LA County Performance Report FY2009

Incorporated County of Los Alamos
Performance Results Fiscal Year 2009
Report of County Governmental Performance
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Departmental Chapters Page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 2, 2010

Dear Reader:

Introductory Remarks: Integrating Comparisons
Los Alamos County is progressing towards meeting its objective of
benchmarking government efficiencies to evaluate programs and
prioritize funding levels. Our local government performance
management, performance measurement and accountability program is
affectionately named LA Scores!—a progressive system for reporting the
performance of government services. We county managers and
employees have been working very hard to provide services to our
beautiful, exceptional community, and we are pleased to present this
report to you for your information and consideration.

With this FY2009 Performance Report, management integrates time‐
tested performance measures that are well‐defined and standardized by
the International City/County Management Association’s (ICMA) Center
for Performance Measurement (CPM). In many programs, only ICMA
measures have been selected, thereby replacing previously adopted
performance measures that were used in prior years. In this report,
program performance is compared to medians for participating CPM
jurisdictions. Note these are simply comparisons, and benchmarks have
not yet been identified. The ICMA CPM bound 2007 and 2008 reports are
available for reference use at the Office of Management and Budget. In
addition, the ICMA CPM 2007, 2008 and mid‐year 2009 reports are
available in Adobe Acrobat format at the ICMA CPM website
www.icma.org/cpm.

With CPM providing statistically cleaned performance data for 15 major
service areas from approximately 200 U.S. counties and cities through
their easily accessible website, www.icma.org/cpm, Los Alamos County
managers now have a valuable tool to benchmark their programs’

1

operational performance along a myriad spectrum of mixed service
offerings. County managers have been trained on‐site by an ICMA CPM
facilitator on all measurement definitions and reporting guidelines.

Converting from Performance Measurement to Performance
Management
In addition to the integration of ICMA performance measures, the
County Administrator has directed staff to make whatever changes are
necessary to use performance data to manage services. For example,
managers will be trying different ways of giving and receiving timely
internal feedback regarding operational performance, via routine
management meetings, satisfaction surveys, discussion groups, their
Personal Performance Appraisals (PPA’s) and ad hoc analyses.

Reading Performance Information
Overall, the document is organized so that each Department has its own
chapter, similar in format to the annual budget document. Each
departmental chapter begins with a financial summary. The financial
summary typically provides charts and a diagram for a high level
overview followed by the meat of the financial summary – multi‐year
expenditure information about expenditures by program, expenditures
by fund, and the number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employees by
type and division. In performance measurement parlance, expenditures
and FTE’s are called “inputs” that help generate the “outputs” or
services.

Following the financial summary, each chapter will present the various
performance scorecards for each major program in that department. The
scorecard is a blend of results, outputs, efficiencies, and operational
inputs, such as expenditures and FTE’s, and linkages to specific Council
Goals and Comprehensive Plan Vision Statements. You’ll also see a
written narrative section provided by the Department. This narrative is
their professional assessment of how the program performed for the
single fiscal year ending June 30, 2009.

Starting top down in each performance budget section is presented:
• Program Purpose Statement, specifying major services, targeted
customers, and the benefits these customers can expect to
receive.
• Program expenditures and full time equivalent staffing levels for
FY2006 ‐2009. Note – Percentage Average Annual Change at far
right calculates the average annual change between the 2006
Actual and the 2009 Actual. Public and private companies
commonly use this calculation as a general way to present
growth or decline.
• References to Comprehensive Plan Vision Statements supported
by the program
• Council Strategic Goals supported by the program

2

• Narrative Discussion and Analysis – The Department’s
professional assessment of program performance for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2009.
• Core Performance Measures – A tabular scorecard presents the
program’s actual results for the various types of performance
measures, including both new and existing measures. Note ‐ for
many recently integrated ICMA CPM performance measures
there is either limited or no historical data so the average annual
change is limited to just a comparison of FY2008 as compared to
FY2009.
• Charts – These commonly present 2008 or 2009 actual Los
Alamos results to other member ICMA jurisdictions for the same
measures.

