Professional Documents
Culture Documents
I am submitting the draft Municipal Budget and Budget Message for Fiscal Year 2012
for your review and consideration as required by Article 8 of the City of Auburn Charter. This
document represents the operating costs for the City of Auburn for the period of July 1, 2011
through June 30, 2012. As stated, this is a draft document that I expect will be reviewed,
challenged, debated and even revised. Also included in this document is the City of Auburn’s
Capital Improvement Plan. With these documents together, the Mayor and City Council will be
able to make policy and investment decisions for this year, as well as the years to come.
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP): The annual CIP is for five years and outlines our
capital needs so that the City Council and balance these needs without impacting any one
year and causing an adverse economic affect. The CIP has two sections; the first contains
those projects recommended for Fiscal Year 2012. Since only those projects in Fiscal
Year 2012 are proposed to be funded, the rest of the capital projects recommended are
under a separate cover as they are unfunded.
Finally, I would like to thank Phil Crowell, Tracy Roy, Karen Veilleux, Lisa Garey, and
the rest of Department Managers and their administrative staff support personnel for dedicating
the hours necessary to compile this budget document. It takes an incredible amount of work and
planning to produce this document!
Administrative Staff
Glenn E. Aho, City Manager Renee Lachapelle, City Assessor
Bob Belz, Public Works Director Lynn Lockwood, Library Director
Renee Bogart, ICT Director Geoff Low, Acting Fire Chief
Eric Cousens, City Planner Dorothy Meagher, Health &Social Services Director
Phillip Crowell, Police Chief Roland Miller, Community and Economic Director
Denis D’Auteuil, Deputy Public Works Director Reine Mynahan, Community Development Director
Roberta Fogg, City Clerk Tracy Roy, Finance Director
Deborah Grimmig, Human Resources Director Ravi Sharma, Parks and Recreation Director
Introduction
If there were ever a time for local government to change, now is it! Never before have so
many external influences come together all at once and affect local government as it has for the
past two years. Sobering events such as the rise of petroleum prices, the Great Recession, falling
state revenues, and the collapse of the housing market, to name a few, have left local officials
scrambling to find funding solutions just to provide traditional services. For the past two years,
the City of Auburn has attempted to overcome these financial adversities by reducing
expenditures, though the reductions are pale in comparison to the amount of revenue loss the
City has suffered. So far reducing expenditures has included reducing, changing, and
eliminating services as well as reorganizing the internal structure of the City so it functions more
efficiently. The service changes have left some residents angered by the results and others,
though understanding and appreciative, would certainly like to have the services returned.
Regardless, the City Council and city administration have worked hard to balance our need for
services with our ability to pay for those services. These past two years have been marked by
reducing expenditures through labor reductions and compensating that reduction by purchasing
innovative technology, and organizing the city’s local government to operate more efficiently.
As the City continues to adjust to the changes of these past two years, another financially
challenging budget season is upon us and not much has changed on the national or state
economic front. In fact, the City will continue to feel the effect of the Great Recession until
things improve in terms of employment, housing, and the economy. What makes this year
particularly challenging is that I don’t believe the City can undergo any more administrative
changes than it already has until systems are built, restored, and fully operating. For example, the
City is undergoing a massive reorganization, a complete standardization, a whole evaluation, and
a rather sizeable technology implementation. These projects are huge and require often and
frequent changes in terms of personnel and operations. To add even more change to what’s
already undergoing change would most likely jeopardize what success and progress we’ve made
so far. City employees are doing a great job working through these changes to make our local
government better, though the workloads and the pace at which we must change can affect
performance.
In the past I have always presented a budget I felt was the best available alternative based
upon our service needs, and the ability to pay for those needs. I cannot do that this year. There
are too many things beyond the City’s control that we must face; increased school and county
budget, falling state revenues, etc. Normally, enough administrative changes are able to be made
to overcome financial adversities. This year is different as the financial adversities are too large
for administrative changes alone. It will require policy changes that could further affect our
ability to provide even traditional services. I am submitting this draft budget with the intention of
calling upon the City Council for its advice of how or what city policies it wants to change so
administration can do its best to provide superior services at an affordable cost.
