County Commission

COUNTY COMMISSION

Tuesday, September 3, 2013 6:45 PM Ellis County Courthouse

Order of Business

I. Opening

A. Call to Order B. Pledge of Allegiance C. Clerk Calls the Roll D. Approval of Agenda

II. Approval of Prior Minutes Regular Meeting of August 19, 2013

III. Consent Agenda

A. Approval of Employee Status Changes as presented B. Approval of Refunding Warrants as presented C. Approval of Tax Roll Adjustments as presented D. Approval of Escape Tax Orders as presented E. Approval of Accounts Payable and Payroll as presented F. Approval of RWD 1C KANSTEP Project Response to Audit Letter Enclosure G. Approval of RWD 1C KANSTEP Project Payment Request #7 Enclosure

IV. Regular Agenda

A. Lesser Prairie Chicken Report on Regional Concerns by Gove County Commissioner Mahlon Tuttle

B. Rural Water District #1C KANSTEP Water Line Extension Project Update Report

C. Information Technology

1. Cell Phone Contract Report/Consideration Enclosure

D. Fire District #1

1. Surplused Fire Tanker Truck Consideration of Selling Truck to RPM Speedway

2. ISO Review Report on upcoming review of Rural Fire District Enclosure

3. Advisory Board Changes Consideration of changes to Board Make-up

E. County Clerk

1. Oil & Gas Tax Rebates Report on Rebates before Commission Enclosure

F. County Administrator

1. Joint Planning Commission Appointment Consideration of Commissioner Wasinger’s Nominee

2. Adams Brown Beran & Ball Lease Amendment #4 Consideration of lease amendment for former United Way Office Space in Ellis County Administrative Center Enclosure

3. KDOT Economic Development Grant Application Consideration of Authorizing Submission of Application Enclosure

4. Resolution Request – Federal Budget Discussion of Request from Alan Snodgrass, Jetmore Enclosure

5. MOKAN Take Charge Challenge Report Enclosure

6. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Kansas Rebate Check Report on Accounting for Check Enclosure

7. Monthly Financial Report – July 2013 Report Enclosure

G. County Commission

1. Commissioner Reports

V. Adjournment Meeting Memo

To: County Commission

From: Greg Sund

CC: Order of Business Recipients

Date: 8/30/2013

Re: Order of Business for the September 3, 2013 Regular Meeting

Please Note: Commissioner Haselhorst informed me that he anticipates an obligation that will make it impossible for him to attend this meeting. For this reason, he asked me to move my evaluation to the meeting on September 9.

III. Consent Agenda

F. Approval of RWD 1C KANSTEP Project Response to Audit Letter – The audit letter was presented to the County Commission on August 12, 2013. At the time, Ms. Cox of Northwest Kansas Planning and Development Commission and representatives of the rural water district and the project were working on a response. That response has been prepared. I put the cover letter on letterhead with the County’s logo. The deadline for response is September 6, 2013. I recommend approval.

G. Approval of RWD 1C KANSTEP Project Payment Request #7 – This is the next payment request on this project. I recommend approval.

IV. Regular Agenda

A. Lesser Prairie Chicken – Gove County Commissioner Mahon Tuttle requested time on the Order of Business to seek the County Commission’s support in opposing the federal government’s proposal to put the lesser prairie chicken on the endangered species list. If the Commission supports this request, I will type up a resolution for consideration during the next Commission meeting.

B. Rural Water District #1C KANSTEP Water Line Extension Project Report – During the last meeting, Commissioner Haselhorst said he would arrange to have a representative of this project appear before the Commission and

1 provide an update on the status of the project. He confirmed he will invite one or two people to attend and provide an update.

C. Information Technology

1. Cell Phone Contract – I am enclosing an email from I.T. Director Mike Leiker regarding the County’s cell phone contract and an account summary from Nex‐Tech provide on August 29, 2013. I am also enclosing a copy of the account consolidation agreement signed in 2010 after approved by the County Commission in August 2010. In researching this issue, we have been unable to locate an actual contract. We have several service agreements on phones, but nothing pulling everything together other than the account consolidation agreement. The problem with the account consolidation agreement is it does not have a term. I take it this means it is in effect as long as we have phones with Nex‐Tech. For this reason, it appears the proposal from Nex‐Tech should be considered a service agreement, not an amendment or contract because the amounts are subject to change whenever a new phone is acquired or upgraded. Since his last appearance on this issue, Mr. Leiker sought and received a quote from Verizon. Based on the level of service provided by Nex‐Tech, the nearly identical cost, and the fact that Verizon does not have the capability of local service for corporate accounts, he recommends approval of the Nex‐Tech contract. Please note that the account summary that applies to all phones, governs pooled monthly minutes, data plan, roaming, etc…. In addition, there is a contract for each individual phone for two year periods. Because people can obtain phones at any time, none of the phone contracts are concurrent with the others.

Suggested Motion: To approve the service amendment with Nex‐Tech that applies to all cell phones under contract with the County.

D. Fire District #1

1. RPM Speedway Request for Surplused Truck ‐ Glenn Unrein, a representative of the RPM Speedway contacted Commissioner Haselhorst asking whether the County would be willing to grant or sell the surplused tanker truck formerly assigned to the Victoria Company to them das they nee a truck with a tank this size to more effectively wet the track. If the Commission agrees, I would ask Mr. Jeter to draw up a sale document similar to the one we used to sell RPM Speedway the last truck. RPM Speedway offered to return the truck they will retire if this sale is approved to the County but given its condition, I do not recommend taking that one back and then selling it.

 Page 2

Suggested Motion: To approve selling the former fire tanker truck that was assigned to the Victoria Company to RPM Speedway for $1.

2. ISO Review – The Insurance Service Office (ISO) is a national organization that reviews the capabilities of firefighting agencies to respond to fires. They assign numbers to each agency. Ellis County is scheduled for an ISO Review in the near future. Because a large portion of the rating given to fire services is based on water availability and we have a rural water district, we do not get a very high rating. Agencies serving municipalities typically have much higher ratings. For instance, the city of Hays has a rating of 3. The higher the number, the higher the cost of insurance charged to those benefitting from the fire department (district). I understand our current rating is 9, which is typical for rural fire districts. I am enclosing a couple documents to provide more information on ISO Ratings.

3. Fire District Advisory Board Changes – Chief Klaus has reported that there are a few changes on the advisory board that need to be recognized and considered by the Commission. For Company 7, Gary Haas has resigned as chief and also resigned as a member of the advisory board, he will be replaced by Mike Werth. For Company 4, Chris Brungardt has resigned from the advisory board and will be replaced by Tom Tholen. For Company 9, Mark Fisher and Rustin Wiese are exchanging positions so Mr. Wiese is now the Chief and Mr. Fisher is now the Assistant Chief. Chief Klaus and I recommend approving the changes.

Suggested Motion: To approve the following changes to the Rural Fire District #1 Advisory Board:

1. Replace Company 7 representative Gary Haas with Mike Werth 2. Replace Company 4 representative Chris Brungardt with Tom Tholen 3. Replace Company 7 Fire Chief Gary Haas with Mike Werth 4. Replace Company 9 Fire Chief Mike Fisher with Rustin Wiese 5. Replace Company 9 Assistant Fire Chief Rustin Wiese with Mike Fisher.

