Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20130723 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION July 23, 2013 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. Community Development Department Meet & Greet II. Wildfire Mitigation III. Com Dev additional staffing MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Skadron and City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Community Development Work Session - 4pm DATE: Tuesday July 23, 2013 Community Development staff is hosting an informal meet and greet with City Council. The purpose of this meeting is for Council to meet the members of Community Development – especially those that do not attend Council meetings. Please meet in the Planning Department, 3rd floor of City Hall, at 4 pm. We will provide a quick tour of planning and then go to the Building Department at approximately 4:15. Simple snacks and refreshments will be provided. Our meet and greet will be over at 5pm in order for Council to attend their regular work session at City Hall. P1 I. Page 1 of 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Will Dolan, Utilities Project Coordinator THRU: David Hornbacher, Director of Utilities & Environmental Initiatives DATE OF MEMO: July 19, 2013 MEETING DATE: July 23, 2013 RE: Wildfire Mitigation Program Authorizations REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council’s authorization to spend City funds on several interrelated projects which collectively comprise a coordinated and multi-year wildfire mitigation program. BACKGROUND: Colorado’s increasing problems with wildfire are well known. The issue is drawing additional attention at all levels of government in Colorado due to the severity of fires and the extreme levels of damage, including loss of life. While the Aspen Volunteer Fire Protection District (AVFPD) and other area fire districts are well-prepared and adept at fighting fires, we have come to realize that certain aspects of preparation for fires in Aspen’s Wildland/Urban Interface (WUI) areas have not received adequate attention in the past. The combination of increasing periods of drought and decades of continued fire fuels growth has led to a worrisome situation that must be addressed. Members of the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, AVFPD, the U.S. Forest Service and Holy Cross Electric have teamed up to analyze the current situation and recommend improvements. A few aspects of this recommended program have recently been funded and are already underway. Other critical aspects are only in the early planning stages and remain unfunded. The purpose of this memo and the upcoming City Council work session is to summarize those areas of fire preparation needing the most attention and to recommend solutions and possible methods of funding. DISCUSSION: A truly effective fire mitigation program requires ongoing support and attention. It also requires community-wide cooperation between agencies and amongst the general public. Property owners are perhaps the most important players in wildfire prevention and mitigation—an educated and engaged community can make the difference between a contained and uncontained wildfire event. Protection of human life is the highest priority in wildfire events, with property protection coming a distant second. Therefore, evacuation and education are the most important focuses from a program implementation perspective. With adequate evacuation and education programs in place, fire fighters can better perform their on-the-ground duties. Keeping this in mind, staff is seeking authorization for four mitigation projects (in descending order of priority): P3 II. Page 2 of 4 1. Construction of Evacuation Routes through Aspen Grove Cemetery a. There are several dead end neighborhoods in the Aspen area. In order to provide these neighborhoods with escape routes, it is recommended that we construct secondary egresses where possible. Staff has identified one such area, and is seeking authorization to construct evacuation routes in the Eastwood/Knollwood community (see Figure 1, attached). 2. Conduct Community Outreach and Fuel Clearing (targeting Eastwood/Knollwood area) a. This task involves a continuation of existing outreach, as well as offering ongoing fuel clearing assistance to high risk neighborhoods. The City would like to offer chipping and hauling services to make it easier for these areas to create “defensible space” around properties, as well as reduce the overall likelihood and severity of future wildfires. 