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

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

1. FY2007 Actual – Actual performance for the entire fiscal year ended
June 30, 2007.
June 30, 2008.
June 30, 2009.
4. % estimated Average Annual Change, commonly calculated on
either ’07‐09 or ’08‐09 basis, as noted. The percentage shown here is
a calculation to obtain the average annual percentage rate of change
increase / (decrease) based on as much full year fiscal data available
starting with FY2007.

Glossary of Performance Measurement Terms
• Program –A functional grouping of departmental and divisional
expenditures and activities that are directed toward a common
purpose, consistent over time.
• Purpose – Describes the customers served by the program and the
benefits provided.
• Result – Expressed as a percentage/ratio, measure of Program
benefit or effectiveness.

3

• Output – A numeric measure of service units produced, and/or
customers receiving service.
• Demand – If customer requests or requirements for service typically
exceed capacity, then a demand measure is required. This is
infrequently used.
• Efficiency ‐ A measure of expenditure per output or per result. At
least one efficiency measure is required for each program.
• B – If noted in the left margin, actual results are gathered for this
measure every other fiscal year, typically from the community
survey.
• CPM – Measures noted as such in the left margin are integrated
directly from ICMA’s Center for Performance Measurement and are
clearly defined by ICMA user manuals and graphs.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Brian Shelton, MBA, CTP
Senior Budget Analyst
LA Scores! Office
Office of Management and Budget
Incorporated County of Los Alamos, New Mexico
telephone 505‐661‐4543
fax 505‐662‐8069
brian.shelton@lacnm.us

4


COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR

Department Organization

Department Summary

Expenditures by Program
County
Administration
Ad i i t ti
72%

Public
Lodgers' Tax Media Services Information
Fund 8% 12%
8%

Expenditures as % of General Fund

General Fund
93%

County
Administrator
7%

5


COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Description
The Office of the County Administrator administers and manages the
organization of County functions in compliance with the goals and policies
adopted by Council and provides staff support to the Council. The County
Administrator is responsible for submitting the budget to Council. This office
provides Public Information to inform, educate and involve citizens and employees
about County projects, policies, and goals while enhancing the image of County
government. Media Services are also provided for document reproduction and
duplication, graphic design, audio-visual, and mail services to County offices.

Mission

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

Budget
%
Avg.
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Annual
Actual Actual Actual Change
p y g
Expenditures by Program:
County Administration $ 1,570,371 2,354,720 2,398,476 24%
Public Information 284,831 342,419 393,504 18%
Media Services 208,084 252,846 256,569 11%
Lodgers' Tax Fund 320,151 287,221 254,520 (11%)
Customer Service 288,417 192,546 - (100%)
$ 2,671,854 3,429,752 3,303,069 11%

Expenditures by Fund:
General $ 2,351,703 3,142,531 3,048,549 14%
Lodgers' Tax Fund 320,151 287,221 254,520 (11%)
$ 2,671,854 3,429,752 3,303,069 11%

Expenditures by Type:
Salaries $ 946,050 954,365 873,118 (4%)
Benefits 304,128 311,119 284,712 (3%)
Contractual services 1,222,317 1,936,329 1,966,821 27%
Other services 112,063 109,281 96,502 (7%)
Materials / supplies 54,497 73,551 50,379 (4%)
Interfund charges 20,623 31,913 31,537 24%
Capital outlay 12,176 13,194 - (100%)
0 - -
$ 2,671,854 3,429,752 3,303,069 11%

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

FTEs By Program:
County Administrator 7.00 6.50 7.00 0%
Public Information 2.00 2.80 3.00 22%
Media Services 2.00 2.00 2.00 0%
Customer Service 4.50 4.20 0.00 (100%)
15.50 15.50 12.00 (12%)

6


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

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

7


COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR - PUBLIC INFORMATION
Program Purpose