E. County Clerk

1. Oil & Gas Tax Rebates – Clerk Maskus is requesting Commission discussion and possible consideration of a solution to a situation we face annually with oil wells that become exempt from the Oil & Gas Property Tax when their average production falls below five barrels a

 Page 3

day. The County is currently processing $402,210.44 in rebates of taxes paid in 2012 and 2013. Please note the email from Ms. Maskus in the packet was written after 26 of the rebates were processed. Since that time a few others were processed. Two possibilities for addressing these concerns is 1. To tighten up the law so only the current year and future years are affected by the exemption. Under the current law, the exemption goes back one year before the application for exemption was filed. And 2. Suggest a law that grants the County clear authority to hold back a portion of the tax distribution to taxing units in anticipation of these rebates rather than distributing all of the taxes and then requesting a reimbursement or holding a portion of the following year’s taxes to cover the difference. It is not right that the County is currently required to distribute all of the tax collections and then serve as a bank to “loan” other taxing districts this money until they can pay it back at a later time. The problem with this concern is it is probably too late already to get this issue on the Kansas Association of Counties Legislative platform for the upcoming year. I have contacted Melissa Wangeman with KAC to describe this situation and I plan to attend their next Legislative Agenda planning session in early September. It is possible I could communicate this issue at that time. I am not suggesting a motion on this issue because in the past, the Commission has been unwilling to address this issue due to the number of people and businesses in Ellis County affected by the oil industry. It is important to note the second option above would have no impact on the oil companies.

F. County Administrator

1. Joint Planning Commission Appointment – So far, two people have come forward expressing interest in serving on the Joint Planning Commission. They are Ron Adams and Glenn Michael Cox. Mr. Cox submitted a Citizen Interest Form. I am not enclosing the submitted form because it contains private information. This appointment is to be nominated by Commissioner Wasinger. Although neither of these people are in her district, she could appoint one of them if she so desires. We have history of commissioners making nominations of people outside their districts. For instance, Commissioner Henman did this a few years ago.

Suggested Motion: To appoint ______to the Ellis County Joint Planning Commission.

2. Adams Brown Beran & Ball Lease Amendment #4 – Mr. Jeter prepared this amendment to the Adams Brown Beran and Ball lease to

 Page 4

include the former United Way office. Because they currently have a lease, Mr. Jeter prepared this one using the same square foot costs referenced in the existing lease.

Suggested Motion: To approve Lease Amendment #4 with Adams Brown Beran and Ball for lease of the former United Way office located on the second floor of the Ellis County Administrative Center at 718 Main in Hays.

3. KDOT Economic Development Grant Application – I have added a little more detail to the application and I understand from Aaron White that we are expected to receive financial and pro‐forma information from two parties expected to benefit from the road improvements described in the application. The biggest challenge will be identifying the source of the local match of at least 25% mandated by this grant. In the case of our application, it means a minimum local commitment of $880,250. Bear in mind, it is possible KDOT could require a larger amount by granting less than 75% of project costs. We have discussed the possibility of creating a special assessment district to cover the local share. We could also do a Community Improvement District (CID), but do to there being almost no retail trade in the area, it is unlikely it could produce sufficient sales tax revenue to meet our need. In addition, the development proposed by Doonan Trucking has been looking at a CID to cover the cost of infrastructure for that project and we can’t have overlapping ones.

Suggested Motion: To approve applying for a KDOT Economic Development Grant to benefit road improvements to 230th Avenue between I‐70 and Feedlot Road and Feedlot Road between 230th Avenue and US 183.

4. Resolution Request – Federal Budget – We received this request for consideration of a resolution calling for a federal balanced budget amendment from Mr. Alan Snodgrass of Jetmore, Kansas. I am enclosing the request that includes copies of resolutions approved by other county commissions. If the Commission would like to consider a resolution, I will type one up for presentation during the next meeting.

5. MOKAN Take Charge Challenge – The County has been asked to participate in this energy savings program. Because we completed a performance contract a couple years ago and are currently planning the renovation of several buildings that will include energy saving devices, I think the County can have a positive effect on the local success of this challenge program without added work. One of our employees, Karen Purvis is a member of the board overseeing this

 Page 5

program. If we participate, we will update the Commission as we learn more about the program. Unless the Commission objects, we will likely pursue participation in the program to learn if the enhancements already done will benefit the program.

6. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Kansas Rebate Check – A few days ago, we received a rebate check from BCBSKS in the amount of $163,791.49. This is the money left in the partially self‐insurance plan that we discontinued when the County moved to the State Non‐State Employees Insurance Plan. The money was held by BCBSKS until they were confident all claims applicable to the plan were paid. We placed the money in the Risk Management Reserve because it is employee health insurance related. We can hold it in that fund in anticipation of again moving to our own partially self‐insurance fund again in the future. If the County were to do that, it would be very helpful have a pool of start‐up money to cover large claims. Because it is directly tied to employee health insurance, if the money is not placed in the Risk Management Fund, it would probably have to be distributed to all current and former employees who received health insurance benefits under the County’s partially self‐insured plan or at least become subject to negotiation with the County’s unions.

7. Monthly Financial Report – July 2013 – Please refer to my memo regarding the monthly financial report in the report itself.

Greg Sund

 Page 6

Dean Haselhorst Ellis County Commission Chair 1204 Fort Street/PO Box 720 Hays, Kansas 67601 Ph: 785‐628‐9410

September 3, 2013

Linda Hunsicker Kansas Department of Commerce P.O. Box 137 Ellis, KS 67637

RE: Ellis County CDBG #12‐ST‐003

Dear Linda,

This letter is in response to your August 6, 2013 correspondence following the July 31, 2013 first project monitoring. The letter cites two deficiencies requiring resolution. The issues and resolution are as follows:

1) Issue: Explanation of why the rental equipment contract was not issued per month. Resolution: We provided the project engineer, Stuart Porter, Schwab‐Eaton, with a copy of the monitoring letter and requested his response/explanation. Attached is an email from Mr. Porter providing the requested explanation.

2) Issue: Original signed executed contracts were not in our files. Resolution: Attached are copies of the fully executed contracts from Municipal Supply, M & D for Boring and M & D for rental equipment. We certify the original of each was placed within our CDBG “Contracts” file.

We hope the above information satisfies CDBG requirements and resolves the deficiencies noted. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Please feel free to contact Greg Sund, County Administrator, or Corina Cox, NWKP&DC should you have further questions regarding this response.

Sincerely,

Dean Haselhorst, Chair Ellis County Commission

Enc.

cc: Greg Sund, County Administrator Corina Cox, NWKP&DC

Cell Phone/Smart Phone contracts Mike Leiker to: Greg Sund 08/27/2013 10:16 AM

I have spoken with the IT Director from HMC and they have 300 cell phones and smart phones and they have the same type of "contract". They have one voice/data plan that they share among all the phones based on a two-year contract and each phone has its own two-year service agreement based on when they purchased the phone, regardless of where they are in the two year voice/data plan "contract". The City of Hays and Midwest Energy are the same way. They too are with Nex-Tech Wireless and have stated it is primarily because of their quality of service.

I think it would be cost prohibitive to switch providers unless all the phones were out of contract. This would mean that we could not change providers until May of 2015. Ten many of the devices would be well over 2 years old. It is my understanding that some of the feature (flip) phones are experiencing problems and are in need of replacement.

Even with quotes from Verizon, In my professional opinion, it is better for Ellis County to proceed with Nex-Tech's offer.

Michael S. Leiker

Information Technology Ellis County, Kansas 1204 Fort St. Hays, Kansas 67601 (785) 628-9435 [email protected]

Ellis County Nex-Tech Wireless Account Summary

Business Connection 7500 Shared – 60 phones (Main line: $280, Add-a lines: $14) 7500 Shared Anytime Minutes Unlimited Nights & Weekend Minutes Unlimited Mobile-to-Mobile Minutes

(25) iPhones, (2) BlackBerry Smartphones, (27) Feature Phones (various models), and (6) Telular Fixed Wireless Terminals.

