ~c~
L ~ f6 ~ al
Q U .- N
r f6 H 7 N
N
Z ~ O Z~~
~ N '
,- z
,, ~ ~
,~ •-
~ M N N -n 1(1 ~ N O) .~ 'O o
p ~ O U _~ Y
c ~ .d _ _ ? ~ _ ~ >'~ O
O L O
E ' = o
~ ~ ~ ~ w
~ ~ ~ U
~ ~ U
1 N
I ~ H ~ ~ U ~
U ~ ~ O ~ ~
~ t
~~ -~-~ -- - - ~ ~ ~°.~ 3 ~ °' ~ O
~ ~ ~ 0
~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~
~~ .? ? i ~ ~ d h ~ O 'p U
d Z` Cf~ j Q O
= v ~ ~ o oY
~ •Q o
u
a vv~~oo3
~,
o ~ a~ ~ N
~ a ~ a~
`x i ~~ ~w ah a~m•~o
,i U 2 U =, ~ O~ Q o0
s •'
i ~
•>
': ^ U
j O
O
,i U
.. .. _. ._ _.. _._. _ .. .___. .. __ •N
~ ~ '...
,i Q
. ~3f _ :~ ~
~ rI ~ ! ~ ~
~ C ~
° .' a~
~ ~ a~ '~ ' ~
j _ ~. o a ~
v
c ,M1 5 a ~ ~,
i s, u .o ~
~ .ai ~ ~ a~ ~ ~° ~ W ~ h 3 a~ ~
~ aN .. `o~ r- m ~ ~c a y a ~ p ~
j cacti': cd ~ ,^ ~ •~ pa~~ ~ ~U ~ d ~ 6
~ x'a ~~ w v ~ u ~' c~ Q ~ ~ ~ aK 2~ c c~ H C
i ma = c ~, E ~,:_,,Q•-, U s .. _ ~ c U Nov =~
~ ~ ~ ~, ~ -
y coi c d d m t r Q. N' H Z~ ~ u, ru ,,, a ~ C ~- ~ U N~
~' ~ o c r m a~ o ~~ O .L'! ~ 0 U O d N O t
~ Ham' 3m~ o v x z ~~. ~~: 3 ? U h O x~ ~ u3
`1 `~ ~ City of Colleyville 100 Main Street
Colleyville, Texas 76034
~.Y.~~ Agenda Briefing 817:503.1000
www.colleyville.com
File Number:
File Type: Presentation and
Discussion
Status: Presentation and
Discussion
Version: 1
Requester: Human Resources
Department
Agenda Date: 05/20/2010
Agenda No.: 2f
Controlling Body: City Council
Worksession
Final Action:
File Name: Review and discussion of the City's retirement plan through Texas Municipal Retirement System
Attachments: Employee Retirement Benefits TMRS Presentation Attachment A TMRS Comparison of City
Plans.pdf
History of Legislative File
Version: Date: Acting Body: Action Text:
05/19/2010 City Council
Worksession
05/20/2010 City Council
Worksession
Title
Review and discussion of the City's retirement plan through Texas Municipal Retirement
System
Explanation
Current Plan Design
The City offers employees a benefit through the TMRS retirement plan. This plan requires
employees to contribute seven percent of their gross income and the City to match accrued
contributions plus interest at a two-to-one matching ratio. Provisions of the plan also
include 100% repeating Updated Service Credits (USC), transfer USC, 70% repeating
annuity increases, 5-year vesting, retirement after 20 years of service or at age 60 with five
years of service, and a supplemental death benefit for active employees and retirees. A
comparison to Colleyville's surrounding cities illustrates that these plan features are
comparable (Attachment A). Prospective employees consider the TMRS plan features as a
factor in accepting positions with municipalities.
History of Plan Design
The City first joined TMRS in October 1979, Ordinance 0-79-334. At that time, the
supplemental death benefits provision was enacted under Ordinance 0-79-336. The two to
one matching ratio as well as the first approval of Updated Service Credits became effective
in January 1982, Ordinances 0-81-432 and 0-81-431, respectively. Under Ordinance
0-02-1363, the Updated Service Credit and 70% Annuity Increase provisions were
approved to auto-readopt beginning January 2003 until the ordinance ceases to be in effect.
City of Colleyville Page 1 Printed on 5/14/2010
Agenda Brietinp Continued
In January 1986, the provision that requires an employee deposit rate of 7% was approved
by Ordinance 0-85-577. The most recent date for approval of the Restricted Prior Service
Credit provision was October 1997, Ordinance 0-97-1079. Similarly, the 20-years of
service/Any age retirement eligibility provision was most recently approved in October 1999
under Ordinance 0-99-1180. Lastly, the five-year vesting went into effect in 2001 per the
TMRS Act.
The Rate
Over the last several years, the City's TMRS rate has substantially increased due to
changes in TMRS' actuarial and funding philosophies. In 2007, the TMRS board approved
a change in the actuarial funding method in an effort to improve funding ratios over the long
term and to pre-fund annually repeating benefits (i.e., annuity increases and USCs) to
comply with accounting standard requirements. Additionally, TMRS transitioned from a
portfolio historically invested only in long-term U.S. Treasury bonds. They initiated
diversification of their investment portfolio in early 2008 to mitigate risk from a lack of
diversification, interest rate exposure, and reinvestment risk. TMRS anticipates that these
changes will stabilize contribution rates for cities and will ensure a sustainable benefits
program for the future.