3. Create Utilities Easement Fuel Breaks/Anchor Lines a. The focus of this task is to create North-South fuel breaks and anchor lines on Red Mtn. Working in cooperation with the County and Holy Cross, staff would like to clear these breaks along existing water and electrical line easements (see Figure 2, attached. These breaks can slow the spread of wildfires, provide firefighters improved staging and access, as well as even stop the fire altogether. Currently, there is only one such North-South fuel break (Red Mtn. Road). 4. Harden Water Delivery Systems in Pump Zones on Red Mtn. and Eastwood/Knollwood a. This task focuses on increasing the availability of water in the pump zones during a wildfire event. Aspen’s highest risk wildfire zones are located in pump zones— meaning they require electricity for water delivery. Installing backup generation capabilities at most of our pump stations would ensure that water continues to flow to the hydrants and taps even in the event of a power outage. b. This task also involves running water systems models to determine the distribution network’s variable water capacity based on various emergency scenarios. This systems model will allow us to better plan for wildfire events. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Although this is an ongoing process, staff is seeking authorization to spend $132,000 for wildfire mitigation programs this year. Costs will be split between General Fund and Water Fund (recouped via increased pump surcharges). Several of these programs will require funding in successive years, as they are multi-year or ongoing projects (see figure 3, attached). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends Council grant full authorization for the funds requested. Once approval is granted, staff will begin fine-tuning the costs and project timelines, and begin implementing the aforementioned projects and programs. ALTERNATIVES: If Council does not approve this use of City funds for the purposes of wildfire mitigation, the community will likely be less prepared—and suffer more loss and damage in a wildfire event—than if the full scope of projects and programs were enacted. As an alternative, Council could choose to authorize only those programs and projects they deem most effective. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ P4 II. Page 3 of 4 ATTACHMENTS: Figure 1. Proposed Evacuation Routes; Figure 2. Proposed Utilities Easement Fuel Breaks; and Figure 3. Breakdown of Requested Funding Figure 1. Proposed Evacuation Routes Figure 2. Proposed Utilities Easement Fuel Breaks P5 II. Page 4 of 4 Figure 3. Breakdown of Requested Funding Funding Source Task 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL General Fund Evacuation Routes $185,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ $185,000 General Fund Community Outreach & Fuel Removal $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000 Water (Pump Charges)Easement Fuel Breaks $15,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ $15,000 Water (Pump Charges)Water System Availability $42,000 $188,000 ???$230,000 TOTAL:$292,000 $238,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $680,000 Funding Current Source Task Request General Fund Evacuation Routes $25,000 General Fund Community Outreach & Fuel Removal $50,000 Water (Pump Charges)Easement Fuel Breaks $15,000 Water (Pump Charges)Water System Availability $42,000 TOTAL:$132,000 Year Prelimary Cost Proposal Outlook Currently Requested P6 II. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council FROM: Johannah Richards, Community Development Administrative Manager Trish Aragon, PE, City Engineer THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director RE: Development Services Staffing Request MEETING DATE: July 23, 2013 ____________________________________________________________________________ REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting Council approval for additional staff positions in the Community Development and Engineering Departments for development review and inspection services. The development review and inspection services include review for compliance of development and building permit applications, permit intake and processing, construction mitigation and front line customer service. Community Development - Building Division