CI T Y O F T E M P E Biennial Budget For the Fiscal years beginning July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2003 Biennial Budget FY 2001-03 Will Manley City Manager Patrick M. Flynn Deputy City Manager Rich Oesterle Financial Services Manager Randy Gross Deputy City Manager Cecilia Velasco-Robles Deputy Financial Services Manager Debbie Bair Budget and Research Analyst Michelle Caruso Budget and Research Analyst Travis Clark Budget and Research Analyst Anita Erspamer Executive Assistant Melanie Housh Budget Intern The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) presented an Award for Distinguished Budget Presentation to the City of Tempe for its annual budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1999. In order to receive this award, a governmental unit must publish a budget document that meets program criteria as a policy document, as an operations guide, as a financial plan and as a communications medium. The award is valid for a period of one year only. We believe our current budget continues to conform to program requirements, and we are submitting it to GFOA to determine its eligibility for another award. - iii - Budget Policies Introduction Budget Award ..................................................................................................................................... City of Tempe Mission Statement ...................................................................................................... City Organization Chart ...................................................................................................................... Budget Message .................................................................................................................................. Budget Summaries Budget Summaries Contents ............................................................................................................... Budget Policies ................................................................................................................................... Budget Process Flowchart .................................................................................................................. Budget Process Summary ................................................................................................................... Total Financial Program ..................................................................................................................... Components of Total Financial Program ............................................................................................ Financial Program Summary .............................................................................................................. Fund Summary ................................................................................................................................... General Governmental and Enterprise Funds: Ten Year Fund Balance Trends ................................ Citywide Overview: Operating Budget, Debt Service, Revenues and Staffing ................................. Operating Budget Overview ............................................................................................................... Capital Budget Capital Budget Overview ............................................................................................................ CIP Project Listing ...................................................................................................................... CIP Summary .............................................................................................................................. CIP Fund Balances ...................................................................................................................... Relationship Between Operating and Capital Budgets ................................................................ Program Budget Program Budget at a Glance ........................................................................................................ Per Capita Operating Expenditures by Program .......................................................................... Program by Fund Summary ......................................................................................................... Program by Department Summary .............................................................................................. Debt Service Bonded Debt Limits Summary .................................................................................................... Debt Policy .................................................................................................................................. Debt Service Schedule ................................................................................................................. Capital Budget, Debt Service, Assessed Valuation Property Tax Rate: Ten Year Historical Trends ......................................................................................................... Property Taxes .................................................................................................................................... Impact of Total Budget on Citizens .................................................................................................... Personnel Summary: Ten Year History ............................................................................................. Comprehensive Financial Plan Comprehensive Financial Plan Contents ............................................................................................ Comprehensive Financial Plan Overview ........................................................................................... Forecast Methodology ........................................................................................................................ Forecast Assumptions ......................................................................................................................... Economic Outlook .............................................................................................................................. General Fund ...................................................................................................................................... Transit Fund ........................................................................................................................................ Transportation Funds .......................................................................................................................... Enterprise Funds ................................................................................................................................. Rio Salado and Community Facilities District Funds ......................................................................... Financial Action Plan ......................................................................................................................... Revenue Information Revenue Information Contents ........................................................................................................... Total Revenues ................................................................................................................................... Components of Total Revenues .......................................................................................................... -i- iii iv v 1 11 12 17 18 21 22 24 25 26 28 29 45 48 60 61 62 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 74 75 76 77 79 80 83 84 88 90 92 94 96 102 104 107 108 109 Total Revenue by Source .................................................................................................................... Comparative Revenue by Source ........................................................................................................ General Governmental Revenues: Ten Year Historical Trends................................................... Special Revenues: Ten Year Historical Trends ................................................................................. Enterprise Revenues: Ten Year Historical Trends ............................................................................. Performance Budget Performance Budget Contents ............................................................................................................ Issues Management/Strategic Budgeting ............................................................................................ Strategic Issues: Goals and Strategy/Action Plan .............................................................................. Per Capita Performance Budget .......................................................................................................... Performance Budget Summary ........................................................................................................... Performance Benchmarking ............................................................................................................... Departments Mayor and Council ........................................................................................................... City Manager .................................................................................................................... Internal Audit ................................................................................................................ Neighborhood Program ................................................................................................. Government Relations ................................................................................................... Economic Development .................................................................................................... Community Relations ....................................................................................................... Tempe Learning Center .................................................................................................... Strategic Planning ............................................................................................................. City Clerk.......................................................................................................................... City Court ......................................................................................................................... Human Resources ............................................................................................................. City Attorney .................................................................................................................... Financial Services ............................................................................................................. Information Technology ................................................................................................... Development Services ...................................................................................................... Police ................................................................................................................................ Fire .................................................................................................................................... Community Services ......................................................................................................... Public Works .................................................................................................................... Water Utilities ................................................................................................................... Schedules and Summaries Schedules and Summaries Contents ................................................................................................... Budget Resolution .............................................................................................................................. Property Tax Ordinance ...................................................................................................................... Budget Schedules................................................................................................................................ Budget Basis, Budgetary Units, and Changes to Budget .................................................................... Financial Structure and Organization ................................................................................................. Annexation Progress ........................................................................................................................... Tempe Community Profile ................................................................................................................. Personnel Summary ............................................................................................................................ Personnel Schedules ........................................................................................................................... Glossary of Terms............................................................................................................................... Index ................................................................................................................................................... OMB Staff .......................................................................................................................................... 111 112 115 126 131 135 136 137 145 146 147 148 150 152 153 155 156 158 160 162 164 166 168 170 172 176 178 188 198 206 216 234 241 242 243 245 251 253 255 256 260 261 294 301 305 - ii - City Organization Chart People of Tempe City Attorney Brad Woodford City Clerk Kathy Matz Mayor and City Council City Court Louraine Arkfeld City Manager Will Manley < Audit Ken Jones < Government Relations Shannon Wilhelmsen Neighborhoods Maryanne Corder < Mayor/Council Offices Stephen Zastrow/Enrique Lopezlira < Assistant City Manager Randy Gross Assistant City Manager Pat Flynn Resource Group Operations Group Financial and Development Group Human Resources Department Bill Hernandez Public Works Department Howard Hargis Financial Services Department Rich Oesterle Information Technology Department Gene Obis Water Utilities Department Tom Gallier Development Services Department Dave Fackler Tempe Learning Center Dr. Raul Sandoval Community Services Department Tom Canasi Economic Development Jan Schaefer Community Relations Joseph Ortiz Fire Department Cliff Jones Strategic Planning Gary Robinson Police Department Ralph Tranter - iii - Budget Message Budget Message City of Tempe June 20, 2001 To the Honorable Mayor and City Council: ♦ Transmitted herein is the City’s FY 2001-03 biennial operating budget, the second two year budget for the City of Tempe. The biennial budget has encouraged a longer term view of financial planning and shifted the emphasis from the process itself to a more careful examination of our resource allocation choices. As an additional benefit, moving to a budget process that occurs every other year rather than each year has allowed City departments greater time to focus on service delivery and program ♦ improvements. Budget in Brief The adopted operating budget for FY 2001-02 (Year 1) totals $234.0 million, an $11.8 million or 5.3% increase over FY 2000-01. The operating budget increases in FY 2002-03 (Year 2) by $6.5 million or 2.8% to $240.5 million. Several factors contribute to the changes in the budget from a year ago, as highlighted in the following: Supplemental Funding. Over the course of this two-year budget, an additional $9.0 million is included across all funds for program expansions and new initiatives to address the City’s strategic goals and priorities. Of this new funding, $1.7 million will address needs in our public safety and criminal justice programs, as well as community services, reflecting the City’s continuing commitment to youth and social service programs. Inflation and related costs. Inflation, projected at 2.0-2.5%, coupled with projected population growth of 1.0% annually over the biennium, contribute to budget increases. Police Staffing. In Year 1 of the biennium, 12 new police positions were approved for public safety. These positions were primarily for investigations and enhanced neighborhood patrol; additionally, costs associated with 26 previously grant funded police positions were absorbed in the operating budget. Biennial Budget Total Financial Program FY 2001-02 Operating Budget $234,015,370 Perent Change 5.3% Capital Improvements $85,541,430 Percent Change 26.9% Total Financial Program $319,556,800 Percent Change 10.4% FY 2002-03 $240,461,459 2.8% $130,638,313 52.7% $371,099,772 16.1% Biennial Operating Budget by Fund FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 General Fund $125,427,279 $131,658,405 Special Revenue Funds Transportation 8,135,751 8,447,753 Transit 25,044,850 24,606,654 Rio Salado 1,353,091 1,434,267 Performing Arts 317,048 341,472 CDBG/Section 8 7,633,824 7,705,907 Debt Service 11,238,729 11,518,082 Enterprise Fund Water/Wastewater 42,021,240 41,333,191 Sanitation 10,515,860 10,788,733 2,327,698 2,626,995 Golf Total Operating Budget $234,015,370 $240,461,459 Budget Highlights Total Financial Program The following tables depict the adopted biennial total financial program (operating and capital improvements budgets) and the operating budget detailed by fund. The size of our total financial program increases over the biennium due to the light rail component in transit and expansion of the water/ wastewater program budgeted within the Capital Improvements Program (CIP). Pay-As-You-Go Total “pay-as-you-go” financing within the Capital Improvements Program include $17.6 million (FY 2001-02) and $18.7 million (FY 2002-03) million from operating revenues, reflecting a $12.5 million decrease and $1.1 million increase over each of the preceding year’s “pay-as-you-go” financing. Capital Improvements The Total Capital Improvements Program is $85.5 (FY 2001-02) and $130.6 (FY 2002-03) million, up $18.1 and $45.1 million from each of the previous year’s programs. Highlights of the biennial capital program include: FY 2001-02 • Initial funding for light rail financing ($23.3 million-federal share) • Funding for Water and Wastewater projects ($19.8 million) including funding for new production wells ($1.7 million), continued funding for 91st Avenue expansion ($10.0 million), and funding for Kyrene wastewater plant and Southern Avenue Interceptor enhancements ($4.4 million) • Initial funding for the AZ Cardinals Stadium ($13.7 million) • Continued funding for Transportation Improvements ($5.3 million) • Funding for Recreation Improvements ($4.1 million) including continued funding for soccer field construction ($1.0 million), initial funding for North Tempe Multigenerational Center ($1.0 million), and continued funding for park and recreational improvements ($2.1 million) Personnel Total proposed full-time positions equal 1,727 for FY • 2001-02 and 1,734 for FY 2002-03. This represents a net increase of 57 full time supplemental positions in Year 1 and 5 positions in Year 2, and 11 full time • positions associated with CIP operating impacts during the biennial budget. Additionally, in Year 1, costs associated with 26 previously grant funded • police positions were absorbed in the operating budget. Continued funding for Rio Salado Development ($3.6 million) Continued funding for a downtown fire station ($1.3 million) Initial funding (land purchase) for a Criminal Justice Center ($0.9 million) FY 2002-03 • Continued public safety automation efficiencies and radio replacement conversion ($3.0 million) • Continued funding for the North Tempe Multigenerational Center ($3.7 million) • Continued funding for park and recreational improvements ($2.6 million) • Continued funding for Transportation Improvements ($6.0 million) • Funding for Transit Light Rail ($53.7 million including $23.7 million of federally shared money) • Continued funding for Rio Salado Development ($2.1 million) • Funding for water wastewater projects ($43.8 million) including funding for water plant expansion and process improvements ($13.9 million), continued funding for 91st Avenue wastewater expansion and transmission ($19.2 million) and funding for Kyrene wastewater plant