In May 2010, TMRS announced the City's calendar year 2011 full contribution rate as
16.23%, an increase to the 2010 rate of 15.76%. The rate is determined by the December
31, 2009 actuarial valuation using actuarial assumptions and methods adopted by the
TMRS Board, and is based on the City's plan provisions in effect as of February 1, 2010.
The full contribution rate is comprised of the retirement rate (or combined Normal Cost rate
and Prior Service rate) and the supplemental death rate. The valuation report as of
December 31, 2009, also showed that the City's unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL)
increased over the prior year by $112,373. However, the funded ratio increased from
74.3% to 74.8%.
Staff will evaluate the TMRS plan design in preparing a balanced Fiscal Year 2011 budget.
A presentation will be included in the August 2010 City Council Budget Workshop.
City of Colleyville Page 2 Printed on 5/14/2010
~J
.~
~^~,
W
^~
W
a--+
i
a--+
N
DC
N
O
Q.
w
^~
W
(/~
S_
0
~ ~
DC ~
F- m
~V
O
U
U
0
0
N
O
N
ca
o
~ ~ o
T ~ o
~ ~ o
~ Q ~
ti
L
~ .~ ~ L
~ ~ c~
LL ~ ~ ~
W ~ ~ ~
Z ~ ~ ~
W ~ ~, ~
m ~ ~' ~ ~
o ~ Q x
(CS Uj ~
Z o a~ i-- -,-,
O ~ ~ `*-
W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ •= ~ ~ m
W ~ ~ O N
I.L. ~ (~ ~ ~ CCS
~ O N ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ U (~ ~ ~ ~
~ 0 ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ - ~
-+-~ ~ ~ +~ to ~- •-
C~ ~ c~ Q o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~- ~ w ~ ~ ~ Q ~ > cn
LL
W
Z ~
W ~-+ °
~ ~
Z ~
~ ~
W p o
~ N ~
W ~-
~ ~
_ ~ ~
~ ~- O
W ~ U
~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ o
~ c6 0
U N
0
C'7
N
Cfl
O
O
U
0
N
C~
C~
O
N
Ca
~ ~
c~ ti
U ~
to
i.L ~
a~ ~
~ -~
o ~
~ ~
o o
Cfl O O O ~
I` O O O ~
~ O O O O
N
~ (6
W ~ }'
Z ~,^°' ~O
W ~ ~ U o ~
~ o ^ ~ ~
a~ -
N ~ ~ Q ~ c~a
~ o o _
~ Q~~ ~.c~
Z ~ -a .~
~ ~
U can .L ~ ~ -~
/1 ~ ~ O
W ~ ~~~ ~~
O ~ \ L
_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ N ~ ~ ~
O ~U M V ~ N
~ c~~LQ O~
~ o _ o
~ a~ ~~ Q ~ ~
~ (Cf ~ ~ N U + i'_'
O U
~ C
Q O N c~i O~ (~ O~
mQ~~~U a~
~ o
~ ~-
~ U ~
0 0 0 0 0
O '~ O N M
~ M r- O N
0000 C~
(6
Ca U_
c~ ~
-~ a~
~ ~
~ ~S
Q ~~
c~ •,
~ ~ o i-
c~ ~_ L c
~ ~ o
L- ~ L W
V ~ ~
~ ~_ O (a
`~ `~
,~ v~~
-~ .~o~
o ^ o ~ ~
U ~~~ o
~ o
o ~ c ~ N ~
i N = ~
~ ~ i ~
(~ U ~ C6 ~ ~
~ .~ U ~ to o
N
F"
W
Z
W
m
H
Z
W
W
H
W
OC
~--+
~--+
X
z
.~
0
.~
tCs
N
.~
U
Q
O
(Cf
C6
Q
N
~U
O
U
U
0
a~
U
C6
CC5
~..
O
O
N
Q
.~
.~
a~
a~
c~
U
.~
O
Cn
CCS
O
L
Q.
C6
U
C6
O
~~
~ ~ ~C (D N M ~ N ID
a G
~ E M ~"~ M IL1 M M N N.
m
o ~
U
C o o O t+Nf O O N O
O O'~ N ~ (D lA ~ r
~~ O) M M O! OD OD N (G
~ N N ? M 4`7 ID N
7
d
O
a
~ .t+ ~ y m N N m
d N C '~ Z } } Z Z} Z }
p. ~ m ~
7
y
A W
= W T p N O ~ to p N
d d c-° z ~ } z z > z }
a
a~ m £
3 w
N
~ s~
!~ O •Z ~ rn m w~ rn W m W
_ ~
d a fn V ~ o O O 0 0 O.
K
0 0 o O o o o O
N~ N~ N~ N N~ N~ N~ ',, N
b
N d N N Q f0 Q ~O Q f~ ~ c°O Q ~D Q f0 ¢ ~t0
V £~ N T O T N ~. m >. N T m T N T a
2 ma ¢a` ~d`` as ~¢ Qa` ¢~ as ~d
~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i
~ » YY }> Yr >r rr }} ~~
~ N N N N N N N N
E ~, ~,
m
.., ~
w
m a '~ d i r i ~ r } i }
C ~ ~ •a N u5 N v> N ~ N ~
w ~
E U
y o
p ? °o ° rn m ~w q°q ~ cq~
~ W m '~ ~ o N di v d ~ 'd
O N N
C. G. m w o o~ o -
'V
.3 V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ omgg ~ ~ ~ ~
= Z s d v
N V o 0 o O o o.