Administrative Assistant 65,000 Plans Examiner 84,000 $149,000 Engineering Department Development Engineer 113,000 $113,000 TOTAL REQUEST $262,000 DISCUSSION: Development activity has been increasing steadily. Total building permit valuation has increased annually since 2009. From 2010 to 2012, total investment nearly doubled. Year-to-date figures show investment up 16% and revenues up 36% from this time last year. (See Exhibit A) Development Services Revenue YTD $- $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 2009 YTD 2010 YTD 2011 YTD 2012 YTD 2013 YTD Revenue P7 III. Permit Valuations YTD Permits and Land Use Cases YTD The changes appear to be a consistent trend, not an anomaly. (See Exhibit B) Projects appear to be getting larger in scope as seen by the typical permit value of $10,000, which has been on the rise since 2010. Pre-application conferences are more substantive and some early conversations with potential lodging developers also appear promising. Community Development recently polled local design firms and contractors. The private sector is still cautious, but is adding staff and/or being more thoughtful about project selection. Their 6 and 12 month outlooks are positive. Building permit volume has been slowly increasing along with the complexity and review of projects. Engineering’s permits have increased by 30% in the last year, only 12% down from the peak of activity experienced in 2008. $- $20,000,000 $40,000,000 $60,000,000 $80,000,000 $100,000,000 $120,000,000 2009 YTD 2010 YTD 2011 YTD 2012 YTD 2013 YTD Hospital Valuation Permit Valuation 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 2009 YTD2010 YTD2011 YTD2012 YTD2013 YTD Permits P8 III. Numerous large projects are in the pipeline and building permits can be issued at any time. These projects represent workload that are in review or can currently be submitted to the Building Division and increase workload: Project Type Submitted for Building Permit? Total Floor Area Aspen Club Lodge, Commercial, Affordable Housing No 94,750 Jerome Professional Building Commercial & Residential No 23,957 S Aspen St Townhomes (Free Market only) Residential No 47,124 Hospital, Phase 3 & 4* Essential Public Facility & Commercial No 83,015 601 E Hyman Commercial & Residential No 9,304 Gap Commercial Yes 15,438 623/625 E Hopkins Commercial & Residential Yes 6,969 Aspen Core Commercial & Residential Yes 33,005 602 E Hyman Commercial & Residential No 830 Mason & Morse Commercial No 1,000 610 E Hyman Commercial & Residential No 2,500 Art Museum Essential Public Facility Yes 26,500 Muse Building Commercial & Residential Yes 15,000 Gant Conference Facility Lodge Common Space Yes 6,400 Total 365,792 * Gross Square Footage Other large projects also in the pipeline where building permits can be issued once a development order is given: Project Type Development Order Issued? Stage of Planning Review Total Floor Area / Total Area of Addition S Aspen St Townhomes (Free Market only) Amendment Residential No Council Review - Jerome Professional Bldg. Amendment Commercial & Residential No Staff / Will go to Council - Boogie's Commercial & Residential No Council Review 8,899 Zocalito Commercial & Residential No Council Review 7,066 Red Onion Poster Shop Commercial & Residential No HPC Conceptual Approval 16,191 Hotel Aspen Lodge & Residential No P&Z Review 38,512 Total 70,668 P9 III. REQUESTED POSITIONS: Development Engineer For the Engineering Department, reviews have become more-involved and complicated with the adoption of the Fee-in-Lieu associated with the Urban Runoff Management Plan. As a result of the current activity volume, the average response time for initial Engineering review averages 50 days. This means an applicant has to wait 50 days to hear from Engineering as to whether or not their application needs more information. Workload in 2013 has also been compounded by the restructure of the existing permit process. By adding an additional Development Engineer to the Department, we will be able to reduce our response times and provide a better level of service to our customers. Administrative Assistant The administrative functions of the department will need to be bolstered, due to the restructuring of our front desk and permit intake services. The Department continues to believe in the importance of an actual person to greet people, answer the phones, log permits, receipt funds, issue permits, etc.. Much of this