Smartphone Data Plans All smartphones (iPhone & BlackBerry) include Unlimited Data/Web Browsing, and Unlimited Text/Picture Messaging. Nine of the iPhones also have 2GB Tethering added to their service.

Insurance There are currently sixteen iPhones covered under the eSecuritel Insurance Program. Comprehensive coverage includes loss, theft, accidental physical damage, malfunction past the manufacturer’s warranty and liquid damage. Two insurance claims are allowed per 12- month period, in which a $199 deductible applies to get a replacement phone.

Wireless Aircards – 6 devices (2) Novatel Mifi Wireless Aircards – 2GB & 5GB Data plans (3) Franklin Wireless USB Aircards – Unlimited Data plans (1) Sierra Wireless USB Aircards – Unlimited Data plans

*Each line (phones & aircards) is signed on an individual 24 month contract, which also determines the date of upgrade eligibility. The manufacturer’s warranty on each line also follows the terms and date of the individual contracts.

8/28/13 Fire Protection Class ISO PPC Program

ISO’s Public Protection Classification (PPC™) Program

Find more information on this topic for: » Insurers » Government » Interested Citizens

To help establish appropriate fire insurance premiums for residential and commercial properties, insurance companies need reliable, up-to-date information about a community’s fire-protection services. ISO provides that information through the Public Protection Classification (PPC™) program.

What is the PPC program?

ISO collects information on municipal fire-protection efforts in communities throughout the United States. In each of those communities, ISO analyzes the relevant data using our Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS). We then assign a Public Protection Classification from 1 to 10. Class 1 generally represents superior property fire protection, and Class 10 indicates that the area's fire-suppression program doesn't meet ISO’s minimum criteria. By classifying communities' ability to suppress fires, ISO helps the communities evaluate their public fire- protection services. The program provides an objective, countrywide standard that helps fire departments in planning and budgeting for facilities, equipment, and training. And by securing lower fire insurance premiums for communities with better public protection, the PPC program provides incentives and rewards for communities that choose to improve their firefighting services.

ISO has extensive information on more than 47,000 fire-response jurisdictions.

How this website can help you

This website contains a wealth of information about the PPC program and the Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS). The website can also lead you to specific information about your community’s PPC code and what you can do to get a better code. Some of the technical information in the site is available to registered customers and fire officials only. Find out how to register. Follow the links for:

Public Protection Classification program Origins of public protection grading How the PPC program works Benefits of the PPC program for communities ISO’s PPC Program: Helping to Build Effective Fire-Protection Services (text of an ISO study) Effective Fire Protection: A National Concern (text of an ISO study) How does PPC information affect individual insurance policies? Scope of the PPC evaluation ISO’s Community Outreach Program PPC evaluation process What if our PPC gets worse? Can one fire affect our community’s PPC? Split classifications Facts and figures about PPC codes around the country

Fire Suppression Rating Schedule FSRS overview www.isomitigation.com/ppc/0000/ppc0001.html 1/3 8/28/13 Fire Protection Class ISO PPC Program Minimum facilities and practices to get a PPC rating Minimum criteria for Class 9 Minimum criteria for Class 8B Minimum criteria for Class 8 or better Scores and PPC ratings Items considered in the FSRS Ordering PPC and BCEGS documents

Your community’s PPC survey Your community’s PPC survey Scheduling the survey Preparing for the survey Initial visit Fire alarm survey Fire department survey Water-supply survey After the survey What if our PPC is worse? Requesting more information from ISO Seeking advice from independent consultants

Selected technical subjects Technical subjects overview Needed fire flow Monitoring emergency circuits for integrity Criteria for distribution of companies Maximum age for apparatus Automatic aid Training Water-supply evaluations Alternative water supplies Divergence factors

Access to technical documents

These pages are available to registered customers and fire chiefs only. Find out how to register. Fire Suppression Rating Schedule and commentaries

F or more information ...... on any topic related to the PPC program or the Fire Suppression Rating Schedule, click Talk to ISO Mitigation, or call the ISO mitigation specialists at 1-800-444-4554.

www.FireServiceInfo.com

Fire Service FAQs and Much More

- Glossary -- Its Not a Fire Truck!-- What Firefighters Really Do -- History - - EMS and The Fire Service -- Ranks and Organization - - Hiring Process & Training -- Working With the Media -- Tips For Reporters - - FAQ's & Trivia -- Articles and Stories -- U.S. Flag Code & Customs -- Contact -

This site is not associated with, nor does it represent the views of any particular fire department. ISO Ratings and the Fire Service

ISO - Insurance Service Office - This is a, for profit, organization that provides statistical information on risk. For many years the "ISO Rating" had a large impact on most fire departments. The ISO (PPC) rating is from 10 - 1. With "1" being the best. At one time, almost, all insurance companies calculated rates based upon the ISO rating. ISO would come to your city and assess a Public Protection Classification. They would then sell this data to the insurance companies. Just about every aspect of a city and a fire department was evaluated in determining the ISO rating. They would give points for everything from the training aids a fire department owned to the distance between fire hydrants. ISO wanted fire departments to conduct 20 hours of training per man, each month, in order to maximize points for every training aid. Historically, very few cities ever received a "Class 1" rating. There have been times where only one city, out of the nation, would receive a "1". Presently there may be as many as 40+ cities with a "1" rating in the U.S. This is still a small percentage when one considers the thousands of communities nationwide. There is little incentive for a community to strive for a "1" rating since the step from a "Class 2" to a "Class 1" results in little or no difference in homeowner rates. When a city does get a "Class 1" rating they will often proudly display it on their patches, apparatus or website.

But now ISO ratings might have very little, if any, effect on insurance premium rates in many states. Some insurance companies have discontinued purchasing ISO data and using it to calculate rates. Instead of using a theoretical risk evaluation they have opted for a system where they use www.fireserviceinfo.com/iso.html 1/3 8/28/13 ISO Ratings the actual loss within a zip code. (This includes all losses due to fire, flood, lightening, hail, etc.) After an article, a few years ago, on the subject, in an International Association of Fire Chiefs newsletter about how State Farm Insurance had decided to go to a "subzone" system in several states, State Farm was contacted. State Farm told me that they felt that they were one of the last companies to go to the zip code method of calculating premiums. They thought that most smaller companies had adopted this prior to them. State Farm is the largest homeowner insurance company, in the U.S., and writes over a third of all homeowner policies in many states with a 20% average nationwide.

As of 2001 State Farm has abandoned the use of ISO in Illinois, Texas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Vermont, and Wisconsin in favor of the Subzone Rating Factor System. They have plans to do so in other states. (See magazine articles link.)

Update: The Texas Department of Insurance now has a FAQ page about ISO. Here is what they say.

"What does the PPC system mean to me?"

"Every city, town or area that provides fire protection services is subject to being graded to establish a PPC. Individual buildings -- including your house -- are subject to the community's PPC. When calculating property insurance premiums, insurance companies using the PPC apply a factor that reflects a particular community's PPC."

"Do PPC ratings vary from company to company?'

"Yes, it can, because some insurance companies do not use ISO." http://www.tdi.state.tx.us/fire/fmppcfaq.html

In some states the insurance companies can use a host of other factors to determine your insurance premium. Some companies will place a great deal of influence on your credit score. (Another reason to improve your score as much as possible.)

Keep something in mind as you consider the effect of ISO in your area. Insurance is something often highly regulated by individual states. While State Farm has abandoned the use of the ISO, Public Protection Classification (PPC) rating in many states, they may not be allowed to do so in others. A few states have successfully stopped State Farm from implementing the new system. (i.e. Louisiana and North Carolina) A few others have tried to fight State Farm's desire to change. (Arkansas) The state of Georgia requires all insurance agencies to consider ISO ratings in setting premium rates.