N
K
y ~' u~i > o ~Ky ~ ~ o ~ ~ b'
C` N V ° ~ N Op N N~ Q
C v Y ~ °o tN9. ~ rn N -. NOS ~ N
Q C w
~' w
'S
c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~
c ~ '.'
Q c
m
H
~ p V Y w ° ~ ~ ~ N g ~ N
d W .''
V f- F F- f F-
'i0p Z : ° $ o° o ° $ °o
~ N
a c ~ p
~~~ N N N N N N N 'N p
U y
O
a
~_
~. a m a ~
0 o a o 0 0 0 0 o e m
w a m o[ N. ~ ~ +,. ~ n ~ r U ~'
~ m
m w ~ y ~ d
Z ~ ~ a~i
v w ,~_,N
m
~ c~ 'x' via
~ c ~
Q a a ~ _
. ~
v .c m m L ~ c~
m Tom' `~
m chi w ~ x' Y 2 tlfp F~ °~
0
N
T
`o
a
l0
E
U
E
i0
'o
R
0
~~='~ City Hall
~;~ City ~f Co~~eyvi~~e 100 Main Street
Colleyville, Texas 76034
~~~~~~ Agenda Briefing 817.503.1000
vrww. co 1 1 eyv i l l e. co m
File Number:
Version: 1
Requester: Human Resources
Department
File Type: Presentation and
Discussion
Agenda Date: 05/20/2010
Agenda No.: 2g
File Name: Review and discussion of the 2010 Compensation Analysis
Attachments: 2010 Compensation Survey and Analysis Presentation
History of Legislative File
Final Action:
Version: Date: Acting Body: Action Text:
05/19/2010 City Council
Worksession
05/20/2010 City Council
Worksession
Title
Review and discussion of the 2010 Compensation Analysis
Explanation
This item provides an opportunity for City Council and staff discussion of the annual
compensation survey and analysis.
A compensation survey was conducted in January 2010 to compare Colleyville's pay with
the market. The seven bordering cities; Bedford, Euless, Grapevine, Hurst, Keller, North
Richland Hills, and Southlake; were asked to provide their cities' comparable salary data for
the 58 positions surveyed. Ten of the 48 positions were added to the survey since 2009.
As Colleyville has 89 possible job titles, 65% of positions were surveyed. The analysis
compared the mid-points of each pay range, as the ranges varied in width.
When considering positions with a variance tl•
average, 26% of Colleyville positions were belo
prior year, when 66% of surveyed jobs we
adjustments that City Council approved with the
into effect in October 2009 proved valuable in
from a recruitment perspective.
at was greater than 5% below the market
v market. This is an improvement over the
'e below market. Thus, the pay range
Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 budget and that went
maintaining competitive ranges, especially
As FY 2010 anticipated revenues are significantly less than what was projected, the City
has frozen over $300,000 in expenses and has experienced a reduction in force, as well.
As FY 2011 is expected to again be a year of lower revenues, no market or compensation
adjustments, or merit increases are being recommended.
Status: Presentation and
Discussion
Controlling Body: City Council
Worksession
City of Colleyville Page 1 Printed on 5/14/2010
Agenda Briefing Continued --
For example, an estimate was calculated to determine the cost to fund a merit increase pool
for FY 2011. If the City were to fund an average 6% raise, the expense to the General Fund
would be $439,459, or $501,845 to all funds. This would account for the four levels
associated with employee performance evaluations: 8%, 4%, 2%, and 0%. A 2% average
merit increase pool would cost the General Fund $146,486, and all funds $167,282.
At the City Council Budget Workshop in May 2009, staff presented Council with an update
on the established goal of moving employees to the mid-point of the range within the first
five years of service. It was discussed how the goal was not sustainable or affordable as
market adjustments to pay ranges without maintaining employees' positions within the
ranges was counterproductive to goal achievement.
In FY 2010, staff submitted a project proposal to review the City's compensation strategy to
ICMA for their leadership program's Capstone Project; however, the ICMA group selected
another opportunity as their project. Therefore, staff is including the development of a
sustainable compensation strategy in the FY 2011 Human Resources Business Plan's
major initiatives. Staff will evaluate incorporating a regional and national component to
compliment the local survey currently conducted. Additionally, consideration will be given to
reviewing comparable private sector jobs for inclusion in the compensation
recommendations. Overall, Colleyville's proposed compensation goal will be to attract and
retain quality employees through market competitiveness. Staff will bring to City Council a
proposed compensation strategy in FY 2011.