expansion and Southern Avenue Interceptor rehab ($9.5 million) As the graphs below depict, the operating budget represents 73% of the FY 2001-02 total financial program, decreasing to 65% in FY 2002-03 as the size of our CIP budget falls. Department budgets make up just over 80% of the citywide operating budget. Revenue Considerations The City will modify revenue as needed in several areas for FY 2001-02. Water/Wastewater For FY 2001-02, water and sewer rates will be reviewed to ensure full cost recovery and to maintain adequate reserves for capital needs. Sanitation Fees Upon finalizing the FY 2001-02 financial report in the Fall of 2001, sanitation fees will be reviewed to determine if a fee adjustment is required. The last sanitation fee adjustment of 3% was implemented in January 1998. Development Fees For FY 2001-02, Water and Sewer development fees will be reviewed to ensure new development pays its fair share of infrastructure development. Contingencies 2% Debt Service 12% Federal Grants 3% FY 2001-02 CIP Budget 85.5 27% Operating Budget 234.0 73% Non Departmental 2% Total Financial Program $319.6 (in Millions) Operating Budget Breakdown Contingencies 2% Debt Service 11% Federal Grants 3% FY 2002-03 CIP Budget 130.6 35% Operating Budget 240.5 65% Total Financial Program $371.1 (in Millions) Debt Op Budget 81% Debt Op Budget 82% Non Departmental 2% Operating Budget Breakdown Golf Fees Golf rate reviews will be conducted annually to ensure that the fund remains self sufficient. Fees for non-residents changed in June 1999, increasing by $1 per nine holes for the summer season. Unreserved General Fund Balance 50 Millions ($) 40 30 Other Considerations Aside from the predicted downturn in the economy over the next 2-3 years, our state-share of locally distributed state income, sales and vehicle license tax revenues are projected to decline as the 2000 Census shows Tempe’s expected declining percentage of statewide population. Additionally, we will continue to review charges for fees for service on an ongoing basis and will bring them to Council, as necessary. Financial Assessment Tempe continues to be financially strong. Over the years, through sound fiscal management, Tempe has positioned itself well to weather economic downturns, create a positive atmosphere for economic development, and provide greater flexibility on budgetary issues. Fund Balances One measure of a city’s financial strength is the level of its fund balances (i.e., revenues exceed expenditures). The City’s estimated unrestricted fund balance in the General Fund will approximate $39.0 million as of June 30, 2001. This balance represents 29% of FY 2000-01 total General Fund revenue. Our recommended guideline for General Fund fund balance coverage is a minimum of 25% of General Fund revenues. The City’s Enterprise funds (Water/Wastewater, Golf, and Sanitation programs) will have a combined fund balance of approximately $60 million at the end of FY 2000-01. Financial Reserves Another indicator of a city’s financial strength is the level of its financial reserves. Over the years the City has established financial reserves to  Percent     20.0% 20 10.0% 10 0 30.0% 97 98 Fund Balance 99 00 01 0.0% Fund Balance Coverage  absorb unforeseen liabilities. The City currently has self-insurance reserves totaling $9.4 million, monies that will protect the City against potential claims. Additionally, the City approximates $6.3 million in debt service reserves at June 30, 2001, monies that will help stabilize and fund future debt service obligations. Included in each of the biennial budget years and financed from current revenues are $4.6 million of contingency funding for unanticipated emergencies. Finally, the City has established a “rainy day reserve” of $8.0 million. Bond Ratings The City’s bond ratings are further evidence of its financial strength. Tempe’s general obligation bonds are currently rated AAA by Fitch, Aa1 by Moody’s and AA+ by Standard & Poor’s. Such rankings mean the City’s bonds are considered to be of excellent investment quality, meaning lower interest rates on bonds with corresponding lower interest payments. Having solid financial policies and strong financial reserves are principle reasons for these excellent bond ratings. Fitch December 2000 AAA April 1997 Aa1 Standard & Poor’s February 1992 AA+ Moody’s Development Activity _ The Elliot Road corridor continues with solid economic activity. We have seen several new major retail establishments and restaurants open in this location, further enhancing the City retail and sales activity there. In fact, the Elliot Road corridor generated $13.4 million of local sales tax revenue for the City in FY 2000-01. Another prosperous development within the Elliot Road corridor is the Autoplex. With a planned capacity of 15 auto dealerships, plus other ancillary businesses, the Autoplex represents a significant part of the City’s financial future, given the sizable sales tax and property tax base each dealership brings to the community. We currently have nine auto dealerships with fifteen vehicle lines operating in the Autoplex. Tempe continues to attract new companies and new development. Last fiscal year, city staff worked with 40 companies that created an estimated 1,500 jobs by moving into or reinvesting in Tempe. Job growth was distributed among several areas of Tempe including the ASU Research Park on the East Side, the Fountainhead Corporate Park in northwest Tempe, several developments in South Tempe along the I-10 corridor, and in Downtown Tempe. Downtown Tempe is also the site of a major mixed-use development called The Brickyard on Mill, which is comprised of three buildings-the seven-story Orchid House, the six-story Bank of America Building, and the two-level Artisan Court. These projects add loft-style residential living, additional retail and office opportunities to the Downtown. A number of new developments are also underway at Tempe Town Lake. The first phase of Hayden Ferry Lakeside, a 1.6 million square foot mixed-use project, is under construction with a Class A, eight story office building to be completed in the summer of 2002. In addition, the 136 condominium project, also under construction, will add new options for urban living in Tempe. The city broke ground on a new marina that will provide easy launch areas for boats to take advantage of recreational opportunities on the lake, and the Tempe Performing Arts Center is in design and will be built near the west dam on the south bank of Tempe Town Lake. Tempe continued to build on its reputation as a “Tech Oasis”. While Tempe accounts for 3% of the state’s population, over 17% of Arizona’s high tech companies are located in Tempe. Two Tempe zip codes, 85281 and 85282, have more technology companies than any other location in the state. Downtown Tempe, in particular, attracts companies that desire a “live, work, play” environment. Favorable Development Activity ⇒ Commercial Development ⇒ Job Growth Overall, FY 2000-01 building permit valuation totaled more than $262 million. This number includes nearly $215 million worth of investment in commercial, industrial, and office developments. Residential construction, valued at over $29 million, was significant because of Tempe’s scarce supply of undeveloped land. The remainder of the $262 million was invested by schools, government, and churches. Residential development in Tempe is changing, due to the addition of loft-style developments in the Downtown and Rio Salado areas and the limited area remaining for residential growth. Commercial activity has been steady reflecting dividends both from our own economic development initiatives and programs, and the favorable economic climate in the metro Phoenix area. Permit activity overall is expected to continue to level off over the next year after very strong growth in the mid-to-late ‘90s. The projection is for continued fiscal strength and economic development success. Notwithstanding this favorable economic outlook, we remain mindful of the cyclical nature of the economy. We update this plan annually based on these factors. For Fiscal Years 2001-03, we plan to issue $12 million each year of tax-supported debt. Over the six-year capital program, we plan to issue $72 million of tax-supported bonds, all in accordance with our Debt Management Plan. Major Policy Considerations Budget appropriation choices were made within the context of the City’s Comprehensive Financial Plan (Debt Management Plan & Long-Range Financial Capacity), Council Budget Policies, and Strategic Issues Plan. Comprehensive Financial Plan Debt Management Plan The favorable bond ratings are due not only to having solid fund balances and reserves, but also result from adoption of and adherence to the Debt Management Plan by the City Council in 1989, which links our future debt capacity to population, tax base growth, and current level of general operating revenue. Long-Range Financial Capacity City staff prepares and updates the long-range financial plans and forecasts annually in preparation for developing suggested budget policies for City Council consideration. The long-range forecast is for continued financial strength through FY 2004-05. A “Comprehensive Financial Plan” Section is included in the Biennial Budget which describes revenue and expenditures, issues, trends, and resource choices for all funds. Debt Management Plan Debt Per Capita Debt to Full Cash Value $1000 $800 $600 2.50% Goal Range $833 2.00% $751 1.50% $400 1.00% $200 $0 June 30, 2002 0.50% June 30, 2007 Goal: $700-$800 Goal Range 1.33% June 30, 2002 1.28% June 30, 2007 Goal: 1.10%-1.25% Debt Service to General Governmental Revenue 20.00% 16.00% Goal Range 12.00% 8.00% 10.02% 9.40% June 30, 2002 June 30, 2007 4.00% 0.00% Goal: 10%-15% Council Budget Policies for FY 2001-03 The operating budget embraces the following tenets that over the years have made the City financially strong: within the General Fund (The long-term policy is to limit recurring General Fund supplementals to $500,000 annually); • the budget provides that current revenues are sufficient to support current expenditures (“We are living within our means” without drawing down general fund reserves for operating purposes); the budget maintains the City's strong general fund reserves; • the budget provides for a General Fund contingency appropriation sufficient to support emergencies and unforeseen circumstances, given past experience in the City; Limit operating budget impacts to the Capital Improvements Program to $750,000 annually for the biennial budget period of 2001-03; • Provide 1% for enhanced benefits. capital improvements; • Establish reserves, with the balance of surplus revenue going to the Capital Improvements Program as pay-as-you-go financing. • the budget requires no increase in the total property tax rate. The tax rate for FY 2001-02 is $1.35 per $100 assessed valuation; With these basic tenets as a guide, combined with the direction provided by our comprehensive financial planning process, the following budget policy direction was followed for FY 2001-03: • • Allocate 1/3 to the Rio Salado program for maintenance and replacement dollars to ensure that all capital facilities and equipment are properly maintained; pensation and enhanced benefits package, which is one of the finest anywhere. Minimize midyear adjustments; 2. Based upon the Comprehensive Financial Plan, allocate anticipated surplus from the General Fund for non-recurring expenses as follows: • the budget provides sufficient levels of • the budget maintains a competitive com- • 3. The economy is in a slow-down period. Maintain the City’s strong financial reserve program. • Cap the Rainy Day Reserve at $8 million; Cap the Rio Salado Reserve at $10 million; • Maintain the General Fund fund balance at a minimum of 25% of General Fund revenues. 1. Over the next five years, General Fund revenues will increase at a rate slower than projected expenditures. Equalizing the growth 4. Although the past ten years have shown an average annual increase in assessed values rate of both revenues and expenditures is of 3.8%, we are projecting the next 5 years essential to avoid future expenditure cuts or average at 4.2%. This increased assessed tax increases. value provides increased bond capacity. • Limit recurring supplemental operating expense additions to $750,000 and nonrecurring supplementals to $1.0 million • Increase the Debt Management Plan’s G.O. Bond funding for tax supported debt to $12.0 million annually beginning in FY 2001-02. No increase in the property tax rate ($1.35/$100 of assessed value) is needed to fund the increased capacity. 5. The City’s revenue structure must be examined regularly to insure minor inflationary pressures do not go unnoticed requiring large percentage increases at some time in the future. Strategic Issues The City formed strategic issues teams to provide more strategic focus to resource allocation choices. The strategic issues and Council Committees for FY 2001-02 are: • Continue annual evaluations of enterprise funds (water, sewer, refuse and golf) with the purpose of recommending smaller percentage increases at routine intervals as opposed to waiting a longer period of time and requiring substantially larger percentage increases; • Place fees for services on a regular review schedule as follows: • Year 1: Community Services fees (recreational, social services, library); • Year 2: Criminal Justice system fees; • Year 3: Development related fees (building permits, plan check, etc.). 6. Institute semi-annual budget reviews with the City Council. 7. Continue examination of current programs by each department for potential “sunsetting” or budget trade-off. • Technology Advancement and Community Development • Human Services and People Improvement Program • Finance and Economic Development • Cultural and Community Programs • Neighborhood Enhancement and Public Safety Community Partnerships • Transportation Committee of the Whole • Rio Salado Committee of the Whole • Ad Hoc Committee on Human Relations The goal of each strategic team is to delineate long-range goals, formulate a cohesive strategy for each of the defined areas, and develop action plans to advance the city toward those strategic goals. Basic services were also identified as a top priority in evaluating resource allocation choices. Where the Money Comes From by Source of Funds Local Taxes 36% Local Taxes 39% Intergovernmental 15% Intergovernmental 17% All Other 4% CIP/Other Funding 9% All Other 5% User Charges 18% Bonds 8% FY 2001-02 User Charges 15% CIP/ Other Funding 13% Bonds 21% FY 2002-03 Income/Outgo The pie charts below and on the previous page portray the City’s income and outgo. Revenues are grouped by major category, while expenditures are shown by program area and by type of expenditure (such as personal services). Local taxes (e.g., city sales tax and property tax) continue to be the largest City revenue source, representing 39% of the FY 2001-02 total revenue budget, decreasing to 36% in FY 2002-03. Other major revenue sources include user charges (such as water service and refuse fees) and intergovernmental revenue. The pie charts show a breakdown of City expenditures and where the money is spent by program. Public Safety and Environmental Health represent the greatest areas of program appropriation, accounting for 49% of the total financial program in each of the fiscal years 2001-03. Where the Money Goes By Type of Program Development Services 8% Public Safety 26% General Services 17% Transit 14% Environmental 23% Community Services 12% Public Safety 27% Environmental 22% FY 2001-02 Development Services 8% General Services 17% Transit 14% Community Services 12% FY 2002-03 The final chart portrays budget appropriations by line-item category. As you may expect with a service-type organization, Personal Services (salaries, wages and benefits) represent a large portion of the total financial program. Where the Money Goes By Line Item Category Capital Projects 27% Supplies/ Services 21% Capital Projects 35% Supplies/ Services 18% Capital Outlay 2% Debt Service 4% Other 9% Personal Services 37% FY 2001-02 Debt Service 7% Capital Outlay 1% Other 5% Personal Services 34% FY 2002-03 Conclusion The City of Tempe has a long history of maintaining a high quality of service to its citizens. Whether these service levels fit the “basic service” definition or a “quality of life” definition, the City seeks a balance to provide services to all its residents, and at the lowest possible cost. The adopted biennial budget for FY 2001-03 reflects the commitment to maintain these high levels of service amid fluctuating economic uncertainties. Maintaining the City’s excellent financial situation is a top priority of the City Council and staff. As such, we will continue to focus on the City’s Comprehensive Financial Plan to model future financial scenarios. Limiting recurring General Fund operating expenses in future years will be a key factor in our scenario planning. The adopted biennial budget reflects the Council’s policy of preserving Tempe’s strong financial position by maintaining strong fund balances and reserves, attracting and retaining high quality staff with highly competitive salaries and benefits, adding new programs cautiously and making decisions within the context of our comprehensive financial plan. The budget asserts our commitment to meet and exceed our community’s high expectations and to continue to meet these needs at the lowest possible cost to our citizens. With final budget adoption, I want to thank the Mayor and City Council, citizens of Tempe and City staff for their time and effort throughout this budget process. Respectfully submitted, Will Manley, City Manager MISSION: To work with each other and the community to make Tempe the best place to live, work, and play. VALUES: We value… People- We appreciate the talents of each person and encourage responsible decision making at the most appropriate level. We recognize the importance of personal and professional development. Creativity- We encourage imaginative problem solving, innovation, resourcefulness and responsible risk taking. Quality- We provide superior services and are committed to continuous improvement. We are attentive to the changing needs of the people we serve. Integrity- We are honest, accountable and trustworthy. Openness- We are accessible and work as a team by sharing information, ideas, resources and responsibility. Respect- We welcome individual and professional differences and treat everyone with dignity, courtesy and sensitivity. Budget Summaries The Following section provides a summary of the Operating and Capital Budgets along with summary budget schedules, historical overview of Citywide budget data, debt service, personnel, and fund summaries Budget Summaries Contents Page Budget Policies .................................................................................................................................12 Budget Process Flowchart ...............................................................................................................17 Budget Process Summary ...............................................................................................................18 Total Financial Program ................................................................................................................ 