Budget Overview
This year’s projected tax rate is estimated to be $21.04; an Did you know? Each
increase of $1.74 or 9% over last year. This proposed increase is caused penny in the tax rate
by a continued decline in non-property tax revenues, increases in City, represents $20,491.
County, and School budgets, and a decline in valuation. A brief
explanation of each follows:
The City’s non-property tax revenues have decreased by $475,768; or -4.7%. When
averaged with last years’ decrease, the reduction is 9.2%. Last year’s revenues alone had
dropped by 13.4%.
The City’s gross budget is proposed to be $31,395.510, and increase of 3.23%, which is
up from a 1.18% increase last year. When averaged over the past two years, the gross
municipal budget has increased 2.2%. The Androscoggin County Budget increased by
$33,209, or 1.8%. The Auburn School Department is proposing an increase of
$1,760,869, or 5.2%.
The City’s valuation is not yet complete, but is projected to decline, as much as $19
million due to depreciation.
Revenues
The City’s revenue includes property tax revenue and non- Did you know? The
property tax revenue. Non-property tax revenue includes state and City pays $546,335 in
federal subsidies, excise taxes, building permit fees, license fees, etc. fire hydrant fees.
When non-property tax revenues decrease and while services remain the
same, then there has to be a demand shift to property tax revenues to make up for the decrease in
non-property taxes. As national and state economies declined, so too did the City’s non-property
tax revenue, thus shifting a greater reliance upon the property tax revenue. Since Fiscal Year
2010, the City’s non-property tax revenue has decreased by $2,057,374, or 18%. This shift is
what causes the property tax rate to increase.
Fiscal Year 2012 non-property tax revenues are projected to be $9,661,969, which
represents a decrease of 4.7% when compared to last fiscal year. As non-property tax revenues
continue to decrease, greater reliance upon property tax revenues increase.
The chart below illustrates just five of the City’s non-property tax revenue accounts and
by how much these accounts have declined since Fiscal Year 2008. This group of accounts has
declined by $2,343,909, or by 30%.
FY 2012
FY 2008 FY 2011 % Change
Revenue Source Actual Projected
Estimated
from 2008
Revenue
Excise Tax-Vehicles 3,303,512 2,800,000 2,700,000 -18%
State Revenue Sharing 4,009,459 2,500,000 2,400,000 -40%
Tree Growth 16,424 7,881 2,000 -88%
State/Local Road Assistance 494,514 378,000 378,000 -24%
TOTAL $7,823,909 $5,685,881 $5,480,000 -30%
As of June 30, 2010, our UDF was $7.7 million. The City’s Fund Balance Policy aims to
maintain a balance equivalent to 8.3% of both the city and school budgets, which equates to $5.5
million. That amount is a minimum and, among many towns and cities, a prudent measure of a
healthy UDF balance is equal to 3 months of operating expenses. In Auburn’s case, this equals
about $16.8 million. The City’s UDF balance is evaluated as part of financial rating companies
such as Moody’s or Standard & Poor’s.
Did you know? It costs $86,015 each day
To return the City’s mil rate to be equal to
to operate the City. It costs another
last year’s mil rate, it would take $4.2 million of $98,433 each day to operate the schools.
additional revenues or expenditure reductions.
Valuation
In a normal year, the City would capture $20 to $30 million in new valuation. This year
the City’s valuation presently suggests a $19 million decrease in valuation, which is due
primarily to depreciation. The State also has implemented two personal property tax exemption
programs called BETR and BETE. Under the BETE program (Business Equipment Tax
Exemption), municipalities are reimbursed by the State for a percentage of the personal property
lost as a result of the exemption. Equipment eligible for BETE reimbursement must have been
The challenge to the City of Auburn will be when the BETE program municipal
reimbursement expires. According to the Assessing office, the 2010/11 overall percentage of
taxable revenue from personal property was $220,930,500, or 10.68% of the City’s total
commitment. This amount of valuation will eventually become exempt. A further challenge will
be if the State of Maine chooses to exempt eligible business equipment for the BETR program.
In the upcoming weeks and months, staff will continue calculating the valuation from
personal property, new permits, renovations, and adjusting for personal property depreciation
and any affect our sales ratio study will suggest. Our hope is that the valuation increases, but it’s
too early to predict.