City of Colleyville Page 2 Printed on 5/14/2010
^~
W O
> • -
~ ~
~ /~
V 1 ~
L
O • - O
.~
'.~> >`
~ Ca 4~
N ~ t~A
~ ~
a~ Q ~
~ ~ m
~ -_
~V
O ~ ~
U ~
0
O U
~ ~
O ~=
N U
~"'~
N
O
N
cB
t/1
.~
Q
4J
L
O
'++
cv
a
a
0
V
4~
L
4~
L
t/')
~A
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
i ~
~ ~
N O
~ ~
'- ~
:~' • -
t~ O
tU0 ~
,~ ~
~ •-
~ ~
O ~
~ ~
~ Q
~ O
a~
cn U
I I
N
O
a--~
.~
O
Q
O1
00
O
O
00
O
.~
ca
ca
a--~
L
U
c6
.~
._
O
._
O
Q
O
U
0
I
i
f~
_O
0
O ~
~ ~"~
~ ~
O -~
.~ U
~ ~
~ N
~ ~
~ 's.
tU0 ~
~ ~
ca ~'
~ -
~ ~
~ ~
~ U
~ ~
to y.
~ O
~ ~
~ ~
ca ~
~ ~
•-
O ~
U >
I
ca
O
a~
•~
O O O
~ N ~ ~
a o
~ ~, ~ o
o ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~
x ~
n ~
~ ~
~ ~ a
' j
L
~ O
U +~
~ a i
a -'
~ ~
c
n ~ c
n
(~
~ ~
~
~
~
~ ~
~ cn
00
~
0
O
~
O
~+-
.. ~ ~ .}._, ~ .~ ~ O
t/1 ~' CU ~ +~ ~ ~ O
~ ~ m ~ Q m Q ~
~ ~ I I I
~.
•
O
V
t/')
(/')
Q ~
~ ~ ~ ~
O °' ~ ~
.. ~ ~- ~
a-+ o Q ~
Ca cv O ~ ~
~ } ~ ~ a~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
x '-
O ~ .~ ~
+-~ O . _ c6 ~ CAA
._ •-
4~ -~ ~- ~ ~
~ ~ V ~ .Q ~ ~
~ o ~ a ~ ~ o 0
~ > ~ oc o Q z z
~"~ °' ~ I I I ° I
p oc z
N •
LPL
l~ _~J
H
V
~--~
.
~
L ~
~
^
W 0
L •-
O
•- Q
L ~
Q ~ .~
. - ~
• - L
~ .~"~ 4-
~ ~ U 0 ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
p O a~ s ~ c~
.-
a--~ Q N -~
• - ~ ~
• -
ca ~ p ~ ~ ~
N
~ ~ ~,
L
~ s
V n
~
~ (~ (~ to
Q
~
~ ~ z z
~ o
°
U ~ ~ ~ ~
•
~~
~,J
0
~+
Q
V
~ f6
~ V
•
.}~ ~ Q-
~ ~ Q
L- O ~
+-+
~
~
~
~ z ~
°' ~ ~
• •
~ f'1T
~V
\ 1
TJ
(^' `J
W ~ ~ ~
`
J n ,
W
• ~
+~
~
.
O
~
•
O
^
~ U ~ = O
U
~
i ~ ~
L U O N O
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
.
C6 .
~ ~
~ _ ~ cn
C
G • - +~
O
~
~
~ ~
~
-
• ~ >_
~
r-I ~ U O s-
~ N w ~
X
~ I
z
x.,11)' ~./
~ ~ City of Colleyville 100 Mlain Street
Colleyville, Texas 76034
~...,. Agenda Briefing 817.503.1000
vvww. co I l e yv i l l e. co m
File Number:
File Type: Presentation and
Discussion
Status: Presentation and
Discussion
Version: 1
Requester: Human Resources
Department
Agenda Date: 05/20/2010
Agenda No.: 2h
File Name: Presentation of the 2010 Employee Opinion Survey
Controlling Body: City Council
Worksession
Final Action:
Attachments: 2010 Employee Opinion Survey and Results Presentation 2010 Employee Opinion
Survey.pdf Opinion Survey Comparison 2010.pdf Opinion Survey Results by Category
2010. pdf
History of Legislative File
Version: Date: Acting Body: Action Text:
05/19/2010 City Council
Worksession
05/20/2010 City Council
Worksession
Title
Presentation of the 2010 Employee Opinion Survey
Explanation
This item provides an opportunity for City Council and staff discussion of the results from
the 2010 Employee Opinion Survey.
Staff conducted the annual Employee Opinion Survey in early 2010. To be more efficient,
staff utilized Survey Monkey and sent the survey electronically, emailing it to 196 regular
full-time and part-time employees. Employees were also given an opportunity to complete
the survey on paper if they preferred. The response rate increased to 66%, up 2% from last
year's rate of 64%, with 130 employees responding. There were 43 questions asked,
covering topic categories such as the organization, the work environment, job
responsibilities, harassment prevention, ethics, and supervisors and management.
Responses were tabulated by percentage of positive responses, defined as "Agree" or
"Strongly Agree." Each of the categories on the whole improved over the 2009 survey.
Specifically, questions on workplace harassment prevention averaged the highest scores,
followed by job related questions, work environment/safety/equipment/training, the
organization, ethics, and lastly, supervisor/management skills. Of the individual questions,
30 out of 41 questions had improved ratings, while eight declined and three remained at the
same level of satisfaction or agreement. Question 42 was new to the survey this year, and
on Question 21 ("People work for this organization because...check all those that apply")
nine of the fourteen factors had more favorable responses as compared to the 2009 survey.