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

Program Expenditures, Budget and Full Time Equivalents (FTE)

FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 % Avg. Annual
Actual Actual Actual Actual Change
Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure '06-'09
Operating Expenditures/Budget 204,758 284,831 342,419 393,504 24.3%
FTE's 1.50 2.00 2.80 3.00 26.0%
Operating Expenditure/FTE $ 136,505 142,416 122,293 131,168 (1.3%)

Strategic Goal Addressed
Maintain Quality Essential Routine Services

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

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

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

Results
"B" = biennial measures.ICMA's Center for Performance Estimated
Measurement does not provide Public Information measures. FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 '07-'09
Results
Percent of residents surveyed who report that they feel they biennial,
B have the information they need to participate in County 49% next survey 53% 8.2%
decisions in '11

Percent of residents surveyed who respond "good" or biennial,
B "excellent" when rating timeliness of information provided by 60% next survey 63% 5.0%
the County in '11
Efficiency
Expenditure per public information publication for 100 %
$0.44 $0.24 $0.20
household distribution (32.8%)

8


COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR - MEDIA SERVICES

Program Purpose

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


Media Services as Part of Media Services as Part of
Information Technology County Administrator

Operating Expenditures/Budget 198,395 208,084 252,846 132,972 N/A
Inputs for Duplication Cost per Copy N/A
Equipment Data for this timeframe is unavailable 113,627 N/A
Supplies and Freight in this format. 9,970 N/A
N/A
Subtotal Duplication Services 123,597
FTE's 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0%
Operating Expenditure/FTE $ 99,198 104,042 126,423 66,486 N/A

Comprehensive Plan References - Vision Statements
Engage citizenship

Strategic Goal Addressed

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

9


COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR - MEDIA SERVICES

Results
ICMA's CPM does not provide Media Services measures. Estimated
FY2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 '07-'09
Internal Quality Survey Results
Employee rating media services either excellent or good for
89% 87%
overall quality
(2.8%)

Employee rating media services either excellent or good for
92% 88%
overall responsiveness
(3.8%)
Outputs
Number of copies/prints made 1,571,317 1,419,292 1,419,431 (5.0%)
Number of print/copy jobs completed 718 912 760 2.9%
Efficiency
Cost per copy/print $0.13 $0.13 $0.087
(18.2%)

10


COUNTY ATTORNEY
Description

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

Mission

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

Budget


General Fund
98%

Attorney
2%

11


COUNTY ATTORNEY

%
Avg.
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY2009 Annual

Salaries $ 393,114 406,370 $ 421,946 4%
Benefits 130,213 111,667 144,930 5%
Contractual services 92,014 79,789 146,174 26%
Other services 19,077 11,234 14,312 (13%)
Materials / supplies 18,983 26,460 20,033 3%
Interfund charges 4,461 4,321 4,359 (1%)
$ 657,862 639,841 751,754 7%

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

12


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


Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures '06-'09
Expenditures/Budgets $ 738,717 657,862 639,841 751,754 1%
FTE's 5.00 4.59 5.00 5.00 0%
Expenditure/FTE $ 147,743 $ 143,325 $ 127,844 $ 150,250 1%

Engage citizenship

Strategic Council Goals Supported by Department Resources

Results
Estimated
FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 %
Performance Measures Actual Actual Actual Change '07 - '09
INTERNAL SERVICES SURVEY
OUTCOME MEASURES #DIV/0!