basic customer service is currently provided by the Permit Technicians. When asked what the biggest threat would be during the restructuring, the two prospective Permit Coordinators said “not getting out of our current jobs, ‘backsliding’.” For the Permit Coordinator concept to work, many things need to happen – the biggest one being able to fully cover the customer service and administrative functions of the front desk. Plans Examiner A Plans Examiner reviews all construction plans for compliance with the International Building Codes. It is an intricate, time-consuming review. The most-significant reductions during the recession were in this area – the City cut 75% of its plans review capacity. Since then, fluctuations in demand have been handled through outsourcing and temporary labor. In early 2012, a temp labor position being used for 40 hours per week was officially added to the department. Current demands are being met with outsourcing to a firm on the Front Range, two temporary staff, utilizing inspection staff for plans review, and occasional over-time. Outsourcing and temp labor do not fulfill the demand for on-site professional staff. Based on sustained work demands, the addition of a full-time Plans Examiner is being requested. 2014 BUDGET REQUESTS: Senior Planner The Department currently has one Senior Planner, Sara Adams, and one Long-Range Planner, Jessica Garrow. These two positions handle the bulk of land use policy and code amendment projects (such as the city’s efforts on Lodging) and handle the more complicated land use cases (downtown projects, lodging projects). Bolstering these responsibilities are the Director and Deputy Director, which can take time away from general department management, coaching, mentoring, etc. Given the level of policy change expectation, the level of current and expected big projects, and a pending maternity leave, another senior planner/long-range planner will be requested in the 2014 budget. Planning Technician In Community Development the Planning Technician handles a significant portion of the planner-of-the-day function of the department. This is a role that is currently rotated through staff and handles all general planning questions and all pre-application conferences. These tasks can take just a few hours of a day up to an entire day (or multiple days if research is involved). P10 III. With the increase in real estate interest, this function has seen an uptick in activity. Additionally, the planner-of-the-day reviews all sub-permits (mechanical, electrical, plumbing). This typically involves 6-12 permits per day. When not on POD duty, a Planning Technician handles less- complicated land use cases – condo plats, residential design reviews, and most types of cases that conclude with a P&Z hearing. The Planning Technician also should assist senior-level staff with routine aspects of big cases, such as DRC reviews, and provide support to the Long-Range Planner and Director with policy projects. This last task has not occurred due to reduced staffing. The Department is also considering having a Planning Technician available for all permit acceptance reviews to ensure permits entering the City’s system are for permitted uses and have obtained all necessary planning approvals. The Department currently has one Planning Technician and will request a second in the 2014 budget. Project Manager I With an increase in permit activity there is also an increase in need for Construction Mitigation services. This includes review of construction mitigation plans and associated inspection of sites. The Engineering Department currently has one construction mitigation officer however his time is split between the review and compliance of encroachments. Given the complexity of downtown projects, this leaves little time for construction mitigation services. This is especially important with the type of downtown development occurring. These projects have a large impact to the vitality of our downtown area. Visitors do not come to Aspen to see construction, and our citizens do not want to live in a constant construction project. As a result, it is our job to balance the needs of our visitors and citizens while still allowing construction to progress. This balance requires intensive outreach to the impacted properties and continued cooperation between the City and the construction site. As a result, this requires significant staff time. By adding a