In many cases it is the fire associations or fire chiefs who are fighting this change. The perception might be that dropping the use of ISO ratings system hurts fire departments. Many departments, especially rural ones, use the structure of the ISO rating system as a way to justify resources in budget discussions. ISO rates everything from the amount of fire apparatus to the age of it. You can get points for very specific types of training equipment. Examples of this would be "cut-away" fire hydrants or pumps. Just about everything a fire department has, or does, is evaluated. Fire departments fear, that without ISO's influence, convincing cities to buy equipment, or hire personnel, will be harder.

But some chiefs believe that no longer depending upon ISO has made their job easier. They are now better able to paint a picture where more people or better equipment translates into lower fire loss. How well the fire department performs, which can be related to how well it is equipped, staffed and trained, directly affects insurance rates. Lower insurance rates could also mean more people and industry* might move to a city. Many city councils can now be made to see a value in having a good fire department. Fire prevention programs and better code enforcement can be an easier sell also.

*Note: In some states ISO ratings might still be used to calculate commercial insurance rates while www.fireserviceinfo.com/iso.html 2/3 8/28/13 ISO Ratings zip code loss, or the "subzone" system is used for homeowners.

There are many states where ISO is still the predominant factor in setting insurance rates. But even in states where ISO is no longer used, many fire departments have continued to gauge their success by their ISO ratings. They often boast that an improvement in ISO / PPC rating will translate into a certain percentage rate of savings for the homeowner. Perhaps they just like having a yardstick by which to measure their success. Some may see it as bragging rights. But apparently, some may not know that this change has taken place. ISO is not spending time and money to let people know where the value or their services have been diminished. (Who would?) While it is possible that some insurance company might still use ISO in any state, it is not likely that even a majority, of homeowners, will see a reduction in premiums in a state listed above, if a rating is improved. You can find many fire departments, in the states mentioned above, who say on their website, that a better ISO rating = lower insurance rates. Some declare it emphatically. "...this means an approximate 14% reduction in homeowner’s insurance premiums" Others might just imply it. They may say something like, "...is recognized when home insurance rates are determined."

If anyone has more current information on ISO, please send it to me.

Here is an article from an insurance business website. http://www.insure.com/articles/homeinsurance/state-farm-fire.html

2001 Article in Firehouse Magazine about State Farm's change, with more details on the PPC and ISO rating system. It also talks about the "Subzone Rating Factor" system. NOTE: Apparently Firehouse has moved the article and this link no longer works. If someone finds the article, please email me the correct link. http://server.firehouse.com/news/2001/3/20_iso.html

The same story can be found at this "Fire Chief Magazine" link. http://firechief.com/mag/firefighting_iso_ratings_no/

In 2001 Arkansas tried to fight State Farm's change to the "loss per zip code" system. http://www.percymalone.com/news010824.html http://www.percymalone.com/news011214.html

Website with a great deal of information on ISO and the PPC. http://www.isomitigation.com/ppc/0000/ppc0001.html

www.fireserviceinfo.com/iso.html 3/3 FYI BarbWasinger, J_dcrazyHorse, Donna J. Maskus to: 08/23/2013 05:54 PM swedeholmgren, Greg Sund

Commissioners,

Ellis County processed 26 State Board of Tax Appeal Dockets relating to Kansas Statute Number 79-201t for a tax abatement for $392,750.04 total. My office staff did work up an excel spreadsheet showing the effected taxing districts and their loss of tax dollars. Per the Appraiser's Office, 70 dockets were filed per this Kansas Statute in regards to oil. Therefore we could see more abatements to come for oil producers. This has huge effects on the County's operation.

Enjoy your weekend. Donna

Economic Development Program Application Form – FY 2012

If you are new to this program, KDOT strongly encourages you to start with the General Local Partnership Opportunities Application. If you have any questions or would like to begin with an informal conversation with KDOT, please contact Pete Van Sickle at 785.296.3273 or [email protected]

1. General Applicant Information

a. Name of governmental unit: Ellis County

b. Name and title of primary contact person: Greg Sund, County Administrator Should be an elected official or employee of the governmental unit Address: 1204 Fort Street/PO Box 720, Hays, KS 67601 Phone Number: 785-621-4219 Email: [email protected]

c. Governmental official name and title (if applicable): Ellis County Address: 1204 Fort Street/PO Box 720, Hays, KS 67601 Phone Number: 785-621-4219 Email: [email protected]

d. Public works official name and title (if applicable): Mike Graf, Public Works Director Address: 1195 280th Ave, Hays, KS 67601 Phone Number: 785-628-9455 Email: [email protected]

e. Is there a private sector business or other entity involved in the project? Yes No Name of business or other: Hess Services Name and title of contact: Dan Hess, owner Address: 2670 E. 9th, Hays, KS 67601 Phone Number: 785-625-9295 Email: Click here to enter text. f. Does this project include a railroad? Yes No If yes, please complete supplement form B - railroad Name of railroad: Click here to enter text. Name and title of contact: Click here to enter text. Address: Click here to enter text.

Phone Number: Click here to enter text. Email: Click here to enter text. g. Is it a new business or an existing business? Yes No A new business is one that is looking to relocate to Kansas. An existing business is one that is already located within the city or county. ED program funds are generally not eligible for businesses looking to relocate from one Kansas city to another.

h. Is this an immediate opportunity? Yes No An immediate opportunity is when a transportation solution is essential in order for a business to move to Kansas, relocate, or expand. Decisions about funding for Immediate Opportunities are made quickly and on a case-by-case basis. i. If “yes,” please describe how critical the timing is: Ellis County has been working with Aaron White of the Ellis County Coalition for Economic Development and Dan Hess of Hess Services for some time now as we gathgered information necessary for this application and the associated projects. Mr. Hess, who recently expanded his manufacturng operation in the Hays area has increased the numbr of trucks using 230th Avenue north of Interstate 70 and Feedlot Road between 230th Ave and US 183. The increased use by truck traffic to supply and transport finished goods from Mr. Hess' new manufacturing location is having a negative impact on the roads as they were not designed with the current and expected level of truck traffic volume in mind. Be- fore the road experiences serious deteriation, we need to plan improvements to handle the new traffic weights and volume.

2. Project Location and Description – Attach additional sheets as necessary

a. Project Location: Ellis County is planning to reconstruct 230th Ave between Interstate 70 and Feedlot Road located about two miles north and resurface feedlot Road between 230th Avenue and US 183.

b. Project length (in miles or feet): 230th Avenue = 2 miles, Feedlot Road = 2 miles. Four miles total.

c. Project scope (description of work): The County plans to reconstruct 230th Avenue as it current has insufficient ditches to support widening the road as is required to construct an asphalt surface and it has severe grades that must be addressed through reconstruction. Feedlot Road currently has a multiple layer chip seal surface, but no underlying asphalt or concrete. A chip seal surface functions properly in the face of light traffi volumes and weights, but not with the traffic the County is experiencing on this road today.

d. Current average daily traffic volume (if available): Ellis County contracted a study in 2012 with the firm BG Engineering. Average daily traffic on 230th Avenue between 55th Street and Feedlot Road was 800. The average daily traffic on Feedlot Road between 230th Avenue and US 813 was also 800. Mike Graf, the Ellis County Public Works Director estimates that since the traffic count was completed, traffic volume on those two roads has increased 10-15%.