Can the City grow out of this current financial shortfall? Eventually, normal growth
rates in valuation will again help stabilize our local mil rate, but at this moment the City would
need a valuation increase of about $200 million to return a mil rate equal to that of last year.
Expenditures
The City's combined municipal and school budget is about $67 million. For 2010, the
City’s accounts payable, which are payments made to vendors, was $28,352,201. The chart of
Select Accounts Payable identifies some of the City’s largest vendors; many of whom employ
local people and purchase local services.
Nearly half of the City’s expenditures are attributed to personnel costs, which is normal
for a service provider such as local government.
The City’s expenditures increased 1.18% in Fiscal Year 2011, and they are anticipated to
increase 3.23% for Fiscal Year 2012. There are a few accounts in particular that have
contributed to this increase. They are as follows:
1. Workers Compensation: This fund has been underfunded for several years. The
combined claims paid have amounted to $354,564 over the past three years while City
contributions have been held constant at $200,000. This line item has increased
$251,000.
2. Fuel and Utility Costs:
Fuel prices are City of Auburn
anticipated to increase as Top 20 Vendors of FY11
Company Amount Service
well as electricity,
Gendron & Gendron $1,589,088 Construction
contributing an additional
St. Laurent & Sons Excavation $874,662 Construction
$80,000 to expenditures.
Pike Industries, Inc. $527,667 Construction
Although water and Central Maine Power Co. $267,373 Utility
sewer costs are not slated Dennis K. Burke, Inc. $245,130 Petroleum
to increase, fire hydrant Pine Tree Waste, Inc. $216,170 Solid Waste
rental has increased Constellation New Energy, Inc. $181,836 Utility
$32,583. Fire Tech & Safety of NE, Inc. $165,496 Safety Eqpt.
Crochere Heating & Plumbing. $151,151 Construction
3. Solid Waste: The City Mid Maine Waste Action Corp.. $149,676 Solid Waste
has solicited bids for Linnell, Choate & Webber $148,825 Legal
solid waste removal Woodard & Curran, Inc. $143,553 Engineering
services and it’s Nobility Llc. $142,875 Construction
anticipated the cost for Longchamps & Sons, Inc $141,271 Construction
providing this service Biosafe Environmental Services $129,634 Construction
will increase by $30,000. CN Brown Co $124,029 Utility
SPL-USA Corp $116,174 Road Salt
4. Intergovernmental: enerGov Solutions, Llc. $85,680 Software
These budgets have Gleason Construction $74,532 Construction
increased approximately CED/Gilman Electric Supply $73,533 Electrical
$52,000. The City is not
making any recommendation as Intergovernmental funding is a matter of Council policy.
5. Supplies, Tires and Repairs: The cost of goods the City purchases to provide services
has increased approximately $84,000.
6. Personnel Costs: The cost of labor, overtime and corresponding benefits has increased
$511,000. Had we not undergone the labor reduction, this amount would have increased
by another $30,000.
7. Telephone: The cost of maintaining the telephone infrastructure has increased by
$21,000, though nothing is changed; only the line item was underfunded.
The chart below illustrates how the City’s $31,395,510 budget is apportioned to each
department.
Information Tech
1%
Public Works Debt Service
Intergovernmental 15% 22% Capital
6% Improvements
0%
Workers
Compensation
Wages &
1%
Benefits
15%
Police Department
10% Public Library
3%
Debt
The City’s total debt is approximately $76.5 million. State law prohibits the City’s debt
from exceeding $308 million, or 15% of the City’s state valuation. By the end of 2012, the City
will retire about $9.5 million in debt, though during this same period the City will most likely
incur another $5 million. Though the City is far from being saturated with debt, at the moment
the current fiscal policy of incurring new debt each year should be limited or curbed so as to
adopt a “pay-as-you-go” policy. Budgeting for capital reserves and depreciation are the best
methods of financing a “pay-as-you-go” policy. The indebtedness being incurred now is a result
of low capital investments into infrastructure and equipment years ago. Postponing necessary
capital expenditures today does have a short-term financial benefit, but also it has a long-term
financial burden. Going forward the City will attempt to quantify what the effect of deferred
capital maintenance is having upon the City’s future ability to pay for that deferred capital.