% Elected and Appointed officials satisfied
or very satisfied that their decisions were
based upon sound legal advice. 85% 100% 18%

% Senior Management and Division
Managers surveyed indicating confidence
that their decisions were legally compliant. 86% 89% 3%

13


COUNTY SHERIFF
Description

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

Budget

General Fund
99.9%

Sheriff
0.1%

%
Avg.
Salaries $ 39,276 41,378 42,147 4%
Benefits 8,295 8,483 8,854 3%
Contractual services 644 13 339 (27%)
Other services 4,291 6,466 3,386 (11%)
Interfund charges 542 529 452 (9%)
Capital outlay 0 0 0 N/A
$ 59,505 58,884 58,654 (1%)
FTE Summary:
Casual, Student,& Temp. 0.22 0.27 0.15 (17%)
1.97 2.02 1.90 (2%)

14


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


Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures '06-'09
Expenditures/Budgets $ 69,529 59,505 58,884 58,654 (5.5%)
FTE's 2.03 1.97 2.02 1.90 (2.2%)
Expenditure/FTE $ 34,251 $ 30,206 $ 29,150 $ 30,871 (3.4%)

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

Strategic Council Goals Supported by Department Resources

The Los Alamos County Sheriff’s Department continues to provide a means for timely service of process
within the County. The Sheriff’s Department is currently recruiting for two vacant Deputy positions. The
goal is to have sufficient qualified, trained Deputies employed prior to the election of a Sheriff in 2010.
The Sheriff’s Department continues to maintain current registration of the sex offenders residing in Los
Alamos County. New registration requirements and forms were enacted by the Department of Public
Safety, effective August 1, 2009. These new requirements and forms have been incorporated by the
Sheriff’s Department. Upon completion of the Jail Police Judicial Complex in 2010, the Sheriff’s
Department will once again have a separate office from which to serve the residents of Los Alamos
County. The proximity to the Police Department and Courts will facilitate expeditious service in a central
location for the citizens. Additionally, a separate office for the Sheriff will ensure privacy while dealing in
confidential matters.

Results
ICMA's Center for Performance Measurement does not provide measures for Sheriffs.
Est. Average
FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 Annual %
CORE FUNCTION - LEGAL
PROCESSES ADMINISTERED
Percent of processes administered within
legal time requirements 100% 96% 98.8% (0.6%)
Number of processes administered 276 287 256 (3.7%)
Expenditure per process administered $ 213 $ 205 $ 229 3.7%

15


COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

16


Description

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

Mission

To proactively plan and facilitate quality development and redevelopment, maintain
neighborhood vitality, ensure sustainability and enhance the human and natural
environment of the County.

Goals

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

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

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

Budget


General Fund
98%

Community
Development
2%

17



%
Avg.

Salaries $ 678,478 722,583 750,165 5%
Benefits 217,814 209,744 228,389 2%
Contractual services 25,170 64,201 39,822 26%
Other services 37,898 33,098 30,779 (10%)
Materials / supplies 45,741 16,900 19,053 (35%) [2]
Capital outlay 35,588 0 0 (100%) [1]
Fiscal charges 0 0 0 NA
$ 1,058,238 1,075,659 1,093,315 2%

FTE Summary:

[1] Amounts for items less than $5,000 have been reclassified from capital outlay to
materials/supplies.
[2] Decrease in FY2008 due to fewer computer replacements.

18


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


Expenditures Expenditures Budget Expenditures '06-'09
Expenditures and Budget $ 1,029,110 1,058,238 1,075,659 1,093,315 2%
FTE's 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 0%
Expenditure/FTE $ 79,162 81,403 82,743 84,101 2%
Expenditure/capita 56.70 58.30 59.26 60.23 2%

Revitalize downtown
Diversify housing
Engage citizenship

Strategic Council Goals Supported by Program Resources
Maintain quality and essential routine services


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

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

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

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

19


Results
CPM denotes a measure defined and maintained by the ICMA Center for Performance Measurement
Estimated %
FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 Average Annual
BUILDING PERMITS (All
Types)
Average # of calendar days
from customer submittal of
CPM
building permit application to
permit issuance
- 6.80 6.88 1%
# permits issued (see table A
CPM on following page) 644 530 (17.7%)
Average cost per permit
CPM
issued
$ 126.77 $ 233.37 84%