While the majority of responses were positive, there is room for improvement.
City of Colleyville Page 1 Printed on 5/14/2010
Agenda Briefing Continued
Ten of the 43 questions had a less than passing rate (lower than 70% positive response).
The majority of these questions were in the supervisor/management category, dealing with
equity and fairness in policy administration, being well-informed, and employee recognition.
All questions in the workplace harassment prevention category had passing scores. The
other four categories (the job, the work environment/safety/equipment/training, the
organization, and ethics) had only one or two less than passing scores. Eight out of 43
survey questions, or 19%, were lower than the 2009 survey. Those areas were on job
training, quality of working conditions, employee accountability, policy administration, and
recognition of good performance.
The survey also asked employees for opinions on tools, resources, and policies, as well as
for general comments. The tools and resources mentioned were similar to last year:
additional staff and training, enhanced technology, and better tools and equipment.
Employees recommended that the City evaluate a number of policies, including use of City
vehicles, application of City policies across departments, tobacco use, and conflicts of
interest. The general comments made by employees were to improve communication
between management and staff, provide consistent accountability, improve pay, maintain
benefits, and evaluate flexible scheduling.
The results of the opinion survey were evaluated and utilized by the Leadership Team (the
Team) to develop a plan to enhance the quality of the City's work environment. The
strategy to address employee concerns includes continuation of the all-employees quarterly
meetings, completion of the personnel policy manual revision, and utilization of internal
expertise to conduct various trainings. The Team developed a follow up survey to allow
employees to provide additional input on several low scoring areas such as morale,
appreciation, equity, ethics, communication, supervisor relationships, and working
conditions. The Team will use this information to augment the plan of action.
City of Colleyville Page 2 Printed on 5/14/2010
^~
W\
L
~ /~
V
O
.~
..
]..L
N
O
Q
w
O
0
N
'~
to
4~
DC
C~
0
.~
L
0
-I--~
CAA
m
~V
O
U
U
0
0
N
O
N
f0
G
W
~ .~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
L ~ ~
~ ~ ~ a--~
~ ~ N > ~
~ ~ O ~ +~
~ O ~ s- ~ ~
0 Q O Q. ~ ~
.~ ~ Q
~ ~ N ~ •- m ~
.~ ~ ~ ,~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ cn i
o ~ °'
._
N ~s~~
.- ~, ._
N _~
4~ i ~ o o ~
0 ~ N ,}., o cn .~ .O
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~
+~ ~ ~-I cn
~ •-
W ' - o ~' ~ 1 -~-~
~ ~
. - ~ ~ ~ Q. `a- O can
~ ~; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O 4-
rl - ~ 4~ ~ ~ ~ N Q
- ~
N ~- ~ ~ ~ o >
L
0
.~
.~
O
W
0
l~
0
N
•_ ~~]
T
O
I
t/')
,V
i
O
a~
c~
U
•
r.
O
N
o ~
~ ..
d1 ~
. 4~
~
.O ~
~ C6
~
+-' + ~
~ o +~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~-
~
~ .. ~ o
~ N ~
•-
N
~ ~
~ O
~ 4A ~ +~
O ~ 1
• ~
> ~
~ ~~
N
oZS ~
c6 .
~ + ~
U ' . `'' CZA
~ ~ ~ o C6
4~ ~ a-' ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ ~
to ~ ~ ..
~ ._
~
~
o
m
~
~ U _ + ~
~ ~ ~ N o ~
v
~ _
~> ._
~
~O
O
ca ~ I~
Q ~ ~ ~ .. j
V
i
° ~ L ~
° ~ . Q
~ +
~ ~
I- ~
w ~
n
I I-
I ~
I I I c
I
L
•~
•~
O
Q
W
O
N
~--~
O
L
L
O
4-
N
a~
L
Q
~
O Q -
'~ ~ ~ U
U ~- ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
O ~ ~ ~
CaA O hA O X Q ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
O +~ ~ ~
~
_
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •V
~ ~ X ~ ~ N O
.
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ O
cn O cn ~ ~ >~ ~
~
O
4A 4A
~ ~ cn
~' ~ ~
~ ~
+-~ ca
~ O
~
f~ ~ 4- Ca O O U
v O O > ~ ~ Q ~
dJ ~, ~ O ~ O ~ },
-~ ca = ~ ~' ~ O
N ~_
~ ~ ~ ~ •~ V f~ L ~
U a~--+ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ±
O ~ ~
~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~
a--+
V
~
a--+
~
\
+
-+ ~
~, ~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ U ~
o '1 ~ •> ~ ± o ~ o O ~
00 ~ m ~ ~n o m •~ ~o ~ ~
-
~~
i ~,
i ~ ~o
i ~ ~
i ~ ~
i ~ ~
L
0
•~
•~
O
Q.
W
O
0
N
O
L.
O
ca
4~
i
Q
•
~ ~ ~ ~
~
>, U
O
~
~
~
~ _
•~
~
~ ~
~ ~ O
~.E,_. L ~
O ~ ~ yam- ~
O- ~ ~
~ .~.,
~ ~ ~ ~1
Q. ~ 0 ~ N
O _
• v 0
t~A +
-~
cn cn
~ N ~ .~ •~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ N ~ ca
~ ~
~ N
•~
~
~
~
f0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ O O cn ~ cn
~ ~ U N O ~
~
~
~
~U
~ _
.