Personnel
In 1995 the City employed 257 employees. In 2001, the City employed 253 employees. In
2008, 2009, and 2010, the City employed 248, 242, and 239 full time employees, respectively.
For Fiscal Year 2011, the City employed approximately 233 employees.
Over the past two years the City has Full Time Employees
undergone labor reductions that have saved and
250
will save taxpayers over $630,000 per year.
240
Calculating the savings is easy; calculating the
230
costs are a bit more difficult. City employees
220
continue to adjust to the labor reductions and are
working hard to find new, innovative ways to
provide traditional services. Service cuts and
Full Time Employees
reductions have helped to reduce workloads,
though even so it has been challenging. For Fiscal
Year 2012, the City is recommending NO further labor reductions. Further reductions would
have an adverse impact to the City’s ability to provide services.
To compensate for greater workloads, the City restructured its organization. During that
process it was determined funding for three administrators would be reallocated to entry-level
positions focused upon providing direct service to our residents. The duties performed by the
three unfunded administrators would be shared by other Department Managers. The net wage
effect is a reduction of labor costs by $30,000.
Capital
The City is developing a trend of leveraging
debt to meet capital equipment and infrastructure Note: The City is required to adopt a
needs. Though leveraging debt addresses the Capital Improvement Plan. The City also
immediate need of capital deficiencies, we need to has a Capital Budget for its current year
include the projected capitalization of interest costs capital expenditures. To avoid any
confusion, the Capital Improvement Plan
into each capital equipment cost to ascertain true
and the Capital Budget have been
costs of our purchased capital equipment. For
separated. Fiscal Year 2012 Capital
example, if we purchase a heavy piece of equipment projects are contained in the Municipal
for $150,000, we should also include amortized Budget. The Capital Improvement Plan
interest of that equipment as we make our capital for years 2013 through 2016 are under a
investment decisions. separate cover.
There are also capital projects that administration wants the City Council to know about,
but are being left unfunded. The City Council may amend, change, or adopt the capital budget as
Cost control begins with identifying functions and assigning costs to each function. Every
function of the City has been defined into Programs and Projects. Programs outline major
departmental functions and goals. Projects outline activities and objectives which fulfill the
program. Defining the City’s functions into Programs and Projects offers additional benefits too.
Organized functions …
provide clear focus as to what the department should or should not do.
help eliminate “service-creep,” a term used to define the incremental addition or
expansion of local government service, and costs.
help employees understand departmental function.
help other departments understand the entire functions of the City, not simply
one’s individual department.
make identifying redundancies easier.
are expected by the public.
In the pages that follow are organizational charts for each of the City departments. These
charts display the City Program and Projects within each department. They are an easy way of
seeing how time, money, and other resources are being utilized within the City.
Establishing Programs and Projects is the first step toward building Performance
Measures, which will be established to measure productivity and efficiencies. By evaluating and
measuring projects output, programs can then be amended to reflect best management practices.
Assessing
Programs
Personal Abatement/
Real Estate Permits Commitment Administration
Property Appeals
Property
Deed Audit System Department
Businesses Loading Review
Transfers Values Budget
& Appraisal
Annual
Exemptions 706 & BETE Process Data Appeals Performance
Reports
Business Prepare
1-4 Reviews Equipment Adjust Values Munis Bridge Defense/ Cost Control
Projects
Reimbursment Hearing
Senior
Board
Map Changes Calculate TIFs Managment
Reviews
Activities
Municipal
Mobile Home
Valuation
Parks
Report
Sales Ratio
Study Tax
Share
City Clerk
Programs
Vital Business
Elections City Council Administration
Records Licensing
Filing Death
Renewals Staff Training Resolves Personnel
Records
Filing