Estimated %
LAND USE APPROVAL Average Annual
AND PLAN REVIEW Change '07-'09
Percent of all development
applications processed
according to customer service
standards for response time
98% 96% 99% 0.5%
Percent of development
application staff
recommendations passed by
the Planning and Zoning
Commission
95% 100% 91% (2.1%)
Total # of development plans
CPM
reviewed 58 157 200 85.7%
Average cost per development
CPM
plan reviewed $ 622.08 $ 483.72 (22.2%)
LAND USE PLANS AND
CODES
Number of planning
documents and code updates
drafted 10 11 9 (5.1%)

20



HOW THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STACKS UP

Avg # Calendar Days from customer submittal
to permit issuance
Hampton, VA
pop 146,139 ‐
HIGHEST,  167

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

Several
Communities
MEDIAN ‐ West
Jordan, UT,
Charlotsville, VA,
McAllen, TX & Garnder, KS pop Los Alamos pop
Sarasota County, 18,096 ‐ MEDIAN,   18,150 Actual,
FL,  10 8
6.88
Cartersville,GA
Los Alamos pop
pop 21,220 ‐ 18,150 Actual,   Cartersville, GA
LOWEST,  1 2007 6.8 2008 pop 22,235 ‐ 2009
LOWEST,  1

21




Avg cost per permit issued

Washoe County,
NV pop 107,999 ‐
HIGHEST,
$1,202.88

Addison, IL pop
36,947 ‐ HIGHEST,
$769.11

Los Alamos pop
18,150 Actual ‐
Los Alamos pop
MEDIAN,
18,150 Actual,
Phoenix, AZ pop
$126.77
$233.37
1.5 million ‐
MEDIAN,  $125.83
Austin, TX pop
Austin, TX pop 724,111 ‐
724,111 ‐ LOWEST,  $5.41
LOWEST,  $5.32
2007 2008 2009

22



Avg Cost per development plan reviewed

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

New Albany,
OH pop 6,584 ‐
HIGHEST,
$12,718.30

Phoenix, AZ
Columbia County, pop 1.54
GA pop 106,887 ‐ million ‐
MEDIAN,   MEDIAN,
$1,281.70 $1,420.06 Los Alamos pop Los Alamos pop
18,150 Actual,   18,150 Actual,
Cartersville,GA Plant City, FL pop $622.08 $483.72
pop 21,220 ‐ 35,000 ‐ LOWEST,
LOWEST,  $185.44 $45.33
2007 2008 2009

23


ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT

General Fund
80%

Administrative
Services
20%

Expenditures by Program
Risk Management
Proc/Materials 20% Accounting &
Mgmt Budget
6% 11%

Indigent Health
Care
17%
Information
Technology
Human Resources
33%
13%

24


ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Description

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

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

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

The Information T h l
Th I f ti Technology Di i i
Division i responsible f th efficient and effective
is ibl for the ffi i t d ff ti
operation of information systems used by the County to provide services to our
citizens. The Division provides services in the following areas: hardware and software
support for the County’s desktop and server environment, application development
and support, geographical information services, support for the County’s internet and
intranet, and telecommunications. The Information Technology Division also provides
graphic services and mail delivery to the County.

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

25


Department Summary

%
Avg.
Accounting & Budget $ 1,259,138 1,198,008 1,163,893 (4%)
Indigent Health Care 993,076 1,892,186 1,860,474 37%
Human Resources 1,130,874 1,280,880 1,423,916 12%
Information Technology 2,733,785 2,997,659 3,632,241 15%
Proc/Materials Mgmt 610,970 661,649 682,438 6%
Risk Management 1,785,883 1,868,056 2,156,969 10%
$ 8,513,726 9,898,438 10,919,931 13%

General $ 5,734,767 6,138,196 6,902,488 10%
Risk Management 1,785,883 1,868,056 2,156,969 10%
$ 8,513,726 9,898,438 10,919,931 13%

FTE Summary:
Limited term 2.00 2.00 1.00 (29%)
54.36 55.25 57.75 3%

FTEs By Division:
Office of Mgmt & Budget 11.75 11.75 11.75 0%
Human Resources 11.50 12.00 11.00 (2%)
Information Technology 19.00 19.50 23.00 10%
Purchasing & Risk Mgmt 12.11 12.00 12.00 (0%)
54.36 55.25 57.75 3%

26


ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT - OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
& BUDGET

Office of Management & Budget Mission

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

Program Budget
%
Avg.