3. Estimated Cost of the Project – Please be specific about the nature of the cost, report in 2011 Dol- lars

a. Preliminary Engineering/Design $216,000

b. Right-of-Way Acquisition 200,000

c. Utility Adjustments 0

d. Construction $2,700,000 e. Construction Engineering/Inspection $405,000 f. Other 0 g. Total Estimated Cost (sum of lines a-f) $3,521,000 h. Local Match Available (negotiable, but 25% minimum is de- sired) $880,250

i. Total Requested Amount from KDOT (subtract line h from line $2,640,750 g)

4. Schedule and coordination information a. Estimated start date: May 1, 2014

b. Estimated completion date: April 30, 2015

c. Describe any known KDOT or other projects that may need coordination: None d. Have any KDOT field staff been involved with the project? Yes No If so, who? County staff met with the KDOT State Transoportation Engineer Jerry Younger and KDOT District 3 Engineer Jeff Stewart, and Michael Moriarty of the KDOT Economic Develop- ment program at the KDOT office in Hays to discuss this project and others. We also raised this project as a concern during the KDOT project input sessions and were successful in getting it added to the priority list. e. Have any Department of Commerce staff been involved with the project? Yes No If so, please provide details: Name and title of primary contact person: Corina Cox, Northwest Planning and Development Commission and Linda Hunsicker Address: Rural Development, PO Box 137, Ellis, KS 67637-0137 Phone Number: 785-215-4484 Email: [email protected]

5. Benefits of the project – Add or substitute additional sheets as necessary a. Describe the nature of the transportation problem at this location and the transportation benefits that would result from the project (i.e. safety, truck traffic, capacity, operational, etc.): The purpose of this project is to grade and widen 230th Avenue, and enhance safety by improving shoulders, constructing better road ditches, improving the road profile, improving sight dis- tances, improving vertical curve situations that currently limit the ability to anticipate on-coming truck traffic, insuring roadway cross sections meet current standards for truck traffic, and lay pavement with thickness sufficient to carry semi-truck traffic. By improving these road fea- tures, we will reduce the need for drivers to adapt to changes from paved road on Interstate 70 and US 183. Hess Services expansion to the corner of 230th Avenue and Feedlot Road was the original catalyst for this project. They are producing steel products for use by the oil and gas industry much of which is transported to North Dakota. However since that time, there is potential for the development of a Peterbuilt dealership, truck stop, and limited traffic resulting from the Goodman Energy Center and ITC Great Plains substation. In addition, truckers who need to travel north of US-183 have been using these roads as a truck bypass around the Northwest side of Hays and thereby avoiding traffic at Interstate 70 Exit 159.

b. Describe the cost savings and benefits that would result from the project (i.e. savings to businesses or customers, operating efficiencies to businesses, improved customer service, etc.): There are considerable benefits of this development to the person looking to develop a Peterbuilt Dealership and truck stop, Hess Services, the Goodman Energy Center, ITC Great Plains substation, and truckers heading north on US 183 who are looking to bypass Hays. We expect this improvement to lead to economic development on the east side of 230th Avenue in the mile or so closest to Feedlot Road. It will improve safety of travel by providing a wider driv- ing surface with better drainage, more managable grades, and an asphalt surface that can better handle the weight of semi-truck traffic. c. Describe any indirect or other benefits (improvements in livability, sustainability, etc.) or issues that are related to the project (environmental, organized opposition, etc.): We are unaware of an organized opposition to this project. In fact, by gaining support from representatives of counties throughout this KDOT region, we showed how this project will benefit people in an area that far exceeds Hays. d. Describe the nature of the industry or industries that would benefit from the project (i.e. types of industries served, commodities produced or carried, customers served, etc.): * Hess Services is a manufacturer of steel tanks and other products used by the oil and gas industry and other customers. This business requires considerable tractor/trailer traffic from in- bound trucks carrying bulk steel and other raw materials and outbound trucks carrying finished products. The increased use of these roads by tractor/trailers will result in quick deterioration of the roads which means increased raod maintenance cost and possible damage to the sus- pensions and undercarriages of the trucks using them. * Goodman Energy Center is a natural gas fired power generator owned by Midwest Energy. * ITC Great Plains owns a substation just north of the Goodman Energy Center that services the power transmission line they constructed between Spearville and Nebraska. * We are visiting with a developer who has acquired property near I-70 at Exit 157 (230th Ave- nue) who is looking to develop a Peterbuilt Truck dealership and also wants to explore constructng a truck stop, hotel, restaurant, and related services. He is working with Ellis Coun- ty and the city of Hays through Ellis County Coalition for Economic Development. The road segments in question are becoming a truck bypass for tractor/triler operators looking to drive north on US 183.

e. Estimate the number of permanent jobs created and/or sustained as a result of the project: Can be as reported by the private business or projected by an economic model or other method. KDOT can assist with this is estimate if necessary Hess services is anticipating this satellite location of his business housing up to 200 employees in the near future. At present, he has a little over 100 employees working there. Neither the Goodman Energy Center nor the ITC Great Plains substation will have more employees as a result of this project, but they will benefit from it in regard to better servicing capability. We have not yet proceeded to the point with the Peterbuilt Truck dealership, truck stop, hotel, restaurant development to know how many jobs will be created at this point. However we have seen preliminary numbers for the dealership of about 17 full time positions with average sala- ries of $52,352. The associated motel and truck stop are expected to produce 74 jobs.

f. Explain the methodology or reasoning for the above jobs estimate: Mr. Aaron White of the Ellis County Coalition for Economic Development keeps a close eye on developments and development opportunities and uses, information from employers, his con- tacts in the industry and the Kansas Department of Commerce to estimate job numbers. g. Calculate the estimated cost of the project per job created and/or sustained (divide 3g by 5e): 9,075

h. Provide average wage data for the jobs created and/or sustained: Average wage must be greater than the average wage for the industry in the region, as reported by NAICs code. KDOT can assist with this information if necessary) Click here to enter text.

i. Is the project in an economically distressed area? Yes No If so, please describe: “Economically Distressed” is open to interpretation. One reference source is Kansas, Inc’s annual county-level economic rankings. Providing evidence that a project serves a particularly underuti- lized part of town might be another way to approach it. Although Hays has a steady economy that dipped slightly during the recession and was for the most part not affected by it, the community experienced a considerable setback in 2012 when a large employer NEW closed their Hays operation. This resulted in the loss of about 250 jobs in the community. According to recent reports, the Ellis County and Hays economy lacks large employers which are a key component of a vibrant, sustainable economy. We believe the growth of Hess Services will help grow the economy in the Hays area and possibly spur growth of other larger employers. The Truck dealership, truck stop, motel, restaurant development is anticipated to create 91 new jobs in the community. j. Estimate how the project might broaden the tax base by increasing tax revenue: KDOT can assist with this is estimate if necessary Hess Services is already constructing their buildings. According to the Ellis County Appraiser, the property was valued at about $2.5 million in 2011 and increased in value to $4.4 million for 2012. Hess Services is anticipating up to $8 million more in capital investment in the near future. Both the Goodmand Energy Center and ITC Great Plains substation are utilities and therefor centrally assessed. We are not sure of the value of those buildings. We are not yet at the stage of knowing the value of the truck dealership, truck stop, etc… We believe the truck dealership, truck stop, etc… will have the greatest initial potential for enhancement of sales tax collections but because the developer is seeking a Community Investment District (CID) Hays and Ellis County are not expected to see a benefit for sales tax revenue until the development costs are retired.

6. Private Sector and Other Investments – Attach additional sheets as necessary

a. Describe the associated investment of any private sector business that relates to the project. This could include land purchased, building erected or expanded, equipment purchased, etc. Hess Services has a substantial development along the project valued in 2012 at $4.4 million that is anticipated to grow another $8 million in the near future. We anticipate potential development of a truck dealership, truck stop, etc… to be $11,250,000 in land and improvements.

b. Describe the financial status of the associated businesses. Attach financial statements and most recent budget if possible. We are attaching the financial statements for Hess Services which will be a primary beneficiary of this project and projections prepared for the proposed truck dealership, truck stop, and hotel.

c. Describe any additional investments being made in the project. This could include utilities provided by the local government, tax incentives given, other related grants, etc. Ellis County and the city of Hays are working with the developer of the truck dealership and truck stop to provide a CID to assist in covering the development costs and extension of utilities to the property. We are working with Hess Services to offer a property tax exemption or using a special assessment on the properties along the roads to pay the local share of the project costs.