21 Components of Total Financial Program ......................................................................................22 Financial Program Summary .........................................................................................................24 Fund Summary ................................................................................................................................25 General Governmental and Enterprise Funds: Ten Year Fund Balance Trends .....................26 Citywide Overview: Operating Budget, Debt Service, Revenues, and Staffing .....................................................28 Operating Budget Overview General Fund ...............................................................................................................................29 Transit Fund ................................................................................................................................34 Transportation Funds...................................................................................................................35 Debt Service Fund .......................................................................................................................37 Community Development Block Grant/Section 8 Housing Grant Funds ...................................38 Enterprise Funds..........................................................................................................................39 Capital Budget Capital Budget Overview ............................................................................................................45 CIP Project Listing ......................................................................................................................48 CIP Summary ..............................................................................................................................60 CIP Fund Balances ......................................................................................................................61 Relationship Between Operating and Capital Budgets ...............................................................62 Program Budget Program Budget at a Glance........................................................................................................65 Per Capita Operating Expenditures by Program .........................................................................66 Program by Fund Summary ........................................................................................................67 Program by Department Summary ..............................................................................................68 Debt Service Bonded Debt Limits Summary ....................................................................................................69 Debt Policy ..................................................................................................................................70 Debt Service Schedule ................................................................................................................71 Capital Budget, Debt Service, Assessed Valuation, Property Tax Rate: Ten Year Historical Trends ....................................................................74 Property Taxes .................................................................................................................................75 Impact of Total Budget on Citizens................................................................................................76 Personnel Summary: Ten Year History .......................................................................................77 11 Budget Policies The budgetary policies enumerated below outline a general framework of budgetary goals and objectives regarding the operating budget, debt service, capital expenditures, reserves, and financial reporting. They provide standards against which current budgetary performance can be measured and proposals for future programs evaluated. Operating Budget Policies Current revenues will be sufficient to support current operating expenditures. • Status: FY 2000-01 estimated General Fund operating revenues ($132.8 million) to expenditures ($113.8 million) Ratio 1.2:1 Financial systems will be maintained to monitor expenditures, revenues and program performance on an ongoing basis. • Status: Ongoing monitoring system with monthly reviews including new payment and purchase requisition system Revenues and expenditures will be projected for the next five years and will be updated annually. • Status: Projections completed in Comprehensive Financial Plan (April 2001 Update) Debt Service Policies Long-term debt will not be issued to finance current operations. • Status: None issued to finance current operations Outstanding Tax Supported Debt* growth rate will be maintained at a rate commensurate with Tempe's population, growth factors and financial condition consistent with the rate of growth in its underlying tax base and budget base; long-term debt will not exceed the City's resources for repaying the debt. • Status: Debt growth commensurate with growth indicators; FY 1999-00 Non-enterprise tax supported debt $120.5 million; FY 2000-01 tax supported debt $118.2 million; percent change (1.7%); FY 2001-02 $122.6 (est.); percent change 3.5% * Includes total tax supported debt (property and excise taxes) less debt service fund reserve. Outstanding Tax Supported Debt (FY 2000-01 $118.2 million, FY 2001-02 $122.6 million) will not exceed 1.10-1.25% of the estimated full assessed valuation* (FY 2000-01 $8,604,588,325); (FY 2001-02 est. $9,123,192,645). • Status: Debt to Full Value: FY 2000-01 1.38%, FY 2001-02 1.33% * Actual full cash value, net of estimated value of property exempt from taxation Annual Tax Supported (property and excise tax) Debt Service (FY 2000-01 $18.0 million; FY 200102 $15.6 million) will not exceed 10-15% of the Total Governmental Revenue (FY 2000-01 $151.6 million; FY 2001-02 $155.4 million)*. • Status: Debt Service to Revenues: FY 2000-01 11.9%; FY 2001-02 10.0% (est.) * Includes General Fund, Debt Service and Transportation (excludes Transit revenue) Outstanding Tax Supported Debt per capita will be maintained within the range of $700 and $800 12 per capita and increase no more than 50% within four years or 20% in one year. • Status: Debt Per Capita: FY 2000-01 $722; FY 2001-02 $751 (est.) Capital Expenditures Policies As required by City Charter, a five-year capital improvements program will be developed and updated annually, including anticipated funding sources. • Status: FY 2001-03 Biennial CIP Budget of $85.5 million (FY 2001-02) and $130.6 million (FY 2002-03) adopted as part of a 6 year, $700.8 million CIP program Capital projects financed through the issuance of bonds will be financed for a period not to exceed the expected useful life of the project. • Status: Average weighted life years on CIP bonds: FY 2000-01 16.3%; FY 2001-02 15.5% The City will coordinate development of the capital improvements budget with development of the operating budget. Future operating costs associated with new capital improvements will be projected and included in operating budget forecasts. • Status: Operating Budget impact of new capital projects is estimated at $1.4 million plus an estimated $2.6 million ($1,436,866 Water/Wastewater, $523,107 Transportation, and $628,107 General Purpose) in additional debt service for the coming fiscal year. Future operating costs associated with new capital projects have been incorporated into the Comprehensive Financial Plan The City will maintain all its physical assets at a level adequate to protect the City's capital investment and to minimize future maintenance and replacement costs. • Status: Aggressive capital maintenance program approved in Capital Improvements Program budget The City will establish an appropriate mix of bonded debt and pay-as-you-go financing in the funding of capital projects. • Status: Reserve Policies Sources of Funds ($ Millions) FY 2001-02 General Obligation Bonds $25.9 Pay-As-You-Go Financing 17.6 Outside Revenue 40.3 Capital Projects Fund Balance 1.7 Total Sources of Funds $85.5 FY 2002-03 $79.8 18.7 33.0 (0.9) $130.6 13 The City will continue its healthy financial reserve position. Fund balance coverage for the General Fund will be maintained at a minimum of 25% of General Fund revenue. • Status: Fund Balance FYE 00 Revenues FY 2000-01 Fund Balance Coverage $38.6 M $132.7 M 29.1% Fund Balance FYE 01 Revenues FY 2001-02 Fund Balance Coverage $39.2 M $132.0 M 29.7% The City will maintain an unrestricted minimum retained earnings balance of $45 million of anticipated revenues in the Water/Wastewater Fund, and a minimum of 10% of anticipated revenues in the other Enterprise Funds (Sanitation, Golf). • Status: Fund Balance FYE 00 $56.4 M Revenue FY 2000-01 $43.5 M Fund Balance Coverage 129.7% Sanitation $1.2 M $10.2 M 11.8% 43 Golf $1.5 M $2.0 M 75.0% 274 Fund Balance FYE 01 $57.8 M Revenue FY 2001-02 $43.1 M Fund Balance Coverage 134.1% Sanitation $1.2 M $10.3 M 11.6% 43 Golf $0.8 M $2.2 M 36.4% 133 Water/Wastewater Water/Wastewater Days Coverage 473 Days Coverage 490 Self-insurance reserves shall be maintained at a level which, together with purchased insurance policies, adequately indemnify the City's capital assets. • Status: FY 2000-01 $8.1 million and FY 2001-02 $8.1 million in self-insurance reserves Financial Reporting Policies 14 The City's accounting and financial reporting systems will be maintained in conformance with current accepted principles and standards of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) and the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). • Status: GFOA Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. GFOA Distinguished Budget Presentation Award including an outstanding rating as a communications device for the biennial budget Full disclosure will be provided in the general financial statements and bond representations. • Status: Notes to the financial statements and official bond statement provide full disclosure An annual audit will be performed by an independent public accounting firm with the subsequent issue of an official annual financial statement. • Status: Unqualified independent audit report Financial Stability Several steps were undertaken to insure our continued financial stability amid declining stateshared revenues and uncertain assessed valuation policy. These recommendations, listed under the Financial Action Plan in the Comprehensive Financial Plan, include the following: • Long-Range Forecast was prepared for all funds projecting revenues and expenditures over the next five years. • Sales Tax Revenues (in General Fund) derived from the sales tax election of 1993 approving an increase in the rate from 1.0% to 1.2%, appears sufficient to meet projected expenditure needs through FY 2004-05. • Amid declining Highway User Revenue Fund revenues and increasing transportation needs, a Transit Tax Proposal was passed by the voters on September 10, 1996, increasing the sales and use tax rate by one half of one percent, and restricting revenues to improving public transportation. • Annual review of the Debt Management Plan and sizing of Capital Budget to Debt Criteria led us to limit new debt issues to an average of $12.0 million each year for the next 6 years. • Building on the Benchmarking Program, incorporating recommended benchmarks from the Governmental Accounting Standards Board Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting program, International City/County Management Association Performance Measures, and citywide internal and external benchmarking programs to assist in public accountability and continuous improvement in the efficiency, quality, and outcomes of work processes and services. • Continue citywide Competitive Analyses to evaluate and improve service delivery while enhancing accountability to the citizens. • Strategic Issues Program implemented to identify and prioritize key strategic issues, 15 leading to incorporation of recommended corresponding strategies and goals into the budget process. • Financial Policy Implementation and Monitoring continue to be fine-tuned to refine financial guidelines and the administrative procedures to monitor performance criteria. • Expenditure Control will be directed at slowing growth by means of citywide line item reviews, modified base budget approach, and program sunsetting. • Limit Midyear Adjustments which circumvent the normal budget process and pose a risk to careful long-range financial planning. • Continue efforts in coalition with the League of Arizona Cities and Towns to help Protect State-Shared Revenues. • Manage Stability as effectively as growth has been managed in the past. Financial flexibility, which comes easily during rapid revenue growth periods, must be intentionally constructed through effective decision-making when managing stability. • Review Benefits Program to explore such options as increasing deductibles, requiring greater employee contributions and/or modifying our benefits cafeteria programs. Council Budget Policies 16 • Continue the modified base budget implemented at the start of the budget process, incorporating historical spending patterns, program cost adjustments, and long-range forecasts in the preparation of budget allocation targets, thereby limiting the rate of budgetary growth. • Limit recurring supplemental operating expense additions to $750,000 and non-recurring supplementals to $1.0 million within the General Fund (The long-term policy is to limit recurring General Fund supplementals to $500,000 annually. For the biennial budget, the Council approved a $750,000 recurring limit to fund needs in public safety and development and community services having a high priority with the Council and Tempe residents). This supplemental level and other contemplated funding levels should be considered against a backdrop of our long-range forecasts and how such levels affect the future financial health of the General Fund. • Continue to allocate 1/3 of the annual net General Fund revenue to Rio Salado capital improvements, with the remaining 2/3 for reserves and Capital Improvement Program pay-asyou-go financing. • Continue to evaluate our self-supporting enterprise operations on an annual basis for possible revenue changes. • Continue to re-examine current programs, re-engineering processes and competitiveness in the City as necessary. • Continue to strengthen basic (existing) programs and services in the City. • Continue to identify and address Council’s strategic issues. Budget Process Flowchart The following flowchart depicts the City of Tempe’s Biennial Budget process and timeline. Review Operating Requests Develop Biennial Departmental Budgets Submit Dept. Operating Requests Operating Budget Guidelines Work Study Session Adopt Tentative Operating Budget Prepare Forecast Models Operating Budget Guidelines Public Hearing Adopt Final Budgets Identify Strategic Issues Public Hearing, Levy Property Tax Adopt Tentative CIP Budget CIP Budget Guidelines Work Study Session Develop Biennial Departmental CIP Submit CIP Requests Review CIP Requests … November December Financial Capacity Phase January February Review/ Development Phase March April May June... Adoption/ Implementation Policy/ Strategy Phase Needs Assessment 17 Budget Process Summary The Council's goals and directives set the tone for the development of the budget. In fact, shortly after the budget is adopted, the Council meets to identify strategic priorities, issues, and projects impacting the next fiscal year budget. The Council identifies key strategic issues that will provide the direction and framework for the budget. It is within this general framework that departments' supplemental requests are formulated. Aside from the Council's own objectives, the departments identify and discuss their own policy issues with the City Manager. Budget Process Overview Budget preparation allows departments the opportunity to reassess goals and objectives and the means for accomplishing them. Even though the budget may be heard by the Mayor and Council in May and adopted in June, its preparation begins at least six months prior with projections of City reserves, revenues, expenditure limit requirements, and financial capacity. It is with this "groundwork" that departmental expenditure requests are made and subsequently reviewed. • • • 18 Impact of Biennial Budgeting With the transition to biennial budgeting, the City's budget development process was fundamentally altered, but many aspects of the existing process were kept in place. Functions normally occurring each year (such as the submission of department budget requests and the preparation of the Manager's recommended budget) now occur every other year. During the “off” budget year, minimal technical adjustments are made to the budget for items that could include employee benefits rate changes, for example, or other costs expected to significantly surpass original budgeted amounts and in aggregate exceeding the contingency budget. Financial Capacity Phase Forecasting is an integral part of our decision-making process. Both long-range and short-range projections are prepared. The City's Comprehensive Financial Plan is updated annually to assess our current financial condition and future financial capacity, given our long range plans and objectives. A five-year financial forecast is prepared for each major fund, projecting both expenditures and revenues. As a part of this phase, alternative scenarios are examined for their fiscal impact on each respective fund. Policy/Strategy Phase Presentations by Budget Office staff at "budget kickoff" meetings include a discussion of citywide goals and objectives, budgeting guidelines for the operating and capital budgets, timelines, an overview of fiscal constraints, and resources available for allocation. The Budget Manual distributed at these meetings is designed to assist the departments in preparing all budget requests and forms. • Needs Assessment Phase The departments have an opportunity to assess current conditions, programs, and needs. Examination of current departmental programs or positions for possible trade-offs, reduction, or elimination is strongly suggested. During this phase, departments are encouraged to thoroughly review all programs and services, assessing their value and priority to the citizens of Tempe. Additionally, departments reassess service level standards and workload indicators. They then attempt to provide the "best fit" of resource allocation with service and workload estimates. From this process, they prepare preliminary departmental budgets. As part of this Needs Assessment Phase, a citizen survey is conducted to solicit citizen satisfaction with City services and their perception of resource allocation or budget priorities. • Review/Development Phase Within the framework of the City's financial capacity, Council and City Manager priorities and departmental needs assessments, budget requests are reviewed and a preliminary Citywide operating budget takes shape. The departments initially prepare and submit base budget work sheets reflecting allocation targets. The amount of the allocation is determined by modifying the prior year budget by historical spending patterns and then adjusting for price increases (inflation). Supplemental requests are evaluated and presented at various budget levels: (1) base budget level, (2) recommended level providing monies to implement new or expand City programs, and (3) policy level which allows additional program options. • Adoption/Implementation Phase Prior to May 1 in a budget preparation year (Year 2 of the biennium), the City Manager submits to the Council a proposed operating budget for the next biennium commencing the following July. The operating budget includes proposed expenditures and the means of financing them. Even though a city may operate with a biennial budget, Arizona's local budget and finance laws still require cities and towns to adopt budgets annually. According to state statutes, tentative budget adoption must occur on or before the 3rd Monday in July each year, with final adoption taking place no less than 7 days prior to adoption of the property tax rate. Thus, the formal action by the Council is to adopt the budget for the upcoming fiscal year rather than both years of the biennium. The property tax levy must be adopted by the 3rd Monday in August. State law requires cities and towns with property taxes to adopt their tax rates annually, even though a jurisdiction may operate on a biennial budget. At any time during the fiscal year, the City Manager may transfer part or all of any unencumbered appropriation balance among programs within a department, office, or agency. Management control of the budget is maintained by conducting monthly budget performance reviews throughout the fiscal year. They are aimed at examining expenditure patterns, and recommending corrective action to be taken during the year. Additionally, records are maintained to evaluate ongoing programs and services. • Budget Roles and Responsibilities Every employee plays a role in budgetingwhether in its formulation, preparation, implementation, administration, or evaluation. Ultimately, of course, the department head, through the City Manager, is accountable to the City Council for the performance of departmental personnel in meeting specific objectives within allocation resource limits. Actual budget preparation responsibility can be identified more specifically: 1. The program cost center manager is responsible for (a) preparing cost estimates for the remainder of the current fiscal year; (b) projecting base budget requirements for the biennium; and (c) developing other requests that change or revise the program so that it will be more effective, efficient, productive and economical. 