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

g g
Accounting & Budget $ , ,
1,259,138 , ,
1,198,008 , ,
1,163,893 ( )
(4%)
$ 2,252,214 3,090,194 3,024,367 16%

General $ 1,259,138 1,198,008 1,163,893 (4%)
$ 2,252,214 3,090,194 3,024,367 16%

Salaries $ 738,523 760,421 736,710 (0%)
Benefits 225,591 217,799 224,393 (0%)
Contractual services 1,074,962 1,972,523 1,881,890 32%
Other services 39,479 41,602 45,848 8%
Capital outlay 5533 0 - (100%)
Fiscal charges 42,557 (3,842) 278 (92%)
$ 2,252,214 3,090,194 3,024,367 16%

FTE Summary:
Limited term 1.00 1.00 1.00 0%
11.75 11.75 11.75 0%

27


ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES - HUMAN RESOURCES

Human Resources Division Mission

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

Human Resources Program Budget

%
Avg.

Salaries $ 708,213 762,943 789,330 6% [1]
Benefits 213,792 232,447 246,321 7% [1]
Contractual services 42,730 82,785 205,646 119% [2]
Other services 110,856 90,771 89,853 (10%) [3]
Fiscal charges 806 2,882
2 882 178 (53%)
$ 1,130,874 1,280,880 1,423,916 12%

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

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

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

[3] Decrease in advertising for recruitments.

28


ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Information Technology Division Mission

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

Information Technology Program Budget

%
Avg.

Salaries $ 1,136,786 1,241,292 1,383,031 10%
Benefits 346,619 391,030 456,255 15%
Contractual services 730,845 787,668 1,034,751 19% [1]
Other services 293,099 262,273 350,738 9%
Capital outlay 111,290 150,913 169,306 23%
$ 2,733,785
2 733 785 2,997,659
2 997 659 3,632,241
3 632 241 15%

FTE Summary:
Limited term 1.00 1.00 0.00 (100%)
19.00 19.50 23.00 10%

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

29


ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES - PROCURMENT, MATERIALS, AND RISK
MANAGEMENT

Procurement/Material Management & Safety/Risk Management Division Mission

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

Procurement/Material Management & Risk Management Program Budget

%
Avg.
Procurement/Material Mgmt $ 610,970 661,649 682,438 6%
Risk Management 1,785,883 1,868,056 2,156,969 10%
$ 2,396,853 2,529,705 2,839,407 9%

General $ 610,970 661,649 682,438 6%
Risk Management 1,785,883 1,868,056 2,156,969 10%
$ 2,396,853 2,529,705 2,839,407 9%

Salaries $ 558,125 623,948 622,259 6% [1]
Benefits 182,311 213,123 211,676 8% [1]
Contractual services 576,001 665,655 455,186 (11%)
Other services 964,572 933,484 1,440,909 22% [2]
Capital outlay - - 10,000 100%
Fiscal charges 500 465 0 (100%)
$ 2,396,853 2,529,705 2,839,407 9%

FTE Summary:
Regular (full & part time) 12.00 12.00 12.00 0% [1]
12.11 12.00 12.00 (0%)

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

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

30


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


Capital and Outside Services $ 60,003 43,536 85,667 205,646 51%
Operating Expenditures/Budget $ 1,062,710 1,087,338 1,195,213 1,218,270 5%
FTE's 11.50 11.50 12.00 12.00 1%
Operating Expenditure/FTE $ 92,410 94,551 99,601 101,523 3%