U
~ ~ ~ c~ ~- ~ ~ ~-
O ~
N >, N ca ~
+-~ _
- t~A _
-
~
N ~ ~
~ .~ v >. ~ N aJ
LA ~ ~ cn +~ O +~ O
N O
~_ '^ i~ ~ ~
N ~ ~ cn ~
o
n
o c~
~
o
~
o ~
~
o
~o
I ~ ~o
I ~ ~o
I .~ ~n
I c~ ~o
I
~--~
O
Q
0
.~
L
0
.~
•~
~.
0
0
Q
W
0
l"'~
N
~~
(J')
O
~J
O
+~
v
O
U
4~
C~
0
a--~
.U
O
ca
a~
O
Q.
N
L
_~
O
V
C6
O
~_
O
a~
.N
O
U
L
C6
a~
O
U
I
Q
._
~"
C6
i
O
0
0
0
i
m
4=-
U
O
Q
a~
O
Q
ca
.~
4-
O
Q
I
~_
~V
O
Q.
.O
L
a~-+
Q.
.-
.Q
O
U
O
.~
a~
L
0
.~
.~
~.
0
0
W
O
!~'~
0
N
c6
Q.
O
V
Q
•
a--i
(/') ~
~ ~
0 ~
Q. O
U
~ ~
O ~
c6 ~
O 4J
~ ~
~ ~
~ •-
~ ~
cn Q
Q. ~_
~-
O ~
._
O :~'
~ ~
a~ c~
~~
~ ~~
~ O
O ~
a~
O
0
ca
'v
iJ
Q.
O
.~
0
N
DC
U
w
i
t~
O
.~
U
0
.~
O
O
.~
cn
N
0
.~
O
. .
.~
C6
N
a--+
O
N
O
U
c~
L
N
O
Q
O
4-
U
cB
.~
0
L
0
•~
•~
O
G~
O
Q
W
O
0
N
~~
.~
~--~
~V
ca
0
V
Q
•
~ i~
(/'~
~ ~U
~ ._ ~
• -
+-+ cn
• -
~-'
W
4~ ~
aA
~ ~ N
~ ~
~
~, ~ ._
~ ~ ~
~ ~ _
C6
~ ,V ~ Q
.
cn ~ ~ Q
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~-
~ ~ ~
Q ~ ~
~ ~ N
~ i ~ •-
~
i ~ i
~"
(~ ~ s-
~ ~ ~ O
~ ~ ._
~ Q a~
~ N_
~
~ -
._ Q
U
~ U
~ ~
~ cn
~
OPINION SURVEY COMPARISON FY 2010
FY10 ~ FY09 FY08 FY10 ~ FY09 FY08
10. Employees in this organization receive sufficient training to do
1. I am proud to be an empl oyee of this organization. their jobs well.
Strongly Agree 41% 38% 33% Strongly Agree 16% 12% 7%
Agree 53% 53% 57% Agree 65% 59% 60%
Disagree 6% 7% 9% Disagree 15% 26% 26%
Strongly Disagree 0% 2% 1% Strongly Disagree 4% 3% 7%
2. I have received sufficient training and equipment to perform my job 11. I prefer to work in a small organization rather than a large one .
safely.
Strongly Agree 36% 31% 3% Strongly Agree 32% 34% 27%
Agree 51% 57% 18% Agree 59% 56% 60%
Disagree 12% 8% 57% Disagree 9% 9% 11
Strongly Disagree 1% 4% 22% Strongly Disagree 0% 1% 2%
3. The longer I work for this organization the more I fee l I belong. 12. This organzation values its employees for the work they do.
Strongly Agree 33% 29% 15% Strongly Agree 17% 19% 8%
Agree 42% 42% 51% Agree 48% 44% 45%
Disagree 21% 22% 27% Disagree 29% 27% 30%
Strongly Disagree 4% 7% 7% Strongly Disagree 6% 10% 17%
4. The tools and equipment I use for my job are the best available . 13. There are rarely serious on-the-job njuries in this org anization.
Strongly Agree 24% 21% 8% Strongly Agree 42% 37% 21%
Agree 47% 49% 48% Agree 52% 56% 69%
Disagree 27% 26% 38% Disagree 6% 7% 8%
Strongly Disagree 2% 4% 6% Strongly Disagree 0% 0% 2%
`Note: Wording of question chang ed from "the job" to "my job" in FY10.
14. I have sufficient responsibility for and control over my job.
5. I would recommend this organization as a good place to work to my Strongly Agree 38% 28% 5%
friends. Agree 44% 50% 26%
Strongly Agree 29% 24% 16% Disagree 14% 17% 56%
Agree 53% 53% 61 % Strongly Disagree 4% 5% 13%
Disagree 16% 13% 17%
Strongly Disagree 2% 10% 6% 15. The job I do is important.
Strongly Agree 72% 59% 44%
6. I am encouraged to do a good job by my supervisor. Agree 27% 39% 52%
Strongly Agree 40% 39% 26% Disagree 1% 2% 2%
Agree 53% 45% 58% Strongly Disagree 0% 0% 2%
Disagree 5% 10% 10%
Strongly Disagree 2% 6% 6% 16. I am provided sufficient opportunities and areas to take a break or
eat lunch.