Petition
Marriage Fees Minutes Performance
Certification
Records
Issuing Senior
Projects
Food & Liquor
Marriage Filing Management
Service
Certificates Activities
Mass
Codification
Gathering
Tattoo
Oaths
Establishment
Massage
Establishment
Flea Markets
Community Development
Programs
Community HOMES
Neighborhood
Development Investment Lead Administration
Stabilization
Block Grant Partnerships
Projects
Public
Rental Performance
Improvements
Tenant-Based
Public Services Cost Control
Rental
Senior
Acquisition &
Managment
Demolition
Activities
Economic Development
Programs
Development Transportation
Solicitation Administration Sales
Finance Logistics
Financing Tax-Acquired
Marketing Airport Reporting
Sources Properties
Department
Zoning Inquiries Railroads
Budget
Projects
Planning Business - City Legislative
Board Liason Initiatives
Regulatory Development
Process Protocol
Community Grant
Meetings Administration
Engineering
Programs
Project Private
Pavement Environmenal Right of Way Technical Street
Development & Development Administration
Management Compliance Control Assistance Addressing
Management Review
Pre-Design & Street Code Indexing and Tax Map Department New
Fill Permits
Planning Inventory Compliance Storage Updates Budget Assignements
Senior
Data Condition Drainage
Inspections Reporting Permits Management Update 9-1-1
Analysis Assessment Issues
Activities
Landfill
Cost/Benefit Water Offsite
Estimating Paper Streets Research Personnel
Analysis Quality Coordination
Monitoring
Bid NPDES Utility
Survey Bonding Performance
Preparation Regulations Locates
Utility Stornwater
Design Inspection Cost Control
Coordination Management
Excavation
Testing Landfill Fees
Projects
Permits
Public
Inspections
Meetings
Land
Acquisition
Env. Permits
Bid
Preparation
Utility
Coordination
Construction
Inspection
Finance
Programs
Accounts Property &
Payroll Reconciling Purchasing Adminstration Audit Tax City Hall
Payable Casualty
Time &
Department
Attendance Vendor City Proposals Pre-Audit Claims Dog Licensing Maintenance
Budget
Checks
Non-
Invoice Real Estate &
Payroll Taxes School Contracts Personnel CAFR Repairs Supplies
Entry/Checks Property Tax
Budgets
Vehicle
W-2 1099 Performance Regulations
Registration
Hunting &
Cost Control Fishing Safety
Licenses
Projects
Senior
Garage Sale
Managment
Permits
Activities
Personnel
Revenues
5 Year
Planner
Fire Department
Programs
Operations Fire Prevention Administration
Fire Department
Inspections
Suppression Budget
Emergency
Public
Medical Personnel
Education
Services
Hazardous Community
Training
Materials Outreach
Projects
Special Health and
Permits
Operations Safety
Senior
Management
Activities
Performance
Programs
General Emergency
Health Work Ready Administration
Assistance Assistance
Required
SSI Payee Trust Funds GED Classes
Reporting
Heating
Department
Assistance Workfare
Budget
Loan Program
Projects
Cost Control
Performance
Personnel
Human Resources
Programs
Benefits Safety and
Workers' Comp. Recruitment Personnel Compliance Labor Relations Administration
and Salary Wellness
Collective
Medical Open Department
Advertising Inspections Evaluations NIMS Training Bargaining
Paperwork Enrollment Budget
Agreement
Program OSHA
Meetings Claims Interviewing Hearings Grieveances Personnel
Development Recordkeeping
Accident Sexual
Training Non-Union Pay Orientations Arbitration Cost Control
Investigation Harassment
Projects
Senior
Record Health
Mediations Exit Interview Management
Maintenance Promotion
Activities
Promotional
Life Insurance Health Fair
Exams
Substance
Fit Friendly
Abuse Testing
Wellness Team
ICT
Programs
Server/PC Technical Application Office Consolidation Customer
Administration
Operations Services Systems Systems Services Service
Department
Back-Ups LAN/WAN Development Printers enerGov Help Desk
Budget
Senior
Projects
Document
Installation Website AVGIS Managment
Management
Activities
Access
Support Performance
Controls
Personnel
Programs
Concessions Pro Shop Ice Rentals Sponsorships Administration
Senior
Sales Sales Shinny Boards Management
Activities
Department
Services Private other
Budget
Projects
Private Skate Performance
Personnel
Facilities
Maintenance
Fundraising
Library
Programs
Provide Information Community
Public Space Fundraising Administration
Materials Sharing Outreach
Senior
Childrens'
Purchasing Website Teen Area Annual Fund Management
Programs
Activities
Teen
Promoting Service Desk Study Area Endowments Performance
Programs
Projects
Interlibrary Monitor Children's