Attachment Checklist  Financial statements  Project map  Any additional sheets (detailed cost estimates, explanation of local match, letters of support, additional benefits documentation, etc.)  Signed Statement of Intent (following page)  Submit Application by mail to: Kansas Department of Transportation Attn: Pete Van Sickle Eisenhower State Office Building 700 Harrison, 2nd Floor Topeka KS 66603  You may also email it to [email protected] and [email protected]. To ensure receipt, if you do not receive an email response, please follow up with a call to Pete at 785.296.3273

Statement of Intent The authorized person for the applicant must read, agree, and sign the statement below for this to be considered an official application

As the Applicant, or as an authorized representative of the Applicant, I hereby submit this Application to the Economic Development Program. I represent that the information and financial data contained herein and attached hereto are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the following conditions apply to this application:

 Additional information may be requested;  I authorize the Kansas Department of Transportation to independently verify any information contained in this application; and  Acceptance and consideration of this application does not constitute a commitment for financial assistance by the State of Kansas.

I assure that this project will be constructed in accordance with the Rules and Regulations governing the Economic Development Program and all applicable Kansas law.

I assure that all work performed and all material furnished for the approve project shall be in reasona- ble conformity with the plans, specifications, and any authorized revisions thereto, which have been approved by the designer of the approved project.

If the project is approved, I will provide written assurance that:

1. The project will be designed by a licensed professional engineer. 2. All revisions and/or deviations from the plans and specifications will be approved by the project’s designer 3. The project will be inspected by a certified inspector when the project is open to unrestricted traffic and at the time of final acceptance.

______Signature

______Printed Name

______Title

______Date

Ellis County Monthly Financial

Report

July, 2013 Memo

To: County Commissioners

From: Greg Sund

CC:

Date: 8/28/2013

Re: July 2013 Monthly Financial Report

I apologize once again for the lateness in getting this report out. County staff is still in the process of converting to the new CIC software. For this reason, it has been taking a little longer to close the books at the end of the month. Hopefully this issue will be resolved in the near future.

Fund Cash Balance Report ‐ As you can see, the General fund cash balance at the end of July was $9,861,138. This compares to July end balances in 2012 of $8,271,281 and 2011 of $5,011,287. The increase from 2011 to 2012 was somewhat related to the close‐out of the tax levy funds to the General Fund in 2012. However since the balance is still higher this year than in 2012 considering the fact that we transferred most of the fund close‐out money to the Capital Equipment Reserve Fund, tells me we are still in the process of improving our financial situation from a few years ago when the balances were very low.

Fund 16 – Capital Equipment Reserve Fund – This is the fund used to implement our Capital Improvement Plan for all of the General Fund departments. We are still working out the details of how to manage the money in this fund to clearly show department heads how much of the cash is allocated to each of the departments. We have an accounting of all the activity through 2012, which is a great starting point. I have distributed this information to department heads and discussed it with them. The recently reapproved 2011 year‐end transfer and the year‐end 2012 transfer that is on the September 3 Order of Business will affect the numbers in this fund.

Fund 125, the New Generations 911 Fund (formerly the Ellis Co 911 – SB 50 Fund) is also growing in balance quickly. In 2012, we were able to use the balance in that fund and the other two 911 funds to pay the entire cost of upgrading the 55th Street radio tower. Since covering that cost, we have not spent any of the cash in this fund. This has allowed us to reach a July 2013 month‐end balance of $146,124. This growing balance puts us well on the

1 road to having the money necessary to upgrade the consoles in the Communications Center in the future. We are anticipating the cost of that upgrade at $600,000 or more.

As suggested by County Treasurer Ann Pfeifer, I plan to work on cleaning up this portion of the report in the future by reducing the detail of the funds used by the Treasurer to disburse non‐County revenues to the impacted governments. By doing this, it should clarify which funds we account for truly impact the County operation.

Statement of Money in Banks/Investments – In order to demonstrate that the information for this portion of the report is provided by the County Treasurer, Ms. Pfeifer is now producing a form every month that she signs. This form is inserted in this report.

Revenues – We have so far collected 94.9% of levied taxes. However this number will erode somewhat are we pay rebates on the oil wells that have dropped to an average production of less than five barrels per day. So far this year through July we have collected 87.7% of budgeted General Fund revenues. This compares to 76.7% in 2012. Because we closed the other tax levy funds into the General Fund at the end of 2011, the comparison for that year and before are not easy to do.

Expenditures – General Fund expenditures at the end of July were 52.3% of budget compared to 54% in 2012. As with the revenues, comparing to years before 2012 is difficult because of the consolidation of funds at the end of 2011.

Greg Sund

 Page 2

Section 1 Accounting Cash Balances

FUND CASH BALANCE REPORT Ellis County, Kansas

Fund Balance Balance No. Budgeted Levy Funds 1/1/2013 Receipts Disbursements Transfers 7/31/2013 1 County General 3,736,927.55 18,724,360.48 12,600,150.45 9,861,137.58 17 Rural Fire District Fund 84,491.61 381,996.99 124,921.33 341,567.27 Total Budgeted Funds 3,821,419.16 19,106,357.47 12,725,071.78 ‐ 10,202,704.85

Budgeted Non‐Levy Funds 3 2013 GO Bond Debt Service ‐ 53,452.46 20,893.02 32,559.44 28 Solid Waste Fund 636,038.57 781,311.58 711,456.55 705,893.60 29 Special Alcohol Programs Fund 1,783.44 3,637.96 3,640.04 1,781.36 31 Special Parks & Recreation Fund 1,076.35 1,975.85 ‐ 3,052.20 125 Ellis Co 911 ‐ SB50 Fund 33,576.87 112,546.78 ‐ 146,123.65 Total Budgeted Non‐Levy Funds 672,475.23 952,924.63 735,989.61 ‐ 889,410.25

Non‐Budgeted Reported Funds 6 Capital Improvement Reserve Fund 134,589.00 ‐ 59,426.54 75,162.46 16 Capital Equipment Reserve 2,661,288.00 191,483.26 495,293.89 2,357,477.37 25 Prosecuting Attorney's Training Fund 1,002.96 3,888.73 3,730.37 1,161.32 27 Special Fire Machinery Fund 17,265.34 ‐ ‐ 17,265.34 34 Solid Waste Amortization Fund 113,515.84 ‐ 2,794.62 110,721.22 52 Fair Operating Fund 18.34 ‐ 18.34 ‐ 58 Risk Management Reserve 353,308.94 ‐ ‐ 353,308.94 59 Drug Enforcement Unit 51,634.31 70,062.66 52,487.31 69,209.66 78 Special Highway/Bridge Improvement 796,695.40 106,503.33 303,288.89 599,909.84 98 Closure & Post‐ Closure Tr 153,333.00 ‐ ‐ 153,333.00 106 R.O.D. Technnology Fund 207,289.74 33,368.00 176,626.98 64,030.76 Total Non‐Budget Monitored Funds 4,489,940.87 405,305.98 1,093,666.94 ‐ 3,801,579.91