2. The department manager and the division director are responsible for reviewing, modifying and assembling their cost center data into a departmental request package. Department heads should critically evaluate departmental objectives and prioritize requests. The preparation of budget requests, goals and objectives should coincide with the strategic issues set forth by the Council. 3. Internal Service Areas (Fleet and Information Technology Areas) will contact each department to coordinate the initial needs assessment, cost estimates, and recommendations. Replacement equipment (i.e. vehicles, hardware/ software and communication equipment) will be submitted to the budget office by 19 the Internal Service areas. Any new equipment required by the departments should reflect the cost estimates and recommendations from the Internal Services areas and submitted by the departments. Final review and recommendations for hardware/software and communication equipment will be the result of evaluating priorities within the departmental budget team process. 4. The Budget Administrator and Analysts within the Financial Services Department are responsible for (a) preparing short and long-range revenue and expenditure forecasts, (b) assisting departments as requested in the preparation of supplemental requests, (c) analyzing supplemental requests and presenting that analysis to the Budget Team (Department Managers, Deputy City Managers, and Financial Services Manager), and (d) reviewing the linkage between budget requests and the City’s strategic issues. 5. The Budget Team consists of the Department Managers, Division Directors, and Deputy City Managers and is responsible for reviewing departmental operating requests within the context of a set of evaluation criteria and preparing a recommended budget for review by the City Manager. 6. The Capital Improvement Program Executive Committee reviews program scopes, cost estimates and funding sources of CIP requests and prepares a recommended CIP budget for review by the City Manager. 7. The City Council is responsible for the review of the City Manager's tentative budget and approval of a final budget. 8. Transfer of Appropriations; At any time during the fiscal year the City Manager may transfer part or all of any unencumbered appropriation balance among programs within a department, office, or agency. Upon written request by 20 the City Manager, the Council may by ordinance transfer part or all of any unencumbered appropriation balance from one department, office, or agency to another (Section 5.08, City of Tempe Charter). 9. Permission to Exceed Budget; In the event of an emergency, the Council may seek permission from the State Board of Tax Appeals (previously State Tax Commission) to exceed the adopted budget (Section 5.09, City of Tempe Charter). Total Financial Program The total financial program adopted for the biennial budget is $319.6 million for FY 2001-02 and $371.1 million for FY 2002-03. Year 1 of the biennium reflects a $234.0 million operating budget and an $85.5 million Capital Improvements Program, representing a 10.4% increase from the FY 2000-01 total financial program. In Year 2, the total financial program increases to $371.1 million, a 16.1% increase in the total financial program from FY 2001-02, with the CIP budget growing to $130.6 million. Operating budget growth of 5.3% and 2.8% in FY 2001-02 and FY 2002-03, respectively, is related primarily to increased funding for public safety and criminal justice programs, and community services. The increase in the CIP is largely attributed to the expansion of the City’s water/wastewater program and to the implementation of a new light rail system. FY 2001-02 CDBG/Section 8 3.3% Debt Service 12.0% CIP Budget $85.5 / 26.8% Operating Budget $234.0 / 73.2% Contingencies 2.0% Dept Op Budget 81.2% Non-Departmental 1.5% (in Millions) FY 2002-03 CDBG/Section 8 3.2% Debt Service 10.5% CIP Budget $130.6 / 35.2% Operating Budget $240.5 / 64.8% Contingencies 1.9% Dept Op Budget 82.9% Non-Departmental 1.5% (in Millions) Total Financial Program FY 2000-01 FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 OPERATING BUDGET Departmental Operating Budget Debt Service Non-Departmental Contingencies CDBG/Section 8 Housing TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET Capital Improvements TOTAL FINANCIAL PROGRAM 172,285,257 190,023,541 199,248,751 21,719,070 28,189,488 25,209,333 5,194,491 3,597,440 3,615,704 15,410,468 4,571,077 4,681,764 7,559,996 7,633,824 7,705,907 $222,169,282 $234,015,370 $240,461,459 67,408,152 85,541,430 130,638,313 $289,577,434 $319,556,800 $371,099,772 21 Components of Total Financial Program–FY 2001-02 2001-02 Total Budget $319,556,800 Operating Budget $234,015,370 General Governmental Enterprise Special Revenue General Purpose Enterprise Transportation Special Purpose $136,666,008 $54,864,798 $42,484,564 $31,429,242 $20,398,750 $5,284,968 $28,428,470 Public Safety Water/ Wastewater $42,021,240 ___________ Water Streets Transit $25,044,850 ____________ $4,879,000 ____________ $3,801,968 ____________ $24,785,400 ____________ Sanitation Highway User General Governmental $22,868,373 ____________ Park Improvements Wastewater Signals Rio Salado $28,534,230 ___________ Community Services $10,515,860 ___________ $8,135,751 ____________ Section 8 Housing $4,157,000 ____________ $14,969,750 ____________ $1,450,000 ____________ $3,643,070 Police Golf Bikeways $24,935,850 ___________ Development Services $2,327,698 $4,996,216 ____________ $2,767,478 ____________ $550,000 $33,000 CDBG Fire $8,768,072 ___________ $2,637,608 ____________ $1,636,391 Environmental Health Rio Salado $1,315,803 ___________ Debt Service $1,353,091 ____________ Performing Arts $11,238,729 $317,048 $61,873,325 __________ General Services 22 Capital Budget $85,541,430 Golf Transit Components of Total Financial Program-FY 2002-03 2002-03 Total Budget $371,099,772 Operating Budget $240,461,459 Capital Budget $130,638,313 General Governmental Enterprise Special Revenue General Purpose Enterprise Transportation Special Purpose $143,176,487 $54,748,919 $42,536,053 $16,731,530 $46,074,000 $6,046,639 $61,786,144 Public Safety Water/ Wastewater $41,333,191 ___________ Water Streets Transit $24,606,654 ____________ $29,846,000 ____________ $4,186,639 ____________ $59,703,524 ____________ Sanitation Highway User General Governmental $6,387,430 ____________ Park Improvements Wastewater Signals Rio Salado $10,788,733 ___________ Golf $8,447,753 ____________ Section 8 Housing $6,335,000 ____________ $13,923,000 ____________ $1,450,000 ____________ $2,082,620 Police Golf Bikeways $25,681,669 ___________ Development Services $5,018,299 ____________ $2,309,100 ____________ $2,305,000 $410,000 CDBG Fire $9,198,997 __________ $2,687,608 ____________ $1,700,000 Environmental Health Rio Salado $1,989,267 ____________ $1,434,267 ____________ Debt Service Performing Arts $65,092,110 __________ General Services $29,696,362 ___________ Community Services Transit $2,626,995 $11,518,082 $341,472 23 Financial Program Summary The tables below depict the City’s Financial Program Summary, revenues and expenditures, for both fiscal years. Revenues FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 Operating Revenue General Governmental $91,321,600 $95,886,600 35,178,000 37,093,200 Charges for Services 7,080,600 7,081,200 Interest 5,307,000 4,583,000 Fines & Forfeitures 4,321,400 4,321,400 Other 1,338,300 1,389,200 Local Taxes/Licenses Intergovernmental Enterprise Water/Wastewater Sanitation Golf FY 2002-03 43,127,700 10,460,300 42,863,700 10,676,500 2,187,800 2,182,900 Subtotal Operating Revenue $260,428,800 $267,793,600 Capital Revenue Bond/Note Special Revenue Enterprise G.O Bonds 10,000,000 15,500,000 Tax Supported G.O. 12,000,000 12,000,000 3,900,000 20,400,000 W/WW Revenue Bonds Transit Tax 35,030,800 36,125,100 Transit Excise Tax - 29,911,000 HURF 10,162,600 10,355,700 Excise Tax Golf - 2,000,000 4,996,200 5,018,300 CIP Outside Revenues 742,600 753,600 CDBG 2,637,600 2,687,600 Development Fees Performing Arts 5,604,000 5,874,000 State Grant 932,300 901,600 Section 8 Maintenance Lottery Funds Federal Funds Other Fund Balance Subtotal Capital Revenue TOTAL PROGRAM* * Figures adjusted for rounding. FY 2001-02 Expenditures FY 2002-03 Operating Budget General Governmental Public Safety General Services Community Services Developmental Debt Service Environmental Health Enterprise Water/Wastewater Sanitation Golf Special Revenue Transit Tax Highway User Section 8 CDBG Rio Salado Performing Arts Subtotal Operating Budget 24 FY 2001-02 23,608,200 25,777,300 1,250,000 1,000,000 525,000 7,844,800 (3,282,100) $59,128,000 $103,306,200 $319,556,800 $371,099,772 FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 $22,868,373 4,157,000 2,767,478 1,636,391 $6,387,430 6,335,000 2,309,100 1,700,000 Water Wastewater Golf Transportation 4,879,000 14,969,750 550,000 13,923,000 29,846,000 2,305,000 Streets Signals Bikeways Special Purpose 3,801,968 1,450,000 33,000 4,186,639 1,450,000 410,000 24,785,400 3,643,070 59,703,524 2,082,620 Capital Budget General Purpose $61,873,325 28,534,230 24,935,850 8,768,072 11,238,729 1,315,803 $65,092,110 29,696,362 25,681,669 9,198,997 11,518,082 1,989,267 42,021,240 10,515,860 2,327,698 41,333,191 10,788,733 2,626,995 25,044,850 24,606,654 8,135,751 8,447,753 4,996,216 5,018,299 2,637,608 2,687,608 1,353,091 1,434,267 317,048 341,472 $234,015,370 $240,461,459 General Government Park Improvements Police Fire Enterprise Transit Rio Salado Subtotal Capital Budget TOTAL PROGRAM $85,541,430 $130,638,313 $319,556,800 $371,099,772 Fund Summary FY 2001-02 Fund General Estimated Fund Balance 7/1/01 Revenue 1 Total Financial Resources Budgeted Expend. 2 Adjusted Financial Resources Interfund Transfer In (Out) $39,207,573 $131,979,100 $171,186,673 $125,427,279 $45,759,394 $6,375,000 ($17,718,397) Estimated Fund Balance 6/30/02 $34,415,997 Special Revenue: HURF/LTAF 1,817,376 CDBG/Section 8 Rio Salado 10,787,200 12,604,576 7,633,800 160,439 Performing Arts 8,135,751 9,268,825 1,850,000 (4,800,000) 6,318,825 7,093,397 (7,093,397) (142,352) 7,633,824 1,050,300 1,210,739 1,353,091 (142,352) 5,604,000 5,604,000 317,048 5,286,952 Transit 33,358,456 35,030,800 68,389,256 25,044,850 43,344,406 Debt Service 6,327,442 12,567,800 18,895,242 13,303,729 5,591,513 856,302 2,187,800 3,044,102 2,327,698 716,404 1,236,251 10,460,300 11,696,551 10,515,860 1,180,691 57,838,248 43,127,700 100,965,948 42,021,240 47,698,488 TOTAL OPERATING $140,802,088 260,428,800 401,230,888 66,183,000 70,244,978 5,286,952 4,500,000 (1,268,200) 42,076,206 (3,300,000) 6,791,513 (550,000) 166,404 Enterprise: Golf Courses Sanitation Water/Wastewater Capital Improvements TOTAL FUNDS 4,061,978 1,180,691 3,300,000 (5,998,488) 45,000,000 236,080,370 165,150,518 23,118,397 (40,728,482) 141,094,237 85,541,430 (15,296,452) 17,610,085 2,313,633 $144,864,066 $326,611,800 $471,475,866 $321,621,800 $149,854,066 $40,728,482 $(40,728,482) $143,407,870 FY 2002-03 Fund General Estimated Fund Balance 7/1/02 Revenue 1 Total Financial Resources Budgeted Expend. 2 Adjusted Financial Resources Interfund Transfers In (Out) $34,415,997 $136,802,400 $171,218,397 $131,658,405 $42,259,993 $4,300,000 ($12,010,140) Estimated Fund Balance 6/30/03 $34,549,853 Special Revenue: HURF/LTAF 6,318,825 CDBG/Section 8 10,959,800 17,278,625 7,705,900 8,447,753 13,630,872 1,850,000 (5,396,160) 10,084,712 2,406,300 (2,406,300) (525,519) 7,705,907 Rio Salado (142,352) 1,051,100 908,748 1,434,267 (525,519) Performing Arts 5,286,952 5,874,000 11,160,952 341,472 10,819,480 Transit 42,076,206 36,125,100 78,201,306 24,606,654 53,594,652 Debt Service 6,791,513 13,552,200 20,343,713 13,583,082 6,760,631 166,404 2,182,900 2,349,304 2,626,995 (277,691) 10,819,480 4,000,000 (4,225,224) 49,369,428 (4,000,000) 6,760,631 (305,000) (582,691) (6,937,690) 43,592,819 155,137,171 Enterprise: Golf Courses Sanitation 1,180,691 10,676,500 11,857,191 10,788,733 1,068,458 45,000,000 42,863,700 87,863,700 41,333,191 46,530,509 TOTAL OPERATING $141,094,237 267,793,600 408,887,837 242,526,459 166,361,378 16,556,300 (35,280,514) Capital Improvements 112,811,000 115,124,633 130,638,313 (15,513,680) 18,724,214 Water/Wastewater TOTAL FUNDS 2,313,633 1,068,458 4,000,000 3,210,534 $143,407,870 $380,604,600 $524,012,470 $373,164,772 $150,847,698 $35,280,514 $(35,280,514) $158,347,705 Impact of Budget decisions on the City’s financial position: The tables above give the estimated Operating and Capital Improvement fund balances for both fiscal years of the biennium. Respectively for each year, beginning balances are $144.9 million and $143.4 million with an ending fund balance of $158.3 million for the biennium. Fund reserves continue to provide available resources for our “pay-as-you-go” capital financing and the strategic opportunity to fund projects that have the most value to Tempe citizens. Notes: 1) Revenues are net of Capital Improvement fund balances; 2) Expenditures include transfer to Community Facilities District. 25 General Governmental Funds: Fiscal Year–End Fund Condition–Ten Year Trend General Fund Unreserved Fund Balances Millions $ 40 30 20 28.6 38.2 34.7 30.7 38.6 23.2 10 10.8 10.5 Over the ten year period, fund balances in the General Fund have improved as a result of economic development and sales tax growth. At FYE 2000, the General Fund unreserved fund balance was $38.6 million. As a working guideline, fund balance coverage for the General Fund is maintained at a minimum of 25% of General Fund revenue. 14.2 10.1 0 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 Fiscal Year Ending June 30 Debt Service Fund Debt Reserves Millions $ Debt Service reserves were established a number of years ago to address increasing debt service payments without impacting future operating budgets. As part of the City's debt strategy, we will continue the planned draw down of debt reserves over the next several years. 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 13.1 6.0 10.6 10.3 11.1 11.7 9.6 4.0 7.6 6.8 8.0 7.3 2.0 0.0 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 Fiscal Year Ending June 30 Highway User Revenue/ Local Trans. Assistance Unreserved Fund Balance Millions $ 8.0 6.0 7.6 4.0 5.8 3.7 2.0 1.2 3.3 3.3 4.1 2.0 1.0 0.0 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 Fiscal Year Ending June 30 26 '99 '00 Transportation fund balances hit a low in FY 1993 due to streets infrastructure demands and an abrupt decline in state-shared revenues when the state Legislature shifted funds from cities and towns to the operating budget of the state Highway Patrol. Fund balances have gradually recovered as state-shared revenue growth has resumed a modest pace, coupled with reduced infrastructure spending. Enterprise Funds: Fiscal Year–End Fund Condition–Ten Year Trend Water/Wastewater Fund Unreserved Retained Earnings Millions $ 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 55.2 20.0 10.0 33.7 14.3 20.7 18.2 21.7 56.4 41.0 36.8 24.4 Unreserved retained earnings increased in FY 1995-96 largely as a result of the City's improved equity position in the regional wastewater treatment plant, customer growth, and debt refinancing savings. The increase in FY 1998-99 is due to the reduction of an asset replacement reserve resulting in increased unreserved retained earnings. Future drawdowns are planned for pay-as-you-go financing of capital improvements. 0.0 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 Fiscal Year Ending June 30 Sanitation Fund Unreserved Retained Earnings Millions $ Unreserved retained earnings for Sanitation have recovered over the past two years with a 3% residential rate increase occurring in 1998. A planned drawdown of unreserved retained earnings occurred in FY 99-00. The fund maintains a targeted balance guideline of 10% of anticipated sanitation revenue. 2.5 2.0 1.5 2.2 2.0 1.0 1.7 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.1 0.5 0.0 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 Fiscal Year Ending June 30 Golf Fund Unreserved Retained Earnings Thousands $ 2,000 1,500 1,638 1,398 1,538 1,000 897 500 346 346 140 55 50 Improved attendance in FY 1998-99 at both golf courses the last few years has provided a reserve to fund current and future capital improvements. Slow growth and increasing expenses had caused the steady decline in reserves. In FY 1992-93, improvements at Ken McDonald Golf Course closed part of the course (9 holes) for a period of time. 351 0 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 Fiscal Year Ending June 30 27 Citywide Overview Total Operating Budget and Debt Service 1999-00 Actual Budget Data Operating Budget Cost Per Capita $195,334,592 $1,231 2000-01 Revised 2002-03 Budget 2001-02 Budget $222,169,282 $234,015,370 $240,461,459 $1,386 $1,444 $1,468 % Change (cost per capita) Debt Service* Cost Per Capita % Change (cost per capita) * Tax-Supported 13,569,502 $86 13% 21% 2% 11,431,252 $71 (17%) 14,355,963 $89 24% 13,542,471 $83 (7%) Total Operating Revenue by Source 1999-00 Actual Source General Fund Debt Service Fund Transportation/Transit Funds CDBG/Section 8 Funds Rio Salado Funds Performing Arts Funds Enterprise Funds Total 2000-01 Revised 2001-02 Budget 2002-03 Budget $127,587,100 $132,785,700 $131,979,100 $136,802,400 11,338,500 12,299,900 12,567,800 13,552,200 43,835,100 46,685,500 45,818,000 47,084,900 7,014,200 2,406,600 0 58,407,500 $250,589,000 7,953,400 1,151,500 1,928,000 55,906,900 $258,710,900 7,633,800 7,705,900 1,050,300 1,051,100 5,604,000 5,874,000 55,775,800 55,723,100 $260,428,800 $267,793,600 Staffing Summaries Citywide: Full-Time Authorized Positions Source Total Personnel Employees/1,000 Population % Change (Emp/1,000 Population) 28 1999-00 Actual 2000-01 Revised 2001-02 Budget 2002-03 Budget 1,628 1,661 1,727 1,734 10.3 10.4 10.7 10.6 1.0% 2.9% (0.9)% Operating Budget Overview The citywide operating budget for FY 2001-02 totals $234 million and for FY 2002-03 totals $240 million. These operating budget amounts represent 5.3% and 2.8% growth respectively for the two fiscal years. This includes $7.6 million for Community Development Block Grant and Section 8 Housing grant funding. The number of full-time employees for FY 2001-02 totals 1,727, a 4.0% increase from the prior year, and 1,734 in FY 2002-03, representing a 0.4% increase. General Fund appropriations grew by 5.9% and 4.7% over both fiscal years. This primarily reflects funding for new employees to address workload increases in the Police Department, Development Services, Council priorities in Community Services, and increases for employee market adjustments and inflation. Much of the operating budget growth is due to an increase in funds for Police and Community Services reflecting the City’s continued commitment to public safety, youth and social services programs. ♦ General Fund Fund Structure Description The General Fund is the general operating fund of the City and is used to account for all financial activity not reflected in another fund. Major Services The General Fund consists of the following major functions: •Administrative Services •Police •Fire •Management/Financial Services •Legal Services •Community Services •Development Services •Engineering •Facility Maintenance Revenue Structure Major revenue sources for the two fiscal years are: Local Sales Taxes, Intergovernmental Revenues, Charges for Services, Property Taxes, Fines and Forfeitures and All Other. The following table depicts the major revenue sources as percentages of General Fund revenue. Local Sales Taxes and Intergovernmental Major Revenue Sources FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 Local Sales Taxes 54.9 55.4 Intergovernmental 26.7 27.1 All Other 4.4 3.7 Charges for Services 5.4 5.2 Property Tax 5.3 5.2 Fines & Forfeitures 3.3 3.4 revenues represent the two major revenue sources in the General Fund. Together they comprise 81.6% or $106.7 million of the total $132.0 million FY 2001-02 General Fund revenues. In FY 2002-03 the two sources are estimated to account for $112.3 million or 82.5% of total General Fund revenues. Local Sales Taxes Local sales tax revenues are estimated at $71.8 million in FY 2001-02 and $75.2 million