project manager I position, it would allow the City to focus more on this effort. The intent of the position is to give the Engineering Department flexibility between development review and the associated inspection services. This person could be cross trained in multiple departmental activities and when needed could shift its focus from construction mitigation to development review to project support. This request will be considered in the 2014 budget review. POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL REQUESTS: The City Parks Department plays an important role in the review of building permits. They review all landscaping, natural resource protection, rights-of-way work, many stormwater issues, and anything affecting trees or trail easements. The reviews are currently performed by Brian Flynn, the manager of the City’s open space program. Current activity requires roughly 6-12 hours per week between permit review and inspection. Due to increased activity and other demands on Mr. Flynn, this function is taking place sporadically with occasional significant delays. Community Development believes this Parks review function is important to the overall customer service goals for timely review of permits and that delays should be avoided. Community Development also believes the Parks review responsibility should not necessarily rest within the dedicated open space funding. City Council should be aware that the Parks Department may request a .25 FTE be budgeted from the General Fund in the 2014 budget to accommodate this need. Alternatively, Parks and another department may assemble several P11 III. unmet needs into a shared position request in the 2014 budget. No action is requested at this time. Community Development is overhauling its entire permit review process and the new process relies heavily on Permit Coordinators. Two Permit Coordinators are currently planned, utilizing existing staff. There is some suspicion around two PCs being able to administer the current permit volume of 1,000+ permits per year. However, without actual experience staff simply does not know if current staffing will be sufficient or if additional staffing should be requested. Staff is taking a wait-and-see approach. Alternatively, ComDev may request an additional position or split position within the 2014 budget review or mid-2014. No action is requested at this time. STAFF COMMENTS: Management staff within Community Development and Engineering do not want to repeat the delayed response to increasing demands of 2005-8. Back then, management did not add staff until review times were immeasurable, relationships with the building community were broken, and staff morale was extremely low. Reflecting on that experience prompted this mid-year request. All remain cautious about over-reacting; nobody wants to hire unnecessarily; nobody wants to repeat the misery of layoffs. However, we believe it is important to staff the departments consistent with actual workload demands – up or down. We feel this is the only reasonable, sensible, responsible approach. We are fully aware and prepared to adjust staff if workload decreases. We feel it prudent to also adjust staff in periods of increasing demands. The relationship with the building community could still improve, although it is far better than it was in 2006-8. That being said, there is strong support for staff’s requests. Our customers feel significant pressures and expect, and their clients expect, exceptional service from the City. They expect reasonable and predictable review times for the fees they pay. Staff wants to meet that expectation and is requesting approval of the additional positions. If approved, staff will process a budget adjustment and will transition immediately into hiring mode. ALTERNATIVES: The requests could be delayed and discussed as part of the 2014 budget. Downsides of this would be the delay of responding to current demands and likely deterioration of review times. The requests could be partially fulfilled. Generally, this would be an improvement over current conditions but could leave other issues to fester. Specific analysis of this option depends on the actual scenario. The requests could be denied in total. This would result in increased review times, would likely impair city/business-community relations, and may introduce morale issues. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ P12 III. Exhibit A St a f f L e v e l s 20 0 9 1s t Q t r 20 0 9 2n d Q t r 20 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 Co m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t 26 1 8 1 8 1 8 1 8 1 9 En g i n e e r i n g - D e v e l o p m e n t R e v i e w 5 3 . 9 3 . 9 3 . 9 4 . 2 4 . 2 En g i n e e r i n g - A M P / G e n e r a l F u n d 3. 5 3 . 5 3 . 5 3 . 5 4 . 3 4 . 3 To t a l 2 9 . 5 2 1 . 5 2 1 . 5 2 1 . 5 2 2 . 3 2 3 . 3 Re v e n u e 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 Y T D 2 0 1 3 Y T D De v e l o p m e n t S e r v i c e s 1 , 7 8 5 , 1 5 3 $ 1 , 7 6 4 , 8 4 1 $ 2 , 7 6 9 , 7 0 8 $ 4 , 2 4 5 , 2 6 4 $ 2 , 0 8 8 , 6 1 5 $ 2 , 8 4 9 , 2 2 5 $ Pe r m i t V a l u a t i o n 20 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 Y T D 2 0 1 3 Y T D 82 , 2 1 1 , 6 0 2 $ 8 5 , 3 4 6 , 8 2 7 $ $ 1 5 1 , 4 5 9 , 4 6 8 * 1 5 2 , 4 3 3 , 2 5 6 $ 7 6 , 5 9 2 , 5 3 4 $ 8 8 , 9 4 1 , 0 2 9 $ De v e l o p m e n t A c t i v i t y 20 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 Y T D 2 0 1 3 Y T D Pe r m i t s 1 3 8 5 1 3 9 0 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 9 6 5 7 7 2 1 La n d U s e C a s e s 1 0 3 1 1 0 1 1 3 1 2 3 5 8 6 2 En c r o a c h m e n t P e r m i t s 9 8 8 4 8 8 8 0 4 0 4 1 Ri g h t o f W a y P e r m i t s 1 0 6 7 7 8 5 1 1 4 5 7 5 1 To t a l 16 9 2 1 6 6 1 1 7 0 0 1 7 3 6 8 1 2 8 7 5 Me d i a n P e r m i t V a l u e 20 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 Y T D 7, 3 5 0 $ 5 , 0 0 0 $ 5 , 8 0 0 $ 6 , 0 0 0 $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 $ Ci t y o f A s p e n De v e l o p m e n t S e r v i c e s * $ 5 2 , 1 9 7 , 2 1 4 i n c l u d e s h o s p i t a l v a l u a t i o n P13III. 20 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3  Fo r e c a s t 2 0 1 4  Estimate Co m m u n i t y  De v e l o p m e n t Re v e n u e Pl a n n i n g   $3 0 7 , 0 0 0 $ 5 0 2 , 0 0 0 $ 6 1 5 , 0 0 0 $ 7 4 5 , 0 0 0 $ 8 1 0 , 0 0 0 $ 8 1 0 , 0 0 0 Bu i l d i n g $ 1 , 3 3 5 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 1 1 8 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 8 9 9 , 0 0 0 $ 2 , 7 6 0 , 0 0 0 $ 3 , 2 5 3 , 0 0 0 $ 3 , 2 4 6 , 0 0 0 $1 , 6 4 2 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 6 2 0 , 0 0 0 $ 2 , 5 1 4 , 0 0 0 $ 3 , 5 0 5 , 0 0 0 $ 4 , 0 6 3 , 0 0 0 $ 4 , 0 5 6 , 0 0 0 Ex p e n s e s Op e r a t i n g / O v e r h e a d $ 2 , 9 8 7 , 0 0 0 $ 2 , 5 7 2 , 0 0 0 $ 2 , 7 0 5 , 0 0 0 $ 2 , 7 4 2 , 0 0 0 $ 3 , 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 2 , 9 2 0 , 0 0 0 Ad d i t i o n a l  St a f f  Re q u e s t s $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 6 3 , 0 0 0 $ 1 5 3 , 0 0 0 Pe r m i t t i n g  So f t w a r e $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 2 7 5 , 0 0 0 $ 0 $2 , 9 8 7 , 0 0 0 $ 2 , 5 7 2 , 0 0 0 $ 2 , 7 0 5 , 0 0 0 $ 2 , 7 4 2 , 0 0 0 $ 3 , 6 3 8 , 0 0 0 $ 3 , 0 7 3 , 0 0 0 ($ 1 , 3 4 5 , 0 0 0 ) ( $ 9 5 2 , 0 0 0 ) ( $ 1 9 1 , 0 0 0 ) $ 7 6 3 , 0 0 0 $ 4 2 5 , 0 0 0 $ 9 8 3 , 0 0 0 En g i n e e r i n g En g i n e e r i n g $ 1 4 5 , 0 0 0 $ 1 4 6 , 0 0 0 $ 2 5 7 , 0 0 0 $ 7 4 1 , 0 0 0 $ 8 4 3 , 0 0 0 $ 8 4 2 , 0 0 0 $1 4 5 , 0 0 0 $ 1 4 6 , 0 0 0 $ 2 5 7 , 0 0 0 $ 7 4 1 , 0 0 0 $ 8 4 3 , 0 0 0 $ 8 4 2 , 0 0 0 Ex p e n s e s Op e r a t i n g / O v e r h e a d * $ 9 6 0 , 0 0 0 $ 8 4 5 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 0 0 8 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 0 6 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 2 5 9 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 1 9 0 , 0 0 0 Ad d i t i o n a l  St a f f  Re q u e s t s $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 4 8 , 0 0 0 $ 1 1 8 , 0 0 0 $9 6 0 , 0 0 0 $ 8 4 5 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 0 0 8 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 0 6 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 3 0 7 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 3 0 8 , 0 0 0 ($ 8 1 5 , 0 0 0 ) ( $ 6 9 9 , 0 0 0 ) ( $ 7 5 1 , 0 0 0 ) ( $ 3 1 9 , 0 0 0 ) ( $ 4 6 4 , 0 0 0 ) ( $ 4 6 6 , 0 0 0 ) Co m D e v  an d  En g i n e e r i n g ($ 2 , 1 6 0 , 0 0 0 ) ( $ 1 , 6 5 1 , 0 0 0 ) ( $ 9 4 2 , 0 0 0 ) $ 4 4 4 , 0 0 0 ( $ 3 9 , 0 0 0 ) $ 5 1 7 , 0 0 0 *D o e s  no t  in c l u d e  En g i n e e r i n g  st a f f  bi l l e d  di r e c t l y  to  ca p i t a l  pr o j e c t s Exhibit B Co m m u n i t y  De v e l o p m e n t  an d  En g i n e e r i n g   Re v e n u e s  an d  Ex pen s e s P14III.