Agency, Trust, &Closed Funds 12 Munjor Grant ‐ 1,943.58 1,943.58 ‐ 20 Community Corrections Fund ‐ Adults 166,719.31 543,256.61 388,130.25 321,845.67 44 Advance Escrow 333,707.09 435,100.84 281,876.92 486,931.01 45 Partial Delinquent R Tax 67,912.14 46,299.36 37,785.70 76,425.80 48 Big Creek Imp Dist ‐ Sewer 355.45 ‐ 355.45 ‐ 49 Big Creek Improvement District 21,720.48 93.29 ‐ 21,813.77 51 Big Creek Imp Dist ‐ Disposa 38,744.95 56,546.00 92,994.23 2,296.72 53 Munjor Improvement District 797.04 432.61 1,204.77 24.88 54 Prairie Acres Improvement 9,401.18 7,774.02 3,814.25 13,360.95 55 Prairie Acres Imp ‐ Disposal 31,430.41 10,050.00 16,404.27 25,076.14 62 Partial Delinquent P Tax 94,350.02 9,684.03 8,493.92 (162.96) 95,377.17 63 Central Kansas Library ‐ 342,707.75 329,016.57 13,691.18 66 Fairport Cemetery District ‐ 468.73 468.73 ‐ 67 Gorham Fire District #1 ‐ 60,362.00 60,362.00 ‐ 72 Special Stray 1,865.58 ‐ 1,865.58 ‐ 75 Attorney Trust Fund 4,759.04 12,274.54 8,000.00 9,033.58 76 Court Trustee/Child Support Fund 85,876.37 178,235.80 198,381.40 65,730.77 82 Cash Long/Short Pfeifer 401.30 55,293.08 55,687.06 7.32 83 Sheriff's Commissary Fund 7,636.29 14,810.99 11,933.12 10,514.16 84 Tax ‐ State Deficiency 198.79 ‐ ‐ 198.79 85 Deposits on Estates 3,253.53 ‐ 1,924.62 1,328.91 89 Ellis County Canine Fund 133.47 ‐ ‐ 133.47 91 Motor Vehicle Fees 1,837.08 1,477,321.15 1,462,526.97 16,631.26 92 Park Permits ‐ 270.00 270.00 ‐ 93 Refunding Warrants (26,178.01) 166,771.27 162,574.68 (21,981.42) 94 Returned Checks ‐ 7,421.13 8,515.88 (1,094.75) Fund Balance Balance No. Budgeted Levy Funds 1/1/2013 Receipts Disbursements Transfers 7/31/2013 96 Motor Vehicle Operating 13,751.85 159,773.16 126,220.75 47,304.26 97 Escrow Fund (Tag Dept) 174.50 1,054.50 1,009.00 220.00 102 Big Creek Imp ‐ Replacement 149,955.64 10,355.45 ‐ 160,311.09 103 Revitalization Program 1,375.00 ‐ ‐ 1,375.00 104 Drug Forfeiture Fund 9,322.50 6,722.65 4,000.00 12,045.15 107 Revitalization Refunds ‐ 32,370.10 32,046.68 323.42 110 Drug Enforcement Trust II 13,538.00 36,338.00 40,854.00 9,022.00 113 Transient Merchant Bond 50.00 ‐ ‐ 50.00 114 Concealed Gun Application 18,499.50 6,629.00 1,000.00 24,128.50 115 NWKS Homeland Security 6,556.50 ‐ ‐ 6,556.50 119 Prairie Acres ‐ Depr Reserv 10,000.00 10,000.00 20,000.00 120 Community Corrections ‐ Parole 64,335.07 20,058.13 81,826.08 2,567.12 121 Community Corrections ‐ Byrne Grant (20,896.72) 53,795.90 35,808.76 (2,909.58) 122 Community Corrections ‐ Domestic Viol (6,250.00) 20,835.00 17,502.00 (2,917.00) 123 KS Child Service League 20,120.44 60,000.00 80,120.44 ‐ 124 Community Corrections ‐ Mentor Grant (5,252.46) 34,433.20 37,072.99 (7,892.25) 126 Grants Fund ‐ 179,327.00 179,217.35 109.65 127 Oil & Gas Depletion Trust 1,571,811.45 ‐ ‐ 1,571,811.45 130 Const. Hwy 40 Projects ‐ 4,562,840.21 47,892.56 4,514,947.65 560 Ellis County Special Assessment 926.87 ‐ ‐ 926.87 Ttl Non‐Budget Non‐Monitored Funds 2,692,939.65 8,621,649.08 3,819,100.56 (162.96) 7,495,325.21

Tax Funds 43 Homestead Credit (26,579.93) 26,579.93 ‐ ‐ Tax 2012 25,312,722.40 14,833,967.85 39,154,621.70 992,068.55 68 Tax ‐ Vehicle 872,979.53 1,841,114.49 1,880,797.46 833,296.56 69 Tax 2011 ‐ 23,771,548.23 23,771,548.23 ‐ 71 Tax ‐ Rental Vehicle Exci 22,445.93 24,470.22 22,445.93 24,470.22 73 Tax ‐ Delinquent R Tax 299,490.33 102,090.79 355,522.12 46,059.00 74 Tax ‐ Delinquent P Tax 129,247.11 356,433.61 282,816.27 202,864.45 81 Tax ‐ Advance 0.44 ‐ ‐ 0.44 86 Tax ‐ Escaped 3,537.28 400.82 3,680.16 257.94 90 Tax ‐ Local Ad Valorem 0.51 ‐ ‐ 0.51 95 Tax ‐ State Sales 80,409.78 713,009.07 693,366.77 100,052.08 99 Tax ‐ Mineral 109,665.97 211,011.56 320,677.53 ‐ Total Tax Funds 26,803,919.35 41,880,626.57 66,485,476.17 2,199,069.75

Other Govt Funds City Funds 265,405.63 6,376,331.31 6,637,458.86 4,278.08 Township Funds ‐ 10,973.44 10,657.64 315.80 School Funds ‐ 19,814,999.18 19,817,927.57 (2,928.39) State Funds 607,421.31 607,421.31 ‐ Total Other Govt Funds 265,405.63 26,809,725.24 27,073,465.38 ‐ 1,665.49

Adjustments ‐ 16.08 10.18 ‐ 5.90 Total All Funds 38,746,099.89 97,776,605.05 111,932,770.44 (162.96) 24,589,761.36