Maintain quality essential routine services

During the FY2009 budget cycle, one (1) FTE had temporarily been transferred to the IT Division to work on a special
project that involved both IT and HR. This position was returned to the HR budget in FY2010. Additionally, as a part of
the FY2010 budget, recruitment expenses for Public Safety were transferred into the HR budget. These two major
budget items, in addition to the annual increase allowance of 7%) resulted in the increased budget of 10.8%.

process.
HR staff have worked closely with management in the recruitment process Process improvements have been
implemented including training, more efficient processes, and identification of the most effective recruitment markets.
The average number of working days to fill a vacant position has decreased; however, in most situations the anticipated
time standard was exceeded due to the readverstisement of positions in order to obtain a higher quality of applicant
pool.

During FY2009, employee turnover was much less than anticipated. This figure is the lowest that it has been for nearly
10 years. Additionally, there were no employee grievances during this timeperiod. Employee benefits in the County
are a huge retention tool with the County's percentage being well within the national average. With the State and
County retirement and pension plans, the County contributes 18.15% to 30.25% of the base earnings per employee.

The Human Resources Division is staffed to provide full comprehensive services in the areas of: recruitment, employee
relations (including grievances, complaints, investigations), labor relations (including negotiations, hearings, grievances),
training (including providing, facilitating, tuition assistance), compliance reporting, benefits (including administration of
pension plans, retirement plans, wellness programs, donated leave), payroll processing and accounting, Personnel Board,
Labor Management Relations Board, compensation structure (including market studies and job classifications),
Employee Survey, and Employee Recognition Programs. Staff are cross-trained to assist in the various programs.

31



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

Estimated %
FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 Average Annual
Performance Measures Actual Actual Actual Change
RECRUITMENT
Average # working days for
CPM external recruitment without
candidate testing requirements
55 36.1 (34.4%)

Average # working days for
CPM external recruitment with
60 52.2 (13.0%)
Total # positions filled (including
promotions of existing
employees, new regular
CPM
employees, and new temporary,
casual and limited term
employees 172 180 178 1.7%
EMPLOYEE
GRIEVANCES
# of employee grievances and
CPM appeals per 100 employees 1.67 N/A N/A
% grievances resolved before
Footnote 1 - CPM passing from management
control 100% N/A N/A
HR STAFFING LEVEL
Ratio of total HR FTE's
CPM (excluding payroll) per 100 total
jurisdiction FTE's 1.44 1.40 (3.1%)
EMPLOYEE JOB
SATISFACTION 3%
% employees who rated overall
satisfaction as a County
employee as satisfied or above
on the Employee Survey
85% N/A
EMPLOYEE TURNOVER
RATE
Turnover rate (excluding
retirements, deaths,
CPM
probationary and part timers) for
all positions
6.9% 2.1% (69.6%)
BENEFIT COSTS
Employee benefit costs as a
CPM percentage of employee
salaries (excluding overtime)
37.7% 39.4% 4.4%
Footnote 1 - During FY2009, 0 employees filed grievances, and 677 employees were eligible
to file grievances. Reporting 0% would be accurate, but would also be misleading, as
management had no grievances to deal with. Therefore, the best answer is N/A, for Not
Applicable.

32


HOW THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES HUMAN RESOURCES PROGRAM
STACKS UP

Employee Benefits as % of
Employee Salaries

Bridgeport, CT
pop 137,912,
69.0%
Cumberland,
MD pop 20,758
‐ Highest,
59.3%

Los Alamos,
Los Alamos, pop 18,150,
pop 18,150, 39.4%
Casper, WY pop 37.7%
52,089 Median,
35.0% Sioux Falls, SD
pop 154,100
pop 154 100
Median, 36.2%

McHenry, IL
pop 24,493 ‐
Colorado Lowest, 15.6%
Springs, CO pop
398,258 ‐
Highest, 4.0%
2007 2008 2009