7. The office or facility whe re I work is well lit, ventilated, and Strongly Agree 38% 33% 30%
comfortable to work in. Agree 49% 48% 53%
Strongly Agree 38% 36% 29% Disagree 10% 13% 9%
Agree 41% 44% 48% Strongly Disagree 3% 6% 8%
Disagree 15% 13% 17%
Strongly Disagree 6% 7% 6% 17. When my equipment breaks down or malfunctions it i s replaced or
repaired promptly.
8. This organization's leadership is open to employee suggestions. Strongly Agree 30% 17% 8%
Strongly Agree 22% 16% 10% Agree 48% 58% 59%
Agree 41% 45% 51% Disagree 16% 17% 19%
Disagree 28% 24% 28% Strongly Disagree 6% 8% 14%
Strongly Disagree 9% 15% 11%
*Note: Wording of question changed from "Management" to " Leadership" 18. My work area is comfortable and makes doing a good job eas y.
Strongly Agree 35% 31% 2%
9. I can achieve my career goals without leaving this organization . Agree 48% 56% 15%
Strongly Agree 18% 15% 10% Disagree 12% 11 % 53%
Agree 50% 47% 41% Strongly Disagree 5% 2% 30%
Disagree 30% 29% 35% 'Note: Wording of question changed from negat iv a to positive in FY09.
Strongly Disagree 2% 9% 14%
Page 1 of 3
OPINION SURVEY COMPARISON FY 2010
FY10 ~ FY09 FY08 FY10 ~ FY09 FY08
19. Job safety is a major concern of this organization's management
26. My work area has been free of sexual harassment over the past
year.
Strongly Agree 35% 27% 21
Agree 55% 61% 59%
Disagree 8% 10% 16%
Strongly Disagree 2% 2% 4%
20. I am appreciated for the job I do
Strongly Agree 23% 26% 12%
Agree 47% 46% 56%
Disagree 23% 20% 21%
Strongly Disagree 7% 8% 11%
21. People work for this organization because:
Good benefits 87.5% 87.4% 78.5%
Like coworkers 60.2% 59.1 % 63.7%
Good facilities 56.3% 55.1% 57.0%
Safe place to work 54.7% 53.5% 49.6%
Like community 52.3% 41.7% 44.4%
Good pay 46.9% 48.0% 41.5%
Encouraged to do good job 39.1% 37.0% 28.9%
High quality place to work 36.7% 41.7% 24.4%
Receive good training 28.1% 29.9% 22.2%
Everyone works as a team 27.3% 26.0% 29.6%
Like supervisor 25.8% 37.8% 30.4%
Feel appreciated 25.0% 30.7% 21.5%
Work with best equipment 21.9% 16.5% 14.8%
Can't find other work 14.1 % 19.7% 14.8%
22. I really like my job
Strongly Agree 49% 46% 37%
Agree 45% 47% 53%
Disagree 6% 5% 8%
Strongly Disagree 0% 2% 2%
23. I really like this organization.
Strongly Agree 31% 37% 21%
Agree 58% 50% 59%
Disagree 11% 9% 16%
Strongly Disagree 0% 4% 4%
24. Overall, I think that the quality of my working conditi ons and work
environment is:
Excellent 34% 29% 17%
Good 35% 43% 44%
Fair 24% 18% 34%
Poor 5% 8% 3%
Terrible 2% 2% 2%
25. Our organization, the City of Colleyvil le, is an ethical organization.
Strongly Agree 25% 25%
Agree 55% 51
Disagree 18% 16%
Strongly Disagree 2% 8%
'Note: Wording of question changed to s pecify the organization
Strongly Agree 46% 43%
Agree 47% 42%
Disagree 5% 8%
Strongly Disagree 2% 7%
27. I am kept informed about issues facing my departmen t that affect
me.
Strongly Agree 29% 22%
Agree 38% 41
Disagree 24% 26%
Strongly Disagree 9% 11%
28. Most of those in my work group display honesty and integrity in the
workplace.
Strongly Agree 34% 35%
Agree 47% 40%
Disagree 16% 18%
Strongly Disagree 3% 7%
29. I know what to do if I think there s a problem with substance abuse
in my work area.
Strongly Agree 52% 44%
Agree 46% 49%
Disagree 2% 5%
Strongly Disagree 0% 2%
30. I understand how the work I do relates to the overall goals and
priorities of the department/City.
Strongly Agree 45% 38%
Agree 49% 56%
Disagree 5% 3%
Strongly Disagree 1% 3%
31. Leadership in my department expects staff to use ethical practices
to achieve results.
Strongly Agree 45% 36%
Agree 43% 48%
Disagree 9% 10%
Strongly Disagree 3% 6%
'Note: Wording of question changed from "Management" to " Leadership"
32. I know where to go to get help in the City if I experience
discrimination or sexual harassment on the job.
Strongly Agree 43% 42%
Agree 48% 50%
Disagree 6% 3%
Strongly Disagree 3% 5%
33. In my department, supervisors hold employees accou ntable for
their job performance.