in FY 2002-03, derived from a 1.2% City sales tax. (The estimated sales tax collections amount is based on the non-Transit and Performing Arts portion of the City sales tax rate of 1.8%. The remaining 0.6% is restricted to transit purposes and performing arts purposes and is reflected in their respective funds). Over half of the sales tax revenue comes from retail sales, with the remainder collected primarily from rental payments, utility and telecommunication payments, restaurant and bar sales and contracting sales. n 29 While Tempe's single largest revenue source is highly responsive to changes in economic activity, the diverse and robust nature of the City's economy has provided for steady annual increases. Intergovernmental Revenue Revenues in this category are derived from three sources of state-levied revenue sharing: the state sales tax, the state income tax, and vehicle license taxes. Intergovernmental revenues represent $35.2 million or 26.7% in FY 2001-02 and $37.1 million or 27.1% in FY 2002-03 of total General Fund revenues. n The primary allocation basis for state revenue sharing is each city or town’s relative share of the state’s population of all incorporated cities and towns. Tempe’s allocations are based on a 2000 U.S. Census. State sales tax Estimated state sales tax distributions total $12.7 million in FY 2001-02 and $13.4 million in FY 2002-03. Tempe's allocation is based on its share of total statewide incorporated population (currently 5.0%). The size of the overall pool of funding available for distribution is based on state statute, which provides for the allocation of 8.9% of transaction privilege (sales) tax revenue to cities and towns. The total statewide sales tax pool is estimated to be $323.3 million. State income tax Total estimated state-shared income tax revenues to be distributed to Arizona cities and towns for the two fiscal years are $421.9 million and $452.6 million respectively. Tempe’s share is estimated at $16.5 million and $17.7 million for the biennium. The local share was reduced to 15.0% in FY 2000-01. Vehicle license tax The remaining state-shared revenues of $5.6 million in both years derive from vehicle license taxes. Twenty-five percent of the net revenues collected for the licensing of motor vehicles by a county is distributed to incorporated towns and cities within the county. Tempe receives a share of the vehicle 30 license tax collections based on its population in relation to the total incorporated population of the county. Charges for Services Charges for services represent $7.1 million or 5.4% in FY 2001-02 and 5.2% in FY 2002-03 of total General Fund revenues. Recreation and social services programs represent $3.8 million. By Council policy, certain recreation and social service programs operate on a full or partial cost recovery basis. Other Charges for Services revenues derive from development-related charges for building and trade permits, planning and zoning fees, and engineering fees. n Property Tax Tempe’s property tax rate is $1.35 per $100 of assessed valuation, consisting of a primary tax rate of $0.53 per $100 of assessed valuation and a secondary tax rate of $0.82 per $100 of assessed valuation. Only the primary levy goes to the General Fund. While there is no restriction on its usage, the primary levy is limited by state law to a 2% annual increase plus any amount generated by new construction. The primary levy is estimated at $7.0 million in FY 2001-02 and $7.1 million for FY 2002-03. ■ ■ Fines and Forfeitures Fines and Forfeitures represent $4.3 million in both years of the biennium. Traffic Fines represent $1.4 million or 31.8% in FY 2001-02 and 31.9% in FY 2002-03 of total fines collected. Rounding out the fines and forfeiture revenue sources is defensive driving school fees, parking fines, and criminal fines, along with delinquent collections and default penalties. ■ All Other Other General Fund revenue sources include Interest Income, Transient Lodging (Hotel/Motel Bed) Tax, Franchise Fees, Licenses and Permits, the Salt River Project Payment In-Lieu of Property Taxes, and other miscellaneous revenue. Expenditure Structure The General Fund operating budget for FY 2001-02 totals $125.4 million and $131.7 million for FY 2002-03. Major expenditure categories are: Personal Services, Fees and Services, Materials and Supplies, Capital Outlay, and All Other. The following table depicts the major expenditure categories as a percentage of total appropriations. The General Fund consists of all City operations with the exception of Enterprise Fund operations (Water, Sanitation, and Golf), Transportation (LTAF and HURF), Transit, Rio Salado and Debt Service. Major Expenditure Categories Personal Services Fees and Services Materials and Supplies All Other FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 79.6% 14.8% 5.5% 0.1% 78.1% 13.8% 5.1% 3.0% For FY 2001-02, Personal Services (salaries, wages and benefits) account for $99.8 million or 79.6% of the total General Fund operating budget. The remaining appropriations consist of $18.6 million or 14.8% for Fees and Services, $6.9 million or 5.5% for Materials and Supplies, 0.1% for Capital and All Other. In FY 2002-03, General Fund appropriations for Personal Services consist of $106.6 million or 78.1% of the total budget, $18.8 million or 13.8% for Fees and Services, $6.9 million or 5.1% for Materials and Supplies, and 3.0% for Capital and All Other. Personal Services Since most personnel and major functions of city government are located within the General Fund, it is not surprising that salaries and wages represent such a significant proportion of total expenditures. Respectively for the two fiscal years, salaries and wages account for $79.0 million of the $99.8 million and $87.9 million of the $106.6 million in total General Fund appropriations. Personal n Services will continue to represent the major portion of fund expenditures regardless of any policy changes over the next five years. Fringe benefits represent $20.8 million and $18.7 million respectively of the two fiscal years. Fees and Services For the two fiscal years, this budget category comprises 14.8% (FY 2001-02) and 13.8% (FY 2002-03) of total General Fund appropriations. The largest portion of this expenditure category is for contracted services, accounting for 24.6% and 23.4% respectively of total Fees and Services. Contracted services make up an increasing share of Fees and Services costs due in part to the City’s practice of contracting for services rather than adding personnel. Utilities (electricity, water, refuse, and sewer) comprise the second largest share (16.9% and 17.3%) of total Fees and Services. Unlike most of the Fees and Services accounts, utility expenses are expected to increase somewhat higher than inflation. Other major Fees and Services expenditures for FY 2001-02 include software maintenance agreements (6.2%), equipment rental and repair (8.6%), telephone service (4.0%), and county jail costs (3.8%). For FY 2002-03 major expenditures include software maintenance agreements (8.0%), equipment rental and repair (5.2%), telephone service (4.2%), and county jail costs (4.1%). ■ Materials and Supplies Totaling $6.5 million in each fiscal year, expenditures for Materials and Supplies respectively account for 5.5% and 5.1% of the total General Fund operating budgets. In each fiscal year 15.6% ($1.0 million) of these expenditures derive from motor vehicle parts, fuels, and lubricants. The remainder is for library bookstock, clothing allowances, general office supplies, minor equipment, and miscellaneous supplies. Increases in Materials and Supplies over the next five years are expected to be driven largely by inflation. ■ 31 Capital Outlay/All Other Capital Outlay accounts for $3.4 million or 2.3% in FY 2001-02 and $1.7 million or 2.5% in FY 2002-03 of the total General Fund operating budgets. Respectively over the next two fiscal years, funding for replacement and new equipment (primarily automobiles and trucks) constitutes the largest portion, with computer replacement making up 15.2% and 21.8% of total Capital Outlay. Other major Capital Outlay budgeted items include radios, turf equipment and office equipment. Within the All Other category are budgeted amounts for contingencies, travel, contributions to community service organizations and the local convention and visitors bureau, and payment to the county for animal control. n Operating Revenues and Expenditures Revenue growth in FY 1993-94 and FY 199495 averaged over 20% annually, primarily the result of a voter-approved increase in the sales tax rate from 1.0% to 1.2% in September 1993. A strong and increasingly diversified local economy has contributed to continued growth in revenues, producing 19.7% average annual revenue growth over the past five years. However, we expect this level of growth to slow as the national and state economy enter a period of predicted slower growth. General Fund expenditure growth over the past five years has averaged just under 10% annually. In addition to the cost of inflation, spending has increased to address high priority areas such as public safety, recreation, and development services. n Operating surpluses have been utilized for "payas-you-go" financing in the Capital Improvements Program. This year and throughout the forecast period "pay-as-you-go" financing for the Capital Improvements Program is expected to average $7.1 million per year for the biennium, while the impact of capital improvement projects on the operating budget approximates $750,000 per year. The projected fund balance for the General Fund at the end of FY 2000-01 is $39.2 million. ♦ Program Budget Summary 32 Fiscal Year Revenues ($) Millions Expenditures ($) Millions 1991-92 62.0 60.7 1992-93 64.5 62.1 1993-94 75.6 70.8 1994-95 94.4 70.8 1995-96 99.9 78.2 1996-97 104.2 81.1 1997-98 108.2 91.2 1998-99 118.3 92.5 1999-00 124.0 105.1 2000-01 est. 132.7 118.5 The following section describes the allocation of funding for the major functional, or program areas of Tempe city government. The General Fund for FY 2001-02 totals $125.4 million, an increase of 11.5% over FY 2000-01. The FY 2002-03 appropriations increased by 4.9% to 131.6 million. Most General Fund spending growth is related to the addition of positions and contracted services funding to address workload factors and Council priorities, plus increases for inflation. As the table on the following page depicts, Public Safety (police and fire protection) comprises the largest share of the biennial General Fund budgets. Funding for Public Safety increased by the largest dollar amount among the program areas, reflective of a high Council priority. General Services Program General Services appropriations account for 22.7% and 22.6% of the General Fund budgets in FY 2001-02 and FY 2002-03 respectively. This area includes appropriations for Mayor and Council, City Manager, City Clerk, Human Resources, City Attorney, Equipment Management, Information Technology, Accounting, Purchasing, Risk Management, and other programs. Funding for General Services increased in FY 2001-02 to $28.5 million, a $4.5 million increase over FY 200001. The FY 2002-03 appropriations increased by $5.7 million to $29.7 million over FY 200001. These increases are due primarily to technology related and personnel costs. n Development Services Program In both fiscal years, approximately 7% of the General Fund appropriations are earmarked for Development Services. This program area includes the functions of building safety inspections, planning and zoning, and public works engineering. The FY 2001-02 $8.8 million budget represents a 1.6% increase, while the FY 2002-03 $9.2 million budget reflects a 4.9% increase. This is primarily due to new FTE positions and additional staff to manage workload associated with redevelopment and neighborhood development. ■ Program General Services FY 2000-01 Public Safety Program Public Safety continues to represent the largest appropriations area, accounting for 49% or $61.9 million in FY 2001-02 and $65.1 million in FY 2002-03 of the total General Fund budgets. It includes appropriations for Police, Fire, and City Court. Increases in the Public Safety program are driven by increased Police staff and absorption of previously grant funded positions. n Community Services This area consists of all Community Services divisions (Parks and Recreation, Library, Social Services, Cultural Services and Historical Museum), along with Parks Maintenance, Baseball Facilities, Golf Courses, and Facility Services. n General Fund appropriations for Community Services represent 24% or $24.9 million in FY 2001-02 and $25.7 million in FY 2002-03. Environmental Health Program With most of our Environmental Health appropriations residing in the Enterprise Funds, this area represents just 1.0% in FY 2001-02 and 1.5% in FY 2002-03 of the General Fund appropriations and consists of Field Services Administration and Environmental Management. Inflationary related costs are the primary driver of increases in this area. n FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 $24,011,195 $28,534,230 $29,696,362 8,627,205 8,768,072 9,198,997 Public Safety 56,190,145 61,873,325 65,092,110 Community Services 20,146,736 24,935,850 25,681,669 Environmental Health 1,629,516 1,315,803 1,989,267 Transportation Total General Fund Operating Expenditures 1,850,000 0 0 $112,454,797 $125,427,279 $131,658,405 Development Services 33 ♦ Transit Fund Fund Structure Description The Transit Fund is a Special Revenue fund established to account for the receipt and expenditure of the City's transit tax and the onethird commitment of Lottery proceeds for mass transit. Major Services This fund provides for: •Planning and Design •Operations •Procurement •Transit Community Outreach and Marketing Revenue Structure Transit Fund revenues come primarily from a ½ cent City sales tax to fund transit improvements and a one-third commitment of state Lottery proceeds for mass transit. n Transit Tax On September 10, 1996, the citizens of Tempe approved a ½ cent increase in the City sales tax to fund transit improvements. Proposition 400 limited the expenditure of the additional sales tax to improvements such as additional bus routes, alternative fuel buses, bus pullouts, and rail studies. For FY 2001-02, the transit tax is expected to generate $29.2 million in revenue, or 83.3% of total Transit Fund revenues and FY 2002-03 is estimated at $30.5 million or 84.4%. n Lottery Proceeds Per state statute (Arizona Revised Statutes §282502 (F)), a municipality with a population of 60,000 or more persons is required to spend one-third of its local transportation monies for public transportation each fiscal year. Total Lottery proceeds are expected to be $932,300 in FY 2001-02 and $901,600 in FY 2002-03, which represent a slight decrease, a trend that is likely to continue as Tempe's population growth 34 rate remains below those of other cities. The downturn in total Lottery proceeds translates into a gradual decline in the one-third commitment of Lottery monies available for public transportation. The commitment is estimated for the next two fiscal years at $307,700 and $297,500 respectively. Expenditure Structure The Transit Fund includes all personnel in Transit Administration, Planning and Operations. Major expenditures in the Transit Fund include: Fees and Services, Personal Services, Internal Services, Contingency and Capital Outlay/All Other. The following table depicts the major expenditure categories as a percentage of the total transit budget. Fees and Services The largest expenditure in the Transit Fund is n Major Expenditure Categories FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 Fees and Services 77.9% 86.0% Capital Outlay/All Other 10.3% 0.5% Personal Services 7.1% 8.6% Internal Services 2.9% 3.1% Contingency 1.8% 1.8% for Fees and Services, specifically funding for local and City of Phoenix transit routes and Dial-A-Ride services. In FY 2001-02, Fees and Services are estimated to account for $19.5 million or 77.9% and FY 2002-03 is estimated at $21.1 million or 86.0% of the Transit Fund operating budget. Capital Outlay/All Other Within this category are budgeted amounts for capital outlay, debt service, travel and other contributions. Debt service represents 95% of expenditures in FY 2001-02. n Personal Services Personal Services account for 7.1% of the total FY 2001-02 budget, or $1,772,002 and 8.6% or $2,115,398 of the FY 2002-03 budget. n Contingency The contingency account remains constant for each of the two fiscal years at $449,232. This amount represents 1.8% in FY 2001-02 and FY 2002-03. This funding has been set aside for vehicle replacement and unanticipated expenses. Major Services • • • • • n Internal Services Indirect cost allocations to the Transit Fund account for 2.9% or $731,522 of the FY 200102 budget and 3.1% or $762,772 of the FY 2002-03 budget. This amount represents the Transit Fund’s share of certain administrative costs funded by the General Fund. n Capital Projects Although not a part of the operating budget, funding for capital projects constitutes a significant portion of the total financial program in Transit. A large portion of each year’s operating surplus forecast here will be applied towards new and replacement buses, a new Transit Center, and other related capital projects. ■ ♦ Transportation Funds Fund Structure Description The Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) and the Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF) are Special Revenue funds that comprise the City’s Transportation funds. They have been established to account for the receipt and expenditure of Tempe’s allocation of stateshared Highway User taxes and state Lottery funds. Studies and Design Operations Traffic Lights and Signal System Street and Field Maintenance Planning Revenue Structure Transportation revenues are derived primarily (94.2% in FY 2001-02 and 94.5% in FY 200203) from state-shared Highway User taxes. State Lottery proceeds account for 5.8% of FY 2001-02 Transportation revenues and 5.5% in FY 2002-03. Highway User Tax Highway User revenues come primarily (55%) from the fuel tax (currently $0.18 per gallon), with the remainder from motor carrier fees (16%), vehicle license taxes (14%), vehicle registration fees (11%), and other transportation-related fees (4%). Estimates for the total pool of HURF revenues to be shared by cities will be $290.9 million in FY 2001-02 and $306.6 million in FY 2002-03, with Tempe’s share at $10.2 million and $10.4 million, respectively. Experience has shown, however, that state projections for HURF revenue have not proven reliable. In short, HURF revenues are subject to state policy changes, fuel sales, and population growth, all factors beyond the City’s control.Pursuant to state statute, HURF monies can be used only for street and highway purposes, including right-of-way acquisition, construction, reconstruction, maintenance in the public right-of-way, and payment of debt service on highway and street bonds. HURF funds may not be used for transit or law enforcement programs. The outlook for HURF revenues is for gradually declining distributions to Tempe in FY 2001-02 as our relative share of total statewide population falls. ■ 35 ■ Lottery Proceeds Lottery proceeds (Local Transportation assistance Fund or LTAF), including Powerball revenue, are expected to be $932,300 in FY 2001-02 and $901,600 in FY 2002-03, representing a slight decrease, a trend that is likely to continue as long as Tempe’s population growth remains below other cities. The distribution of Lottery funds is based on population, with all cities and towns receiving at least $10,000. A $20.5 million minimum total distribution pool is guaranteed to cities and towns. State law limits the distribution pool to a maximum of $23 million. Cities benefit from Powerball revenues only after a minimum amount of receipts are first collected by the state. Pursuant to state law, after the state Lottery director determines that deposits to the state general fund from all Lottery revenues have reached $21 million, a maximum of $18 million is to be paid to the LTAF from Powerball revenues for distribution to cities, towns and counties. The $18 million statewide pool is divided into county pools based on each county’s market share of Lottery ticket sales. Actual distributions to cities and towns are based on their share of the incorporated population within the