Major Gifts Cost Control
Loan Statistics Area
Meeting
Catalog Train Staff Events Personnel
Rooms
Facility
e-books Kiosk
Maintenance
Programs
Municipal Area Community
Special Events Camps Youth Sports Adult Sports Administration Lessons
Maintenance Services
Senior
Sand Balloon Women's
Adopt-a-Spot Soccer T-ball Management Tennis
Removal Festival Basketball
Activities
Seniors
Raking Santa's Arrival Mad Science Kickball Men's Softball Personnel Golf
Programs
Alternative
Landscaping Carnivals Sentencing Summer Basketball Coed Softball Performance
Program
Trash Community
Fishing Derby Vacation Soccer Dodgeball Cost Control
Removal Band
Projects
Graffiti
Repairs Fright Fest Lacrosse Volleyball
Removal
Speed &
Hot Shot Other Musical
Agility
Competition Performances
Training
Open Gym
Programs
Code
Inspections Planning Electrical Administration Permits
Compliance
Department
Planning Housing/
Electrical Fire Alarms Budget/ Building
Board No Heat
Financials
City Subsurface
Buildings Comp. Plan Performance Land Use
Maintenance Wastewater
Plumbing Development
Projects
Street Lights Cost Control General Code Electrical
(Internal) Review
State Senior
Certificate of Holiday Home
Delegated Managment Plan Review
Occupancy Preparation Occupation
Review Activities
Customer
Emergency NOV i.e.
Fire Service & Sign
Response Junkyards
Information
Subsurface Fire
Wastewater Investigation
Holiday/
Festival
Police
Programs
Community Community Community Administration
Services Education Outreach
Projects
Crime Violent Special Management
Activities Merchants
Enforcement Crimes Olympics Activities
League (FORCE)
Crimes Against
Accident After School Citizens Police Senior Citizen
Person/
Investigations Programs Academy Safety
Property
Community Identity
Events Theft
Volunteers in
Police Service
Public Works
Programs
Highway Fleet Winter Community
Administration Environmental
Maintenance Services Operations Services
Residential
Culverts and
Road Postings Repair Waste Plowing Festival Plaza
Catch Basins
Collection
Projects
Road Curbside
Personnel Inspections Sand Removal Banners
Maintenance Recycling
E-waste
Performance Traffic Lines Sidewalks
Recycling
Universal
Cost Control Ditching Waste
Recycling
Senior Underground
Management Arborist Tank
Activities Inspection
Departmental Goals
Every year, each Department Manager establishes goals that support the City’s corporate
culture; to provide superior services at an affordable cost. Goals are written based on the needs
of the community, the needs of the department, and the resources available at the time. Goals
may be modified as new needs are identified and older needs change, but the following goals
give purpose and direction to each Department Manager while supporting the corporate culture.
What follows are the goals written by each Department Manager and the results of which will later
become part of the evaluative process.
Develop informative and interactive online services and public communication via the
website.
Educate public and provide information of tax incentive programs.
Cost Controls
Audit programs to define problems, improve efficiencies and identify cost reductions.
Goal 3
Cross train with other departments, learn enerGov and improve the inspection process.
Implement a new program for the processing of deed transfers. Deeds will be directly
downloaded from the registry for processing.
Cost Controls
Goal 3
Control Costs
Goal 3
Control Costs
Explore the feasibility of offering more health insurance options to employees to meet
the needs of a diverse employee group.
Goal 3
FY 12 Goals - Finance
“Committed to Supporting Internal and External Customers with Timely and Accurate Information”
Control Costs
Go Docs.
Goal 3
Assess all emergency call types and determine what fits department’s mission
statement.
Update, reformat all department SOPs, orders, and job descriptions using accreditation
models.
Control Costs
Continue to expand cost neutral training mechanisms/alternatives.
Goal 3
Cost Control
Goal 3
Ascertain project management software that fits the needs of the ICT department.
ESRI Licensing will be evaluated. We will complete ArcGIS upgrades for all ArcGIS
users that are not working on version 10.
Encourage Active Citizen Participation with the City of Auburn and Auburn Public
Library
Establish a mechanism for re-defining the role of Library Corporator in order to
encourage greater public involvement.
Continue to improve sharing of City government information with the public (e.g.
Goal 1
education.