33



Ratio of HR FTEs per 100 Total
FTE's
Windsor, CO ‐
Highest, pop.
19,201,  4.20

Pleasant Hill,
MO ‐ Highest,
pop 6,903,
2.98

Los Alamos pop Los Alamos pop
18,150,  1.44 18,150,  1.40

Clayton, MO Harrisonville,
pop 15,935 ‐ MO pop 8,946‐
Median,  0.78 Median,  0.80

Grain Valley, Coral Springs,
MO pop 13,000 FL pop 128,930‐
‐ Lowest ,  0.31 Lowest, 0.20
2007 2008 2009

34



Average # working days for external recruitment with
70
60 60
48.8 52
45 50
Los Alamos,
40 NM
30

20 CPM Median ‐
10
Floyd County,
GA
0

2007 2008 2009

Average # working days for external recruitment
without candidate testing requirements
60
55
50

40
34.6 36
32.0
30
Los Alamos, NM
20

CPM Median ‐
10
Elgin, IL
0

2007 2008 2009

Turnover rate (excluding retirements, deaths,
probationary and part timers) for all positions
Tacoma, WA pop 396,000 ‐ Median Los Alamos actual

2009
2.1%

6.6%
2008
6.9%

0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00%

35


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


Capital and Outside Services $ 1,128,624 842,135 938,581 1,204,057 2%
Operating Expenditures/Budget $ 1,970,108 1,891,650 2,059,078 2,428,184 7%
FTE's 18.75 19.00 19.50 23.00 7%
Operating Expenditure/FTE $ 105,072 99,561 105,594 105,573 0%

Upgrade infrastructure

Maintain quality essential routine services

Information Technology continues to move toward ICMA standards for eGovernment, staff expertise and
system reliability. In FY 09 the Internal Services Survey showed that satisfaction with IT services increased
y y g
by over 23% from the 2007 survey. This increase in customer satisfaction is attributable to listening to our
internal customers and implementing their recommendations. At the beginning of FY 2008, Information
Technology met with customers throughout County departments to find out how we could provide better
service. The top priority for improvement in IT services from internal customers was to move beyond
technical expertise to how specific major applications operate by increasing IT personnel and the familiarity
of those personnel with those applications. The specified applications were Financials, Utility and Public
Safety applications. In the FY 09 budget request, IT personnel increased from 19.5 to 22 and IT dedicated
three FTEs to the financial system, utility billing/work orders and the public safety dispatch/records
management system. We have received positive feedback from the customers, including a comment from
one customer that they no longer felt they needed to allocate a position within their group to focus on the
internal workings of that system. There was consideration to move an FTE from HR to IT to provide the
same type of service for the HR system and the FTE was temporarily moved from HR to IT in FY09, but the
transition never occurred and the position was left in HR. Based upon the same series of meeting with
internal customers, the next highest priorities were to increase IT resources, particularly personnel, funding
and time and to provide increased 24/7 service and support for public safety. IT added support for the
public safety system, Intergraph, which includes a new area of support, computers in public safety vehicles.
IT continues to support Public Safety systems including the systems with which they interface with a smaller
team than other Intergraph clients dedicate to support of the system. We have incorporated some of these
duties into IT positions that were already in existence to provide the necessary support. The ownership and
maintenance of the Intergraph system was transferred to the County from LANL two years ago. Since that
time many additional modules have been implemented. Information Technology plans to meet with
department customers again in FY 10 after we get a normalized response to the new internal services
survey. This will be the first year utilizing the ICMA standard questions and ratings. The survey will become
an annual process instead of biannual to keep a better appraisal of current customer satisfaction.
EGovernment initiatives are in relatively new in Los Alamos County. Citizens continue to increase utilization
of the eGovernment components as they become available. We expect dynamic change in these areas to
continue as citizens become aware of the services and new services are added. The safeguards installed
to protect against downtime in FY08 have shown to decrease system downtime and increase system
stability.

36

LA County Performance Report FY2009

LA County Performance Report FY2009

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (6)

Similar a LA County Performance Report FY2009

Similar a LA County Performance Report FY2009 (20)

LA County Performance Report FY2009