county. Generally, proceeds can be used only for street and highway projects such as construction or reconstruction in the public right-of-way. However, for cities in counties with populations of 1,200,000 persons or more, 1/3 must be allocated to public transit (A.R.S. §28-2502 (F)). Thus, the forecast reflects the transfer of funds from Transportation funds to the Transit Fund. Maintenance of Effort In addition to state-shared revenue sources, Transportation derives its remaining revenues from a “Maintenance of Effort” transfer from the General Fund. This transfer of locallygenerated funding fulfills the statutory requirement placed on Arizona cities to maintain the expenditure of local revenue for ■ 36 streets at a level computed as an average of local funds expended for any four of the fiscal years 1981-82 through 1985-86. That obligation is calculated at $1,850,000 for both fiscal years. Expenditure Structure Transportation funds include all personnel in Streets and Traffic Operations (Street/Field Maintenance). Major budgeted expenditures for the Transportation funds include: Debt Service, Personal Services, Internal Services, Utilities, Materials and Supplies, and All Other. The following table depicts the major expenditure categories as a percentage of the total budget. Personal Services The largest budgeted expenditure in the Transportation Fund is Personal Services, which account for 40.2% or $3.2 million in FY 2001-02 n Major Expenditure Categories FY 2001-02 Personal Services 40.2% 36.6% Internal Services 28.9% 25.7% Utilities Materials and Supplies Debt Services 16.0% 13.6% 7.1% 6.3% 3.7% 14.7% 4.1% 3.1% All Other FY 2002-03 and 36.6% or $3.5 million in FY 2002-03 of the total Transportation budgets and will likely continue in that range for the next few years. Debt Service The expenditure in the Transportation funds for Debt Service amounts to $300,000 in FY 2001-02 and $1.4 million in FY 2002-03. Included in each budget year is a loan repayment to the Water/ Wastewater fund. Debt Service will continue to be an expenditure in this fund for the next five years. n Internal Services and Utilities Additional expenditure demands in the Transportation funds are for Internal Services and Utilities. Internal Services costs (communications, information systems and vehicle maintenance) represent 28.9% or $2.3 million of the FY 2001-02 budget and 25.7% or $2.4 million of the FY 2002-03 budget. Utility costs (electricity for street lights and traffic signals) account for another 16.0% and 13.6% or $1.3 million for the biennium. n The remaining expenditures are for Capital Outlay, Materials and Supplies and Contracted Services. These costs will be driven largely by inflation over the next five years. Summary Expenditures for Transportation increased from $8.1 million in FY 2001-02 to an estimated $9.5 million in FY 2002-03. The FY 2001-02 adopted budget does not include any appropriation of LTAF funding in the Transportation Fund. Rather, the LTAF funding will be allowed to accumulate in the fund for future uses. With population being the primary determinant for the distribution of state-shared HURF and Lottery revenues, Tempe’s share decreased approximately $1 million dollars from FY 200001 to 2001-02. Total Transportation revenues are projected to increase by 1.6% to $11.0 million by FY 2002-03. Although we are estimating some growth in revenue, that growth will be minimal at best. ♦ Debt Service Fund Fund Structure Description A Debt Service Fund is maintained to receive dedicated revenues used to make principal and interest payments on the City’s general obligation debt, except the debt service accounted for in Special Revenue and Enterprise Funds. Revenue Structure Debt Service Fund revenues are derived from the secondary property tax and the Salt River Project (SRP) Payment In-Lieu of Property Taxes. The property tax accounts for 94.8% in FY 2001-02 and 95.4% in FY 2002-03 of the Fund’s revenue. Revenues from these sources can only be used to retire debt. Debt Service revenue trends are a function of changes in assessed valuation and the City's secondary property tax rate. While changes in assessed valuations represent the effects of the marketplace and assessor methodology, the secondary rate is determined by City policy. The secondary property rate for both fiscal years is $0.82 per $100 of assessed valuation and is expected to generate $11.9 million in FY 2001-02 and $12.9 million in FY 2002-03. The City's property tax is levied each year on or before the third Monday in August based on the full cash value of property from the previous January 1 as determined by the Maricopa County Assessor. Additional Debt Service revenues in each fiscal year include $654,800 and $626,100 from the SRP Payment In-Lieu of Property Taxes. Our estimate of FY 2001-02 secondary property tax collections was based on the commitment of the City to hold the overall property tax rate (primary and secondary) property tax rate to $1.35 per $100 of assessed valuation. Consistent with the City's debt management plan, we plan to issue the following debt: Over the next six-year capital program, we plan to issue $72 million of tax-supported general obligation bonds. Expenditure Structure Expenditures in this fund are confined to principal and interest payments on voterapproved bonded indebtedness. To keep these costs in check, the Council adopted a long- 37 range debt management plan, which is updated annually based on population growth, tax base growth, and current levels of general operating costs. Projected outstanding long-term general obligation bonds at July 1, 2001 totaled $118.2 million, including $70.9 million in Water/ Wastewater bonds (not repaid by general tax revenues). Summary Projected revenues for FY 2001-02 total $12.6 million, a 2.2% increase from actual FY 200001 collections. FY 2002-03 projected revenues total $13.6 million or a 7.8% increase over the prior fiscal year. Expenditures for FY 2001-02 are estimated at $11.2 million and $11.5 million in FY 2002-03. FY 1998-99 marked a reversal in the pattern of Debt Service Fund expenditures exceeding revenues, although previous shortfalls were fully covered by Debt Service reserves that had been accumulated for the purpose of funding lump sum principal payments. At least in the short term, assessed valuation growth should provide sufficient revenues to fund the City’s debt service requirements. Debt Management Criteria In response to the necessity to incur debt to finance capital projects, the City commissioned a debt capacity study in 1988 to determine the proper level of tax-supported debt as represented across key debt criteria. As a product of the debt capacity study, the City developed a Debt Management Plan (first released in March 1989) which has been updated annually. In keeping with the plan, the City has committed to debt criteria relating: (1) debt to full cash value; (2) annual debt service to revenues; and (3) debt per capita. Fund Structure Outstanding tax-supported debt (property and excise taxes) is not to exceed 1.10% to 1.25% of the estimated full cash value. With outstanding tax-supported debt of $118.2 million and estimated full cash value of $8.9 billion, the 38 City’s estimated debt to full cash value for FY 2001-02 is 1.33% and is projected to remain about the same at 1.34% by FY 2002-03. Our debt service policy is such that annual taxsupported debt service is not to exceed 10%Tax-Supported Debt Bonds FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 General Obligation $12,000,000 $12,000,000 15% of total general governmental revenue. In FY 2001-02, the estimated debt service to revenue ratio is 10.02% with $15.6 million of annual tax-supported debt service and $155.4 million of total governmental revenues. This is a favorable indicator of how the City's debt burden directly impacts financial operations and expenditure flexibility. The City's debt plan calls for outstanding tax supported debt per capita to be maintained within the range of $700-$800 per capita, with increases limited to no more than 50% within four years or 20% in one year. Our current indicator for July 2001 is $751 per capita and is projected to increase to $775 per capita by FY 2002-03. ♦ Community Development Block Grant/ Section 8 Housing Funds Fund Structure Description The Community Development Block Grant Fund (CDBG) and the Section 8 Housing Fund are Special Revenue Funds, established to account for the receipt and expenditure of federal grant funding awarded to the city for redevelopment projects and rental subsidies for low income residents. Major Services • • • Slum and blight removal (CDBG) Rehabilitation of owner-occupied housing (CDBG) Rent and utility subsidies (Section 8) Revenue Structure The following table displays funding awarded to Tempe over the past 10 years. Both grants are awarded directly to the City from the federal government based on a funding formula which reflects such local factors as the percentage of people living in poverty, unemployment, population, the age of existing housing, and the need for housing. Internal Services Internal Services costs for information systems, communications, vehicle maintenance, and indirect charges account for $4.6 million or 11.1% of FY 2001-02 Water/Wastewater expenses and $4.8 million or 11.7% in FY 2002-03. n ♦ Water/Wastewater Fund Fund Structure Description 1992-93 $837,054 $3,416,128 1993-94 2,325,740 3,630,121 1994-95 1,610,050 3,719,248 1995-96 1,980,305 3,846,066 The Water/Wastewater Fund is a selfsupporting enterprise fund used to account for water and wastewater treatment operations, including debt service. It is financed and operated similarly to a private business and intended to recover costs through user charges. Revenues earned, expenses incurred, and/or net income is appropriated for Capital maintenance, public policy, management control, accountability, or other purposes. Other enterprise funds include the Sanitation and Golf Funds. 1996-97 2,700,015 3,861,578 Major Services 1997-98 2,915,622 3,843,309 1998-99 2,399,237 4,068,842 1999-00 2,390,100 4,624,100 •Water/Wastewater Administration 2000-01* 2,967,700 4,985,700 •Water Resource Management 2001-02* 2,637,600 4,996,200 •Water Conservation FYE CDBG Section 8 This budget provides for: •Water Quality Expenditure Structure Pursuant to federal requirements, most CDBG and Section 8 funding is expended on property rehabilitation and rental subsidies. In FY 200102, 10.8% is earmarked for salaries and benefits, another 8.4% allocated to contingencies and miscellaneous expenses, and in FY 2002-03, 11.7% is earmarked for salaries and benefits, with another 8.7% allocated to contingencies and miscellaneous expenses. •Transmission & Collection •Technical Services •Wastewater Reclamation •Environmental Services •Customer Services •Irrigation Revenue Structure User fees account for 91.4% or $39.4 million of the $43.1 million in total fund revenues in FY 2001-02 and 92.1% or $39.5 million in FY 2002-03. 39 Major Expenditure Categories Water and Irrigation User Fees FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 58.1% 58.5% 33.3% 33.6% 5.7% 2.9% 5.0% 2.9% Wastewater User Fees Interest Income All Other Water and Irrigation User Fees Water and irrigation user (consumption) fees provide $25.0 million or 58.1% of the total Water/Wastewater Fund revenue in FY 2001-02 and $25.1 million or 58.5% in FY 2002-03. This revenue amount reflects an estimated 43,000 accounts for drinking water and 925 irrigation water accounts. n n Wastewater User Fees Over 37,000 Wastewater Service accounts are estimated to produce $14.4 million or 33.3% in FY 2001-02 and $14.4 million or 33.6% in FY 2002-03 of the total user fee revenues. Residential wastewater charges are largely driven by water consumption in that monthly billings are based upon a three month Winter average consumption. Interest Income/All Other Cash balances in the Water/Wastewater Fund are expected to generate $2.5 million in Interest Income during FY 2001-02 and $2.1 million in FY 2002-03, or 5.7% and 5.0% of the Fund’s total revenues respectively. Other sources of fund revenues include a loan repayment from the General Fund, land and building rental fees, delinquent payment charges, and miscellaneous fees and charges. n Expenditure Structure Total estimated operating expenses for FY 2001-02 are $41.5 million and $41.3 million in FY 2002-03. Together, Debt Service, Personal Services and Wastewater Plant Regional Operating Expenses represent 64.8% and 64.9% of the total operating expenses respectively for the two fiscal years. The table above shows the composition of fund expenditures earmarked for Debt Service, 40 Major Expenditure Categories Debt Service Personal Services All Other Internal Services WW Regional Exp. Electricity and Water FY 2001-02 34.6% 20.6% 16.4% 11.1% 9.6% 7.7% FY 2002-03 32.8% 21.8% 15.6% 11.7% 10.3% 7.8% Personal Services, Wastewater Plant Regional Operating Expenses, Internal Services, Electricity and Water, and All Other. Debt Service Debt Service accounts for 34.6% of total estimated expenses for FY 2001-02 and 32.8% for FY 200203, indicative of the capital intensive nature of a water/wastewater operation. n Personal Services Personal Services represent $8.5 million or 20.6% in FY 2001-02 of Water/Wastewater operating expenditures and $9.0 million or 21.8% in FY 200203. For FY 2001-02, salaries and wages account for 80.5% of the total Personal Services budget, followed by health insurance at 10.4%, FICA at 6.1%, retirement at 2.2%, and other 1.2%. For FY 2002-03, salaries and wages account for 80.5% of the total Personal Services budget, followed by health insurance at 10.7%, FICA at 5.8%, retirement at 2.2%, and other 1.2%. ■ Re-engineering efforts and competitiveness studies conducted from FY 1998-99 through FY 2000-01 have resulted in the elimination of 11 full-time positions. Wastewater Plant Regional Operating Expenses Tempe participates in an intergovernmental agreement for the construction, operation, and maintenance of jointly used facilities, including the 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant, Salt River Project Outfall Sewer and the Southern Avenue Interceptor. The City pays for upgrades based on relative sewage flows and strengths. n Expenses associated with the 91st Avenue Plant represent $4.0 million or 9.6% of the FY 200102 total and $4.3 million or 10.3% in FY 200203. Excess sewer capacity will continue to be purchased to accommodate increasing flow demand. Planning and cost-benefit assessments are currently underway to estimate the costs associated with additional sewage treatment capacity and available alternatives. Fund Structure Description The Sanitation Fund is a self-supporting enterprise fund intended to recover all operating, maintenance, and debt service costs to provide residential, commercial, recycling and roll-off solid waste services. Major Services Electricity and Water Utilities comprise a major expense within this fund, as substantial electricity and water is required to provide these services. For FY 2001-02, electricity and water are budgeted at $3.2 million, or 7.7% of total expenses and $3.2 million or 7.8% in FY 2002-03. ■ All Other Other major budgeted expenses include chemical supplies, contingencies, water quality testing and contracted services. ■ Summary FY 2001-02 estimated operating expenses for the Water/Wastewater Fund are $41.5 million, an 11.0% increase over FY 2000-01 expenses. Tempe’s shared cost to operate the 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant is expected to decrease slightly through FY 200102, then increase again in FY 2002-03. Although debt service expense increased in FY 2001-02, overall expenditure growth was held down by re-engineering efforts and competitiveness studies conducted by the Water Management Division. Revenues for FY 2001-02 and FY 2002-03 are projected to be $43.1 million, a 0.9% decrease from FY 2000-01 collections. In the two fiscal years, rate adjustments are planned to bring the Wastewater operation closer to full cost recovery. Sewer rate increases will continue the phased-in approach, adjusted to attain full cost recovery as customer charges are based upon water consumption and strength of discharge into the sewer system. ♦ Sanitation Fund This enterprise fund provides for: • Residential Collection • Commercial Collection • Recycling Collection • Roll-Off Collection Revenue Structure Revenue in the Sanitation Fund derives almost exclusively from user fees for residential, recycling, commercial, roll-off, and uncontained solid waste service. These revenues are supplemented by a small amount of interest revenue. The collection and disposal of contained refuse represents the City's second largest enterprise operation. Residential Solid Waste User Fees Residential solid waste user fee revenues are expected to amount to $5.3 million in FY 200102 and $5.4 million in FY 2002-03 or 50.8% and 50.6% of the total revenues for this fund. Residential customers pay $11.75 per month and the number of active accounts total 34,612. n n Commercial Solid Waste User Fees Commercial solid waste fees generate $3.8 million in FY 2001-02 and $3.9 million in FY 2002-03 or 36.7% of the total fund revenues in each fiscal year. Collection of commercial solid waste is provided by the City or a licensed collector. The number of active commercial accounts total 1,950. The number of commercial accounts is expected to remain steady but could decline as competition for commercial refuse services increases. 