Section 2 Cash Balances in Banks/Investments

Section 3 Revenue Budget Report

MONTHLY REVENUE REPORT Ellis County, Kansas

2013 July Year to Budget Less Percent Fund/Department Budget 2013 Date Actual Collected General Fund Ad Valorem Tax - Real Estate 14,147,366 - 8,895, 817 5,251,549 94.9% Ad Valorem Tax - Personal - - 676,231 (676,231) Ad Valorem Tax - Oil & Gas - - 3,849, 853 (3,849,853) Deliquent Tax - Real Estate 100,000 - 112,561 (12,561) 112.6% Delinquent Tax - Pers Property - 24,865 (24,865) Delinquent Tax - Oil & Gas - 15,147 (15,147) Vehicle Tax 912,863 - 666,943 245,920 73.1% Recreational Vehicle Tax 15,574 - 12,614 2,960 81.0% 16/20M Vehicle Tax 34,554 - 46,853 (12,299) 135.6% Penalties and Interest on Taxes 120,000 3,301 32,651 87,349 27.2% Special City & County Highway Rev 842,714 206,965 607,566 235,148 72.1% Mineral Production Tax 175,000 - 160,339 14,661 91.6% Liquor Control Tax Distribution 5,198 - 1,976 3,222 38.0% Escape Tax 2,500 - 1,233 1,267 49.3% Rental Vehicle 10,000 - 8,650 1,350 86.5% Xerox Copies - 1,914 11,872 Antique Car Fees 5,500 860 3,415 2,085 62.1% Licenses & Permits - - 270 (270) 0.0% Lease Revenue 44,889 9,134 9,134 35,755 0.0% Motor Vehicle Registration - - - - Other Reimbursed Expense - 738 738 Register of Deeds Reception Fees 79,000 8,596 53,949 25,051 68.3% Mortgage Registration 375,000 38,389 259,566 115,434 69.2% Heritage Trust Fund Fees 15,000 1,536 6, 806 8,194 45.4% Health - Intergovernmental Revenue - - - - Health State Grant - 312 1,190 (1,190) Health State Formula Grant 19,600 4,964 14,866 4,734 75.8% WIC Grant - Health 70,000 7,605 62,416 7,584 89.2% WIC Reimbursements 10,500 - - 10,500 0.0% Health Service Fees 155,000 9,472 72,907 82,093 47.0% Health Other Revenue - 37 403 (403) Passport Fees 18,000 1,300 14,175 3,825 78.8% Clerk - Other - 93 562 (562) Tax Warrant Fees 1,000 - 288 712 Treasurer - Other 5,000 - 2,155 2,845 I.T. - Sale of Lists - - 13 (13) Coroner Fees 1,600 1,431 5, 651 District Court Fees 12,500 7,686 16,051 (3,551) 128.4% Other Reimbursed Expense 1,135 1,135 EMS Fees 7,000 - 1,620 5,380 23.1% EMS Patient Fees 90,000 4,312 42,855 47,145 47.6% EMS insurance Fees 860,000 49,514 499,229 360,771 58.0% 2013 July Year to Budget Less Percent Fund/Department Budget 2013 Date Actual Collected EMS Hospital Fees 14,500 2,708 11,431 3,069 78.8% EMS - State Set-off Reimb 1,935 27,234 (27,234) Other Reimbursed Expense - 2,093 2,093 Fair - Rent of Buildings 46,000 7,349 33,789 12,212 73.5% Fair - Fees 20,000 1,600 10,000 10,000 50.0% Insurance Fees - 100 100 Reim-Labor, Equip, Material - 1,183 1,183 Road & Bridge Fees 90,000 - 79 89, 921 0.1% PW Other Revenues - 3,492 (3,492) Herbicide Sales 550,000 105,578 373,100 176,900 67.8% Weed Control Other 1,030 2,771 Environmental/P&Z Fees 3,500 360 8,355 (4,855) 238.7% Inmate Work Release Fee 70 320 (320) Prisoner Care 1,350 - - 1,350 0.0% Phone Commission - Sheriff 7,800 2,212 7, 095 705 91.0% Civil Process Fees 11,000 650 11,040 (40) 100.4% Other Reimbursed Expense - 1,320 1, 320 Sheriff Fingerprint Fee 16,000 1,006 8,249 7,751 51.6% Sheriff Other Fees 8,000 61 12,553 (4,553) 156.9% Revitalization Fees 6,000 - 4,811 1,189 80.2% Use of Money & Property - - - Juvenile Supervision/ Probation Fees - 25 (25) Auto Special 9,000 - 9,278 (278) Interest on Investments 80,000 4,652 32,817 47,183 41.0% Refunds/Disbursements - (2,078) (83,471) 83,471 Transfer From Another Fund - - - Voided Checks - - - Miscellaneous 6,000 449 4,120 1,880 0.0% Total General Fund Receipts 19,004,508 491,570 16,676,342 2,353,426 87.7%

Special Revenue Funds 29 Special Alcohol 5,198 - 3,638 1,560 70.0% 31 Special Parks & Recreation 5,198 - 1, 976 3,222 38.0% 125 Ellis County 911 Fund 300,000 16,430 112,547 187,453 37.5%

Debt Service Funds 003 2013 GO Bond - - -

Construction Funds 78 Special Road/Bridge - - 737 (737)

Enterprise Funds 28 23 Solid Waste 1,249,000 178,829 728,133 520,867 58.3%

Special Districts 2013 July Year to Budget Less Percent Fund/Department Budget 2013 Date Actual Collected 17 Rural Fire District #1 389,071 144 369,825 19,246 95.1%

Section 4 Expenditure/Expense Budget Report MONTHLY EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES REPORT Ellis County, Kansas

2013 July Year to Reimbursed Budget Percent Fund/Department Budget 2013 Date Expenses Remaining Used General Fund 4 Commission 213,931 30,554 15 5,483 726 59 ,174 72.4% 18 Administrator 440,546 17,180 14 2,377 122 298,291 32.3% 7 Clerk 313,415 22,251 18 2,799 592 131,208 58.2% 47 Election 68,128 2, 605 48,285 - 19 ,843 70.9% 24 Treasurer 585,123 41,551 333,349 206 251,980 57.0% 1 Appraiser 677,899 50,331 37 3,680 5, 031 309,250 54.7% 10 Coroner 54,700 7,073 26,267 28,433 48.0% 53 Buildings & Grounds 550,068 21,282 28 9,354 - 260,714 52.6% 13 Information Technology 404,427 25,111 25 1,389 1, 150 154,188 62.0% 20 Register of Deeds 189,662 13,691 10 6,323 5, 872 89 ,211 54.4% 55 Communications Center 127,381 7, 601 45,776 - 81 ,605 35.9% 22 Sheriff 1,732,374 144,017 984,847 2,728 750,255 56.8% 54 Jail 814,282 93,715 50 2,185 - 312,097 61.7% 33 Emergency Medical Services 2,463,396 189,709 1,432,617 13,477 1,044,256 57.8% 15 Emergency Management 90,129 5, 639 45,430 421 45 ,120 50.2% 2 Attorney 613,458 48,005 35 0,225 - 263,233 57.1% 11 District Court 271,400 25,165 17 2,005 18,199 117,594 59.4% 19 Road & Bridge 4,893,524 461,369 2,454,672 9, 080 2,447,932 50.1% 25 Noxious Weed Control 841,525 58,379 487,720 353,805 58.0% 32 Environmental Services 183,185 17,603 10 2,987 156 80 ,353 56.2% 50 Planning & Zoning 8,500 - 1,023 1,740 9,217 10.0% 17 Health 565,235 41,204 26 7,967 - 297,268 47.4% 56 Fair 172,886 15,557 10 0,362 88 72,612 58.0% 97 Contingencies, Transfers Out, Subsidies 4,537,410 7, 829 2,049,842 - 2,487,568 45.2% 98 Neighborhood Revitalization 36,259 - 22,589 - 13 ,670 62.3% Treasurer's Disbursements/Refunds - 6,675 6,823 - (6,823) Total General Fund 20,848,843 1,354,095 10,936,376 59,589 9,972,056 52.3%

Special Revenue Funds 029 Special Alcohol 5,198 - 3,640 - 1,558 70.0% 031 Special Parks & Recreation 5,198 - - - 5,198 0.0% 125 New Generation 911 Fund 300,000 - - - 300,000 0.0%

Debt Service Funds 003 2013 GO Bond - (20,893) - -

Enterprise Funds 028 23 Solid Waste 1,159,857 86,233 60 1,501 4, 621 562,977 51.7% 028 27 Household Hazardous Waste 34,460 672 7,437 6, 394 33 ,416 18.2% 034 Solid Waste Amortization - 1, 500 2,795 (2 ,795)

Capital Project/Purchase Funds 006 Capital Improvement Reserve - 3, 475 15,561 - n/a n/a 016 Capital Equipment Reserve - 16,422 135,986 - n/a n/a 078 Special Highway/Bridge Imp - - 145,182 2, 266 n/a n/a 130 Old Hwy 40 Const Projects - 22,500 22,500 - n/a n/a

Special Districts 017 Rural Fire District #1 572,413 14,308 100,647 1,000 472,766 17.6%