Expand and improve Family Literacy collections and activities.
Redesign nonfiction collection to encourage self-service.
Increase functionality of web site.
Install wireless printing solution.
Control Costs
Implement efficiencies indicated by workload study.
Goal 3
Ensure the use of customer program review surveys to improve the value of our
programs and services as well as increase the number of registrations in the programs.
Ensure feedback forms are available online and interactive.
Develop a program evaluation system and report quarterly upon the findings to include
financial information, assessments and program recommendations.
Collaborate with others to provide programs and services we currently are unable to do.
Create new programming choices and execute within projected budget.
Control Costs
Goal 3
Establish procedures and make available reference materials so staff can provide
consistent and predictable service.
Streamline the permitting process.
Market and Use Delegated Review for Life Safety, Storm water, Site Law and Traffic
to make investing in Auburn predictable and more attractive than the rest of the State
of Maine.
Cost Controls
Control or reduce costs with efficiencies gained by CAP and MobileGov.
Collect and evaluate data from Energov to monitor performance and improve
Goal 3
efficiency.
Develop “Easy” permits for low value/low risk projects that do not require staff time
for review or inspection but still provide necessary documentation.
Redistribute workloads to respond to changing conditions, priorities and resources.
Control Costs
Evaluate present police methods and programs to provide a more efficient return on
Goal 3
Implement “gbaMS Dashboard” module to allow customers to request and track work
order statuses online.
Cost Controls
Identify the true cost of providing our services, and create a baseline for accurate
Goal 3
Joint Services
The Twin Cities of Lewiston and Auburn continue their joint EnerGov project. When
complete, 8 departments in each city will have joined many functions so that conducting
business in either City will appear as seamless as possible. The project began last summer by
each City reviewing existing paper processes and then suggesting how they may become
automated. The next Phase for this summer is MobileGov, Citizen Access, and Business
Licensing. Though joining services may seem as an easy concept, this project has required a lot
of hard work from the staffs of both Cities; not just in terms of learning new systems, but first
having the design new systems altogether.
For our own benefit, and also as a result of Councilor requests, the following report has
been compiled to summarize how the FY11 CIP monies have been expended to date.
Information contained in the chart includes the approved purchase and council-approved amount,
listings of items or services purchased, and comments regarding the future plans for work and
remaining funds.
Please note that FY11 is still underway and much of the money cannot be spent until the
spring and summer months when the weather is appropriate for the projects being done.
FY 2011
YTD
Dept. FY11 Projects & Capital Purchases Council Comments
Expended
Approved
FY 2011
YTD
Dept. FY11 Projects & Capital Purchases Council Comments
Expended
Approved
Harris St. Resurface
Forest Ave. Resurface
Gillander Ave. Resurface
Gamage Ave. Resurface
Sunset Ave. Resurface
Sunset Ct. Resurface
North Auburn Rd. Resurface
Trask Ave. Resurface
Grandview Ave. Resurface
Harrison Cir. Resurface
Huard Ave. Resurface
Johnson Rd. Resurface
Skillings Corner Rd. Resurface
Stevens Mills Rd. Resurface
East Waterman Rd. Resurface $1,883,184
Subtotal $ 1,883,184 $1,883,184
FY 2011
YTD
Dept. FY11 Projects & Capital Purchases Council Comments
Expended
Approved
Fire Central Station Parking & Ramp $ 150,000
Subtotal $ 150,000 $ - Spring 2011
FY 2011
YTD
Dept. FY11 Projects & Capital Purchases Council Comments
Expended
Approved
PW Heavy Equipment $ 238,050
Sidewalk Tractor $ 134,880
$103,170
Subtotal $ 238,050 $ 134,880
remaining
FY 2011
YTD
Dept. FY11 Projects & Capital Purchases Council Comments
Expended
Approved
ICT Network Infrastructure $ 6,000
Subtotal $ 6,000 $ - Researching
PW Machinery $ 4,000
Subtotal $ 4,000 $ - Spring 2011
FY 2011
YTD
Dept. FY11 Projects & Capital Purchases Council Comments
Expended
Approved
PW Guard Rail Replacement $ 20,000
Materials $ 4,330
$15,670
Subtotal $ 20,000 $ 4,330
remaining