41 Expenditure Structure Sanitation estimated expenses for FY 2001-02 total $10.5 million and $10.7 million in FY 2002-03. Of the total FY 2001-02 operating expenses, Personal Services, Internal Services and Landfill Usage Charges comprise 83.5%. Capital Outlay accounts for 12.3%, while the remaining 4.2% is for Materials and Supplies, Utilities, and Miscellaneous Fees and Services. In FY 2002-03, Personal Services, Internal Services and Landfill Usage Charges comprise 86.8%. Capital Outlay accounts for 11.0%, while the remaining 2.2% is for Materials and Supplies, Utilities, and Miscellaneous Fees and Services. Major Expenditure Categories Personal Services FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 31.5% 32.7% Landfill Usage Charge 26.2% 25.8% Internal Services 25.8% 28.3% Capital Outlay 12.3% 11.0% 4.2% 2.2% All Other Personal Services As with many labor intensive operations, Personal Services represent a major expense in the Sanitation Fund, accounting for $3.3 million or 31.5% of the $10.5 million FY 2001-02 budget and $3.5 million or 32.7% of the $10.7 million FY 2002-03 budget. Respectively, for each of the fiscal years, salaries account for 77.1% and 76.7% of the total personal services budget, with health insurance accounting for 14.0% and 14.3%, and the remainder for other fringe benefits. n n Landfill Usage Charges Landfill usage charges remain relatively constant in each of the fiscal years at $2.7 million and $2.8 million, representing 26.2% and 25.8% of total expenses, respectively. Landfill tipping fees are projected to follow expected inflation rates, but environmental compliance requirements could impact these expenses beyond normal inflation. n 42 Internal Services Internal Service charges represent 25.8% or $2.7 million of the FY 2001-02 budget and 28.3% or $2.8 million of the total FY 2002-03 budget. Internal Service charges consist of data processing, communications, vehicle maintenance and related Internal Services charges. As might be expected in sanitation operations, a majority (55.5% and 55.9%, respectively) of total internal service costs derive from vehicle operating and maintenance expenses. Capital Outlay/All Other The Sanitation budget reflects appropriations of $1.3 million and $1.2 million in the two fiscal years for replacement of refuse trucks. Other budgeted expenses include recycling sorting fees of $130,267 and $131,588 each year. n Summary The Sanitation Fund budget of $10.5 million for FY 2001-02 and $10.7 million in FY 2002-03 represents a $273,000 increase. This is due to costs associated with personal services. For the biennium, revenues in this fund are expected to slightly increase to $10.5 million and $10.7 million reflecting a 1% increase over FY 2000-01 collections. ♦ Golf Fund Fund Structure Description The Golf Fund is a self-supporting enterprise fund similar to the Water/Wastewater and Sanitation Funds, intended to recover all costs incurred through user charges. All activities necessary to provide such services are accounted for in this fund, including administration, operations, maintenance and debt service. Major Services • Ken McDonald and Rolling Hills • Golf Course Operations • Pro Shops • Restaurants Revenue Structure For both years, revenues from greens fees account for 88.4% and 90.5% of golf course revenues, with the balance derived from a share of pro shops and restaurant revenues. Greens Fees Greens fees amount to $1.9 million in FY 200102 and $2.0 million in FY 2002-03 of the total Golf Fund revenues. Green fees are set by Council and were last adjusted in November 1999 when greens fees for nine holes for nonresidents during the Summer increased by $1. Projections in the two fiscal years are conservative to reflect the volatility that can result from weather conditions or fee changes. n Total rounds in FY 2000-01 for Ken McDonald (9 and 18 holes) and Rolling Hills (9 holes) were 90,207 and 108,036 rounds respectively. Pro Shop and Restaurant Revenues Pro shop revenues for Rolling Hills are paid to the City by the pro shop based on annual receipts. A minimum payment of $42,000 a year is paid in advance or 10% of the gross annual receipts, depending on which is greater for the first 5-year term. The second 5-year term is $46,000 or 11%, and the third 5-year term is $50,000 or 12%. The restaurant concessionaire pays revenue of $1,700 per month plus a 4% increase per year since July of 1987. During the first and second 5-year terms, pro shop revenues at Ken McDonald Golf Course are based on the greater sum of either $10,000 a month, or the combined sum calculated annually of 20% of the gross cart rental revenues and 10% of the remaining gross receipts not including golf cart revenues. Restaurant revenue is paid to the City monthly, $2,000 per month with a 3% increase per year thereafter. Expenditure Structure ■ A review of Golf Fund expenditures reveals that Personal Services and Fees and Services represent the major expenditure areas. Together they account for 61.2% in FY 2001-02 and 59.8% in FY 2002-03 of total Golf Fund expenses. The remaining expenses include Internal Services, Debt Service, Materials and Supplies, and Capital Outlay. Major Expenditure Categories Personal Services FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 45.0% 44.3% Fees and Services 16.2% 15.5% Internal Services 20.5% 15.5% Materials and Supplies 9.0% 8.9% Debt Service Capital Outlay 6.4% 2.9% 5.7% 10.1% Personal Services Personal Services account for $1,049,106 or 45.0% of FY 2001-02 appropriations and $1,162,664 or 44.3% of FY 2002-03. Salaries and wages alone represent 78.2% and 77.9% respectively of total Personal Services, with health insurance and FICA accounting for an additional 18.6% and 18.9% for the two fiscal years. The remainder is for retirement and other benefits. n Fees and Services Budgeted expenses account for 16.2% and 15.5% in each fiscal year and primarily fund irrigation water and electricity. n Internal Services Golf operation internal service costs are primarily vehicle maintenance and fuel. ■ Capital Outlay/All Other The large Capital Outlay increase in FY 200203 is for the purchase of replacement equipment, including a mower and dump truck. n 43 Other major budgeted expenses include Materials and Supplies and Debt Service. Summary Golf Fund appropriations for the two fiscal years remain relatively constant at $2.2 million and $2.5 million, an increase of 1% over FY 2000-01. Revenues are expected to generate $2.2 million in both fiscal years. By financial policy, the City maintains an unrestricted optimum fund balance level of at least 10% of anticipated revenues. The FYE 2000 fund balance reserve was $1,538,156 or 71% of estimated FY 200102 operating revenues. 44 Capital Budget Overview Pursuant to City Charter, a five-year capital improvement plan is developed and updated annually. Due to the City’s Biennial Budget, the City has transitioned to a six-year capital program to ensure the City has two distinct fiveyear capital programs contained within the Biennial Budget. The first and second year’s funding requirements of the plan are included in the Capital Budget. The FY 2001-02 Capital Improvement expenditures total $85,541,430, a 39.6% increase from the $61.3 million CIP budget for 2000-01. Furthermore, FY 2002-03 Capital Improvement expenditures total $130,638,313, a 52.7% increase from 2001-02. This increase in the budget results from the new light-rail component of the Transit program, as well as an expanded water/wastewater capital program. The two year capital program continues the City’s emphasis on quality of life programs, maintenance of capital assets, streets and highways, and coordinated land use planning and development. in 2001-02 and $16.7 million in 2002-03 for General Purpose capital programs; $5.3 million and $6.0 million for Transportation capital programs; $28.4 million and $61.8 million for Special Purpose capital programs; and $20.4 million and $46.1 million for Enterprise capital programs in each respective fiscal year. Transit projects represent the single largest appropriation area in fiscal year 2001-02 accounting for 29% of the total Capital Budget. Other major project areas include $22.9 million for General Governmental projects, $15.0 million for Wastewater, and $4.9 million for Water. In fiscal year 2002-03, Transit projects again represent the largest appropriation area of the total Capital Budget at 46%, following with Wastewater projects at $29.8 million, and Water projects at $13.9 million. The following table shows a comparison of the 2001-02 and 2002-03 Capital Programs with the 2000-01 fiscal year’s program. The Capital Budget is grouped into four major capital programs. These include $31.4 million Comparison of Capital Programs Capital Program General Purpose Police Protection Fire Protection Park Improvements General Governmental Transportation Transportation & R.O.W. Sidewalks & Bikeways Traffic Signals/Street Lighting Special Purpose Transit Rio Salado Enterprise Golf Water Wastewater Total 2000-01 Budget 2001-02 Budget 2002-03 Budget $2,867,070 2,250,489 3,887,000 9,736,389 $2,767,478 1,636,391 4,157,000 22,868,373 $2,309,100 1,700,000 6,335,000 6,387,430 3,420,346 338,625 1,020,000 3,801,968 33,000 1,450,000 4,186,639 410,000 1,450,000 12,307,860 4,923,083 24,785,400 3,643,070 59,703,524 2,082,620 625,000 6,783,000 12,400,000 $61,256,862 550,000 4,879,000 14,969,750 $85,541,430 2,305,000 13,923,000 29,846,000 $130,638,313 45 General Purpose The General Purpose capital projects include those for Police and Fire Protection, General Governmental, and Park Improvements. In aggregate, they represent $31.4 million or 37% of the total Capital Budget and just over 48% of the tax-supported capital projects for fiscal year 2001-02. In fiscal year 2002-03, they represent $16.7 million or 13% of the total Capital Budget and almost 20% of tax-supported capital projects. General Governmental projects account for $22.9 million or 72.8% in FY 200102 and $6.4 million or 38% in FY 2002-03 of the General Purpose Capital Budget with $14.2 million earmarked for the new Arizona Cardinals Stadium over the next two years. Park Improvements account for $4.2 million or 13.2% in FY 2001-02 and $6.3 million or 37.9% in FY 2002-03 of the General Purpose Capital Budget. Of this, $4.7 million is for the North Tempe Multi-Generational Center, and $1,025,000 for Phase II of the Tempe Sports Complex over the next two fiscal years. Another $2.7 million or 8.8% in FY 2001-02 and $2.3 million or 13.8% in FY 2002-03 of the General Purpose Capital Budget is appropriated for Police Protection, with $1.8 million budgeted for a new Criminal Justice Center, and $778,000 for police main building security modifications. The remaining portion of the General Purpose Capital Budget provides continued funding for the Downtown Fire Station and maintenance facility and Fire Station #2 upgrades. Funding for General Purpose capital improvements comes primarily from General Obligation Bonds and Operating Funds. The General Purpose – Sources of Funds ($ Millions) FY 01-02 FY 02-03 Outside Revenue $14.3 $0.5 Operating Funds 9.0 8.2 General Obligation Bonds 7.0 8.0 Capital Projects Fund Balance 1.1 0.0 Total $31.4 $16.7 46 remaining sources of funds will be financed from outside revenues and capital project fund balances. In FY 2001-02, outside revenue is the primary source of funds for General Purpose projects. Transportation The Transportation Capital Budget consists of projects for Street Improvements, Interstate and State Highways, Traffic Signals, and Sidewalks and Bikeways, which account for $5.3 million or 8.1% in FY 2001-02 and $6.0 million or 7.2% in FY 2002-03 of the total Capital Improvements Program Budget. Funding for Transportation capital projects is derived primarily from General Obligation Bonds and Operating Funds. Street Improvements represent $3.8 million or 71.9% in FY 2001-02 and $4.2 million or 69.2% in FY 2002-03 of the total Transportation Capital Budget consisting of monies to reconstruct and/or renovate local and major streets. Traffic Signal and Street Lighting appropriations account for an additional $1.5 million in each year or 27.5% in FY 2001-02 and 24.0% in FY 2002-03 of the Transportation Capital Budget. This includes $400,000 per year for the installation of new signalization and upgrades to existing streetlights. Rounding out the Transportation Capital Budget is $343,000 for expansion and improvements to existing sidewalk/bikeway systems, and $100,000 for sidewalk widening along Mill Avenue and Southern Avenue. Special Purpose Special Purpose capital projects include those for both the Transit and the Rio Salado program, representing $28.4 million or 33% in FY 2001-02 and $61.8 million or 47% in FY 2002-03 of the total Capital Budget. The Transit capital program accounts for $24.8 million or 87.2% in FY 2001-02 and $59.7 million or 96.6% in FY 2002-03 of the Special Purpose Capital Budget. Funding for Transit capital projects comes from the voter-approved transit tax and outside revenues. Funding allows for light-rail construction ($76.9 million), with $47.0 million coming from federal grants and $29.9 million from the City, $2.3 million over the next two fiscal years for various multiuse paths within the City, and $1.9 million for traffic calming along 13th street between Mill and Southern. The Rio Salado capital program accounts for $3.6 million or 12.8% in fiscal year 2001-02 and $2.1 million or 3.4% in fiscal year 2002-03 of the Special Purpose Capital Budget. Funding for Rio Salado capital projects is derived from operating funds. This includes funding to purchase land ($2.0 million), for a new Marina Operations Center ($1.5 million), for the Rio Salado Parkway from McClintock to Price Road ($1.0 million), and $500,000 for improvements to Tempe Beach Park. Enterprise Special Purpose – Sources of Funds ($ Millions) FY 01-02 FY 02-03 Outside Revenue $23.50 $25.60 Excise Tax Bonds 0 29.9 Operating Funds 4 2.1 Transit Tax 1.3 4.2 Capital Projects Fund Balance (0.4) 0 Total $28.40 $61.80 Enterprise capital projects include those for Golf, Water, Storm Drains and Wastewater representing $20.4 million or 24% in fiscal year 2001-02 and $46.1 million or 35% in fiscal year 2002-03 of the total Capital Budget. Funding derives primarily from General Obligation bonds that provide $13.9 million or 68% in fiscal year 2001-02 and $35.9 million or 78% in fiscal year 2002-03 of the total financing of enterprise projects. Other major funding sources come from Golf and Water/Wastewater operating revenues of $3.0 million in FY 2001- 02 and $4.8 million in FY 2002-03, and capital projects fund balance with the remaining portion financed from outside revenues (Development fees and participation from other local cities). The following table shows a comparison of sources of funds for the Enterprise capital program. Federally mandated environmental compliance Millions $50 $40 Outside Revenues $30 Fund Balance Operating Funds $20 GO Bonds $10 $0 1 2000-01 |00 2001-02 2002-03 requirements (e.g., EPA, DEQ, NPDES) provide the major driving influence for the significant capital projects in the Wastewater program. Wastewater and storm drain projects comprise $15.0 million or 73.4% in fiscal year 2001-02 and $29.8 million or 64.8% in fiscal year 2002-03 of the Enterprise Capital Budget with two major projects accounting for $10.0 million in FY 2001-02 and $19.2 million in FY 2002-03 of the Wastewater capital project appropriations. These projects are primarily related to upgrades and compliance requirements at the Regional 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant. Water projects comprise $4.9 million or 23.9% in fiscal year 2001-02 and $13.9 million or 30.2% in fiscal year 2002-03 of the Enterprise Capital Budget. This includes $9.3 million for expansion and rehabilitation at the Johnny G. Martinez Water Treatment Plant, and $3.0 million for new production wells over the next two fiscal years. 47 CIP Project Listing n Police Criminal Justice Center $23,400,000 Design and construct a new Criminal Justice Center building as a replacement and expansion of the existing facilities. Project would include offices for the Police, City Courts, City Prosecutors Office, and Community Services/ Social Services. Records Management System $2,672,830 This project will replace an existing records management system and acquire a 'state-of -the-art' records management system. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds 01-02 Source of Funds Capital Projects FB 900,000 General Fund Laptop Refresh 900,000 02-03 Source of Funds General Fund $2,184,000 TIPS 140,000 $1,800,000 This is an ongoing project supporting mobile computing in the field from patrol cars using mounted CPU's and peripheral devices. The Technologically Integrated Police Systems (TIPS) CIP project will provide the necessary resources to incorporate new technology in the Police Department, as well as upgrade and interface core business systems throughout the Department. 01-02 Source of Funds 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds GO Bonds General Fund 600,000 GO Bonds 128,000 300,000 02-03 Source of Funds GO Bonds 300,000 Police Main Building Security Modifications $778,000 Upgrade of Arizona Automated Identification $241,100 System This project will provide additional funding for the construction This project provides for upgrades to the Arizona Automated of a single point of entry into the Police/Courts complex. Fingerprint Identification System (AZAFIS). AZAFIS provides for the collection, electronic transmission, comparison and retention of criminal fingerprints and latent prints. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds GO Bonds 778,000 General Fund Property Evidence Facility Renovation $200,000 Police Wall Panel 241,100 $175,000 This program provides funding for rental space and minor program needs until funding for a new Property Room becomes available. Funding will provide for replacement of the panels on the west face of the Courts building. The existing panels have rusted through in some areas which allow moisture to enter the building. 01-02 Source of Funds 01-02 Source of Funds GO Bonds 02-03 Source of Funds 200,000 GO Bonds 02-03 Source of Funds 175,000 Identification Unit Expansion $163,478 This existing project is to fund $163,478 to complete the third year (FY 2000-01) of the ID Unit expansion and to restate the need for four Police Identification Technician positions. Funding is necessary to purchase office furnishings and equipment. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds Special Weapons and Tactics Van $160,000 The Special Weapons and Tactics Van is used to deploy the Tactical Team’s equipment and weapons for emergency public safety situations. GO Bonds Capital Projects FB GO Bonds 162,000 1,478 01-02 Source of Funds n 02-03 Source of Funds 160,000 Fire Surveillance Vehicle Equipment $91,000 Radio Replacement for Conversion to 800 mhz $1,700,000 This project will provide the necessary undercover surveillance In the near future the FCC will be mandating that public safety equipment for the Special Investigations Bureau (SIB) agencies relinquish VHF frequencies and convert to 800 mhz. surveillance vehicle. This will affect all the fire departments in the automatic aid consortium. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds RICO Grant 48 91,000 GO Bonds 1,700,000 n Fire Downtown Fire Station $1,250,000 This will be the second of two fire stations to be built to replace Fire Station #1, and will be a four–bay fire station. The land for the fire station has been acquired. The trucks and personnel for the fire station will come from our current Fire Station 6. Maintenance Facility and Fire Station 2 Upgrades $297,591 This project includes a variety of modifications/ upgrades to the maintenance facility and Fire Station 2, including additional bathroom facilities. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds GO Bonds 1,250,000 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds GO Bonds 297,000 Capital Projects FB 591 n Park Improvements/Recreation Fire Station #3- Renovations/Accommodations $88,800 North Tempe Multi-Generational Center $6,300,000 This project will provide for additional bathrooms at Fire Station This request provides funding for the construction of the North #3. Tempe Multi– generational Center. This facility will be similar to the Westside and the Escalante Facility. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds GO Bonds 88,000 Capital Projects 800 FB 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds GO Bonds 1,000,000 GO Bonds 3,680,000 Neighborhood Park Improvements $1,450,000 This ongoing project provides for the renovation and redevelopment of neighborhood parks with playground equipment, picnic equipment, landscaping, concrete replacement/installation, and sand. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds GO Bonds 180,000 GO Bonds 230,000 Residential Tax 20,000 Residential Dev.Tax 20,000 Athletic Field Lighting Improvements $1,250,000 This project is to provide money to upgrade the lighting levels at all City fields so that they are in compliance with I.E.S. recommendations. Tempe Sports Complex Phase II– Soccer Field $1,025,000 Construction This project provides the remaining planned funding for the Phase II construction and lighting of the three remaining soccer fields, concession facilities, a parking lot and a dog run on the north side of the Tempe Sports Complex. Skate Park Development 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds GO Bonds 500,000 Heritage Fund 500,000 Grant 25,000 01-02 Source of Funds GO Bonds 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds GO Bonds 150,000 General Fund 119,521 Capital Projects (19,521) $745,000 This project provides funding for design and construction of an approximate 27,500 s.f. skate park in the northwest section of the Tempe Sports Complex. The Parks and Recreations Advisory Board has identified this project as its top priority. 55,000 02-03 Source of Funds GO Bonds 690,000 Mitchell School Acquisition $520,000 Jaycee Park Improvements $455,000 This project provides for the annual payment for the acquisition This project provides funding to complete improvements to Jaycee of the Mitchell Park site. Park currently under construction in conjunction with the Westside Center Project. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds GO Bonds 130,000 General Fund 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds 130,000 GO Bonds 455,000 Outdoor Swimming Pool Improvements $430,000 Kiwanis Park Ramada Renovation & Improvements $375,000 This project will allow for a new double slide to be built in a new This project will provide for the replacement of certain concrete collocation on the deck at McClintock pool. umns, wood roofing with metal roofing, grills and some stone work in the existing ramadas. This project will also add new ramadas in the north section of the park. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds GO Bonds 40,000 GO Bonds 390,000 GO Bonds 375,000 49 Park Lighting Improvements & Electrical Service $325,000 Replacement This project provides additional funding for replacement of the electrical service at the Kiwanis Cholla Picnic area and the Clark Park Ballfield. Kiwanis Park Playground Renovation 01-02 Source of Funds 01-02 Source of Funds GO Bonds 02-03 Source of Funds This project will renovate the existing large playground in Kiwanis Park north of the softball fields and east of the Fiesta Ramadas. 