Strongly Agree 35% 27%
Agree 37% 47%
Disagree 23% 18%
Strongly Disagree 5% 8%
Page 2 of 3
OPINION SURVEY COMPARISON FY 2010
FY10 ~ FY09 FY08 FY10 ~ FY09 FY08
34. As a City employee, I feel secure in speaking up about City/ 42. Colleyville policies are administered fairly within my own
department practices and/or policies that are ethically questionable. department.
Strongly Agree 23% 18% Strongly Agree 27%
Agree 33% 37% Agree 36%
Disagree 28% 27% Disagree 25%
Strongly Disagree 16% 18% Strongly Disagree 12%
'Note: This was a new question added for FY10
35. I know where to go if I, or a member of my household, need
counseling services. 43. How would you describe the morale of persons working for this
Strongly Agree 42% 32% organization?
Agree 53% 61 % Excellent 15% 11 % 6%
Disagree 5% 5% Good 26% 29% 29%
Strongly Disagree 0% 2% Fair 32% 27% 33%
Poor 22% 20% 21%
36. In my department, employees are recognized for good Terrible 5% 13% 11
performance.
Strongly Agree 25% 23%
Agree 41% 45%
Disagree 26% 23%
Strongly Disagree 8% 9%
37. My department treats all employees fairly regardless of race, age,
religion, disability, gender, sexual orientation, or ethnic background.
Strongly Agree 39% 37%
Agree 33% 35%
Disagree 14% 17%
Strongly Disagree 14% 11%
38. If I felt threatened by acustomer or co-worker on the job, I know
what I should do.
Strongly Agree 43% 37%
Agree 51% 55%
Disagree 6% 6%
Strongly Disagree 0% 2%
39. The City is serious about maintaining a work environment that is
free of violence and harassment.
Strongly Agree 38% 35%
Agree 53% 50%
Disagree 8% 7%
Strongly Disagree 1% 8%
40. My supervisor tells me clearly what is expected of me.
Strongly Agree 35% 34%
Agree 45% 40%
Disagree 15% 18%
Strongly Disagree 5% 8%
41. Colleyville policies are administered fairly across a ll departments of
the organization.
Strongly Agree 12% 16%
Agree 40% 37%
Disagree 35% 25%
Strongly Disagree 13% 22%
Page 3 of 3
Employee Opinion Survey 2010
Positive Response Results by Category
Positive Positive
Workplace harassmenUproblems Responses Organization Responses
26. My work area has been free of sexual harassment over the
past year. I 93% 1. I am proud to be an employee of this organization. 94%
29. I know what to do if I think there is a problem with substance 3. The longer I work for this organization the more I feel I
abuse in my work area. 98% belong. 75%
32. I know where to go to get help in the City if I experience 5. I would recommend this organization as a good place to work
discrimination or sexual harassment on the job. 91% to my friends. 82%
35. I know where to go if I, or a member of my household, need 11. I prefer to work in a small organization rather than in a large
counseling services. 95% one. 91%
37. My department treats al I employees fairly regardless of race,
age, religion, disability, gender, sexual orientation, or ethnic
background. 72% 12. This organization values its employees for the work they do. 65%
38. If I felt threatened by a customer or co-worker on the job, I
know what I should do. 94% 20. I am appreciated for the job I do. 70%
39. The City is serious about maintaining a work environment
that is free of violence and harassment. 91% 21. People work for this organization because:
91% 23. I really like this organization. 89%
43. How would you describe the morale of persons working
Job for this organization? 41
can ac ieve my career goa s wit ou eavmg t is
organization. ~ 68% 76%
14. I have sufficient responsibility for and control over my job. 82% Ethics
25. Our organization, the City of Colleyville, is an ethical
15. The job I do is important. 99% organization. 80%
28. Most of those in my work group display honesty and integrity
22. I really like my job. 94% in the workplace. 81
31. Leadership in my department expects staff to use ethical
86% practices to achieve results. 88%
34. As a City employee, I feel secure in speaking up about
City/department practices and/or policies that are ethically
Environment/training/equipment/safety questionable. 56%
2. I have received sufficient training and equipment to perform my
job safely. 87% 76%
4. The tools and equipment I use for my job are the best a vailable. I 71% Supervisor/Management
7. The office or facility where I work is well lit, ventilated, and
comfortable to work in. 79% 6. I am encouraged to do a good job by my supervisor. 93%
10. Employees in this organization receive sufficient training to do I 8. This organization's management is open to employee
their jobs well. 81% suggestions. 63%
13. There are rarely serious on-the-job injuries in this 27. I am kept informed about issues facing my department that
organization. ~ 94% affect me. 67%
16. I am provided sufficient opportunities and areas for me to take 30. I understand how the work I do relates to the overall goals
a break or eat lunch. 87% and priorities of the departmenUcity. 94%
17. When my equipment breaks down or malfunctions it is 33. In my department, supervisors hol d employees accountable
replaced or repaired promptly. 78% for their job performance. 72%
36. In my department, employees are recognized for good
18. My work area is comfortable and makes doi ng a good job easy. 83% performance. 66%
19. Job safety is a major concern of thi s organization's
management. 90% 40. My supervisor tells me clearly what is expected of me. 80%
24. Overall, I think that the quality of my working conditions and 41. Colleyville policies are administered fairly across all
environment is: 69% departments of the organization. 52%
42. Colleyville policies are administered fairly within my own
82% department. 63%
72%
Page 1 of 1