02-03 Source of Funds 325,000 Double Butte Cemetery Improvements and Expansion $325,000 General Fund 325,000 $300,000 Kiwanis Park Walkway ADA Improvements $255,000 This project would allow for general improvements, preparation of a master plan and expansion to the current Tempe Double Butte Cemetery. This project will improve ADA access for the Kiwanis Park walkway around the lake and access from the parking lots to facilities around the lake. 01-02 Source of Funds 01-02 Source of Funds GO Bonds 02-03 Source of Funds 150,000 GO Bonds Pyle Adult Recreation Center 150,000 GO Bonds $160,000 Sports Facility Relamping This project provides funding for improvements to the front counter area and kitchen at the Pyle Adult Recreation Center. 01-02 Source of Funds GO Bonds Capital Projects FB 02-03 Source of Funds 35,000 General Fund 02-03 Source of Funds 10,000 GO Bonds 2,000 KRC Tennis Center Office Renovation 220,000 $120,000 This project provides for the continued funding of a maintenance program for sports facilities’ lighting needs. This project established a plan for a regular cycle of relamping and cleaning of light fixtures. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds 100,000 GO Bonds Capital Proj. FB 70,000 General Fund (10,000) $95,000 Sports Facility Turf Renovation 60,000 $80,000 This project addresses lighting, heating and cooling, and electrical needs at the Kiwanis Recreation Center. This project provides for the creation of a renovation/ management program for sports facilities’ turf improvement needs. This project will provide for setting aside a certain number of sports fields on a rotational basis each summer. 01-02 Source of Funds 01-02 Source of Funds GO Bonds 02-03 Source of Funds 95,000 GO Bonds 02-03 Source of Funds 40,000 General Fund 40,000 Tempe Adult Health Care Renovations $60,000 KRC Wave Pool Improvements $50,000 This project provides funding for minor renovations and improvements This project would create a movable column of ballasts, to the facility located at 2234 E. Maryland Drive. allowing the lights to be checked and replaced from the pool deck, without the costly draining of the pool or the time consuming construction of a water scaffold. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds GO Bonds n 60,000 GO Bonds n Park Improvements/Public Works 50,000 General Governmental $300,000 AZ Cardinals Stadium $24,416,239 Various Park Landscaping/Improvements This project provides funding to improve the softball fields in Kiwanis This project will provide funding for the City’s portion of the Park. This will be accomplished by improving the irrigation system, new Arizona (AZ) Cardinals Stadium. regarding the fields, and refurbishing the skinned playing surfaces. 01-02 Source of Funds GO Bonds 50 02-03 Source of Funds 50,000 GO Bonds 01-02 Source of Funds 50,000 Outside Rev. 02-03 Source of Funds 13,700,239 Outside Rev. 480,000 AWA 1st Street Redevelopment $4,370,500 The City has entered into a twenty year development agreement with America West Airlines for the development of the America West Corporate Center. This project provides for annual payments to America West. Municipal Arts Program 01-02 Source of Funds 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds W/WW Fund General Fund W/WW Fund General Fund General Fund 02-03 Source of Funds 455,000 General Fund City Facilities Rehabilitation 730,000 $1,800,000 $3,386,970 This project provides for the various Municipal Arts projects as determined by the Municipal Arts Commission and the City Council. 198,488 225,896 Downtown Campus Remodeling 437,690 216,440 $1,672,100 This project provides for the rehabilitation and repair of City owned properties. This rehabilitation includes roofing repairs, lighting replacements, floor covering replacements, and interior wall repairs. This project provides continued funding for remodeling efforts within the downtown campus. 01-02 Source of Funds 01-02 Source of Funds General Fund 02-03 Source of Funds 300,000 General Fund Tax and License System Replacement 300,000 $1,600,000 General Fund 02-03 Source of Funds 1,172,100 General Fund Downtown Public Parking Participation 500,000 $1,500,000 This project provides funding to replace the existing Tax and License system with a new system that will allow integration with Internet, GIS, Interactive Voice Response (IVR), and document imaging. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds This project provides funding to set-up and maintain an ongoing public parking participation fund to be used to pay for the City’s participation in the development, operation and maintenance of public parking in the downtown area. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds General Fund General Fund 800,000 General Fund Neighborhood Improvement Program 800,000 $1,500,000 250,000 General Fund Apache Blvd. Redevelopment Fund 250,000 $1,500,000 This project provides funding for small projects in Tempe neighborhoods. Such projects would include landscaping, wall construction, sidewalk construction/repair, and lighting. Acquisition and clearance of properties along Apache Blvd and for other redevelopment purposes. 01-02 Source of Funds 01-02 Source of Funds General Fund 02-03 Source of Funds 225,000 General Fund 225,000 General Fund 02-03 Source of Funds 1,500,000 Leased Office Space $1,012,000 The purpose of this project is to provide funding for the office lease costs, including annual operating and maintenance (O&M), for the Code Enforcement Office and the Tax and License Office at Centerpoint Plaza. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds Affordable Housing Program Fund $1,000,000 This project provides funding to develop and implement City funded affordable housing programs. Repayment of loans and interest would be returned to the program to set-up a revolving loan pool to continue the program beyond six years. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds General Fund General Fund 160,000 General Fund 6th Street/ City Hall Park 160,000 $800,000 500,000 General Fund East Rio Neighborhood Vacant Land Acquisition 500,000 $750,000 This project completes funding for the Phase I Brickyard development and City Hall park. This project will provide funding to acquire substandard, vacant lots within the East Rio Neighborhood in North Tempe. 01-02 Source of Funds 01-02 Source of Funds General Fund 800,000 02-03 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds General Fund 450,000 51 Document Imaging $450,000 Digital Network Infrastructure Enhancements $450,000 This project provides for the continuation of the planned deployment This project provides funding to upgrade and enhance the of document imaging throughout the City. telecommunications network infrastructure providing increased bandwidth, reliability, and future growth. 01-02 Source of Funds General Fund 02-03 Source of Funds 150,000 General Fund E-Government Portal 01-02 Source of Funds 150,000 General Fund 02-03 Source of Funds 225,000 General Fund $360,000 Carpet Replacement–Library 225,000 $305,000 This project will provide for the infrastructure, security, portal, and general public assistance to provide E-Government and services over the Internet. This project provides funding to replace the carpet at the Tempe Public Library. 01-02 Source of Funds 01-02 Source of Funds General Fund 02-03 Source of Funds 210,000 General Fund State Land Lease 150,000 General Fund 02-03 Source of Funds 305,000 $300,000 Downtown Electrical Upgrades $300,000 This project provides funding to enter into a 75 yr. land lease with the State for land between the railroad and Farmer, from University to the Rio Salado Parkway. Funding includes legal fees for outside attorneys and other land acquisition services. This project provides funding to upgrade downtown electrical pedestals to provide necessary power for security lighting, and power for vendors during major events. 01-02 Source of Funds 01-02 Source of Funds General Fund 02-03 Source of Funds 50,000 General Fund 50,000 General Fund 02-03 Source of Funds 300,000 Improvements to Edna Vihel and Library Program $235,000 Historic Properties Preservation $225,000 Room This project will make improvements and renovations to the Edna This project provides funding to preserve the structural and Vihel Center, Historical Museum, and the Library. aesthetic value of City owned historical properties. 01-02 Source of Funds General Fund 02-03 Source of Funds 50,000 General Fund 185,000 General Fund 02-03 Source of Funds 75,000 General Fund 75,000 Citywide GIS $219,000 The purpose of this project is to provide the geographical data, software, services and training required to develop geographical information systems (GIS), provide customer support and support the decision making process. Indoor Air Quality $200,000 This project will provide funding for indoor air quality improvements. Funding includes detailed studies of work areas and funding for remediation efforts. 01-02 Source of Funds 01-02 Source of Funds General Fund 02-03 Source of Funds 67,000 General Fund Development Documents Rewrite Consultants 97,000 General Fund 02-03 Source of Funds 100,000 General Fund $200,000 Elias–Rodriguez Renovation 100,000 $200,000 This project provides funding to hire consultant(s) to review and rewrite, as necessary, all of the City’s existing development control regulations and develop new regulations, and to facilitate infill development and redevelopment. This project provides funding to complete acquisition of adjacent vacant property, construct additional ramada and other modifications associated with operation of the facility, and provide for ongoing operational costs. 01-02 Source of Funds 01-02 Source of Funds Capital Projects FB General Fund 52 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds 194,646 5,354 General Fund 02-03 Source of Funds 200,000 ADA–Building Remediation $192,550 This project will provide for ADA Compliance audits and retrofit by identifying areas in need of corrective action, and developing a timetable for correction. ADA Compliant Restrooms in Library 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds 01-02 Source of Funds General Fund General Fund 99,650 92,900 Workplace Security Modifications $165,000 This project will provide for the remodeling of six public restrooms in the library to bring them into compliance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). General Fund 02-03 Source of Funds 165,000 $150,000 Replacement of Automated Library System $138,400 This project provides funding for workplace security modifications such as access control, closed circuit TV, policies and signage, and panic alarms. This project will provide additional funding for data scrubbing of bibliographic records prior to conversion, and additional peripheral equipment. The peripheral equipment is replacing obsolete equipment used with the current software. 01-02 Source of Funds 01-02 Source of Funds General Fund 02-03 Source of Funds 75,000 General Fund 75,000 02-03 Source of Funds General Fund Community Services Reservation/ Registration $125,000 System Replacement This project will provide funding for a new software application program that will significantly enhance citizen access to Community Services programs and services by replacing the current registration/ reservation system for Community Services. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds Hayden Butte Equipment Relocation General Fund General Fund 125,000 $105,000 This project provides funding to relocate communication equipment on Hayden Butte in order to comply with an existing Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Salt River Project. 01-02 Source of Funds n Police/ Fire Radio Building 138,400 02-03 Source of Funds 105,000 Transp. & R.O.W. $80,000 Local and Major Street Reconstruction $10,595,503 This project will provide for the reconstruction or resurfacing of local and major streets throughout the City in accordance with the City’s Pavement Program. This project provides funding to build a structure, approximately 1000 s.f., at the base of the monopole located at the Police Substation in south Tempe. This structure will be used to relocate existing radio transmission equipment from within the Substation. 01-02 Source of Funds General Fund 02-03 Source of Funds 01-02 Source of Funds 80,000 GO Bonds Capital Proj. FB 02-03 Source of Funds 1,005,000 GO Bonds 2,451 Capital Projects FB 1,810,000 9,051 Local Street Renovation $6,606,110 Major Street Renovation $5,733,441 This project will provide for sealing local streets throughout the This project will provide for the sealing of arterial and collector City in accordance with the City’s Pavement Program. streets throughout the City in accordance with the City’s Pavement Program. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds GO Bonds 1,255,000 GO Bonds Capital Projects FB 63 General Fund Neighborhood Transportation Management 01-02 Source of Funds 990,000 GO Bonds 3,860 Capital Proj. FB $2,100,000 Minor Concrete Improvements This project will provide resources to strengthen the City’s ability to address neighborhood traffic concerns. Tempe will work with neighborhoods to plan and identify the most effective neighborhood-specific traffic calming measures. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds GO Bonds 400,000 HURF Fund Balance 02-03 Source of Funds 420,000 GO Bonds 4,718 Capital Projects FB 130,000 9,104 $1,400,000 This project will provide for the replacement of broken curbs, gutters, and sidewalks throughout the City and for the construction of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks close to small gaps at various locations. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds 400,000 GO Bonds 200,000 HURF Fund Balance 200,000 53 City Facilities Parking Lots $658,166 This project will provide for the sealing, resurfacing, and reconstruction of City parking lots in accordance with the City’s Pavement Program. Bridge Maintenance 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds 01-02 Source of Funds GO Bonds 30,000 Capital Projects FB 4,736 GO Bonds General Fund Various Street Landscaping $600,000 This project provides funds for maintenance and rehabilitation of bridges located throughout Tempe as identified in the City’s Strategic Action Plan–Pavement Management Program. 80,000 4,624 02-03 Source of Funds GO Bonds 150,000 $500,000 Pedestrian Crossing Refuges/ Medians $500,000 This project will provide funding to continue improvement of various street rights-of–way and public properties by installation of upgraded landscaping. The purpose of this project is to design and construct pedestrian medians on two heavily traveled arterial streets to facilitate a safer crossing environment for pedestrians walking across Warner Road and Rural Road. 01-02 Source of Funds 01-02 Source of Funds GO Bonds 02-03 Source of Funds 100,000 GO Bonds n Downtown Streetscape Rehabilitation 02-03 Source of Funds 100,000 Federal Grant 400,000 Sidewalks & Bikeways $280,000 Sidewalk Widening, Extension & Ramp $500,000 This project provides for the repair and rehabilitation of the streetscape along Mill Avenue and University Drive. This project will provide for sidewalk widening and sidewalk ramp modifications to meet ADA standards. 01-02 Source of Funds 01-02 Source of Funds GO Bonds 02-03 Source of Funds 280,000 02-03 Source of Funds GO Bonds n 100,000 Traffic Signals/Street Lighting Sidewalk Widening (Mill Ave. & Southern Ave.) $343,000 New Signals/ Modular Upgrades $2,400,000 This project will improve ADA access on Mill Ave. from BroadThis project provides for the installation of new traffic signals as way to Southern and Southern Avenue from Mill Avenue to Rural warranted or for the conversion of existing signals to modular stanRoad. dards. 01-02 Source of Funds GO Bonds Capital Projects FB 02-03 Source of Funds 30,000 Federal Grant 3,000 01-02 Source of Funds 310,000 GO Bonds 02-03 Source of Funds 400,000 GO Bonds 400,000 Streetlight Upgrades/ New Installations $2,400,000 Utility Undergrounding $2,100,000 This project provides for the installation of new street lights at This project will provide for the undergrounding of overhead utility various locations as well as the upgrading of street lights from lines. mercury vapor luminaries to high pressure luminaries. 01-02 Source of Funds GO Bonds 02-03 Source of Funds 400,000 HURF Fund Bal. 01-02 Source of Funds 400,000 GO Bonds n Streetlight Pole Structural Testing/Replacement $600,000 Program This project will fund a study to determine which street light poles need to be replaced immediately, and provide the funds for immediate replacement to meet our current street light pole foundation standard. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds HURF Fund Bal. 54 300,000 GO Bonds 300,000 350,000 02-03 Source of Funds HURF Fund Balance 350,000 Transit $146,050,000 Rail Financing – City Share This project provides funding for design, engineering and construction of a light rail transit corridor that would link downtown Phoenix and downtown Mesa to Tempe. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds Excise Tax Bonds 29,911,000 Rail Financing–Federal Share $143,540,000 This project provides funding for design, engineering and construction of a light rail transit corridor that would link downtown Phoenix and downtown Mesa to Tempe. Bus Pull–Outs 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds FTA Grant 23,265,000 FTA Grant 23,747,000 01-02 Source of Funds Municipal Arts Program–Transit $3,184,634 This project provides for various Transit related Municipal Arts projects as determined by the Transit and Cultural Services Divisions, Municipal Arts and Transportation Commissions, and the City Council. Western Canal Multi-Use Path, Phase 1 $3,000,000 This project involves design and construction of a 2.5 mile segment of concrete off– street pathway that will include lighting, landscaping and art elements along the Western Canal from Price Road to the Ken McDonald Golf Course. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds Transit Tax 245,400 Transit Tax 01-02 Source of Funds $3,245,000 This project funds the construction of at least 30 and no more than 60 pull– outs over a five year period. A bus pull-out program is being developed including a prioritization study to focus on arterial/ arterial and arterial/ collector intersections. 591,124 02-03 Source of Funds Transit Tax 02-03 Source of Funds Transit Tax 645,000 300,000 13th Street Traffic Calming Between Mill Avenue $1,884,400 and Priest Drive This project will provide traffic calming to include narrowing of the street, widening of the sidewalk from 4 to 6 feet, provision of AASHTO standard bike lanes, landscaping and pedestrian bulbouts at intersections. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds Transit Tax 187,800 Transit Tax 991,600 TEA 21 Grant 112,200 TEA 21 Grant 592,800 Country Club Way Pedestrian Bridge $1,675,000 Tempe Canal Multi-Use Path, Phase 1 $1,200,000 This project involves design and construction of a one mile segment of concrete off-street pathway that will include lighting, landscaping, and art elements along the Tempe Canal from University Drive to the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). Creamery Railroad Multi-Path $1,200,000 This project involves design and construction of a one mile segment of concrete off– street pathway that will include lighting, landscaping and art elements. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds Transit Tax 100,000 Dev. Contributions Transit Tax TEA 21 Grant 01-02 Source of Funds This project involves the design and construction of bridge approach ramps, approach paths, and art elements of a bicycle/ pedestrian bridge at Country Club Way and US 60. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds Transit Tax 100,000 Transit Tax 500,000 300,000 300,000 02-03 Source of Funds Transit Tax 900,000 100,000 Crosscut Canal Multi-Use Path, Phase 1 $725,000 Local Participation in Regional Transit $600,000 Maintenance Facility This project involves design and construction of a one mile segment This project provides the local match for design and construction of concrete off-street pathway that will include lighting, landscaping of a regional transit maintenance center in the east valley to serve and art elements. transit contractors working for the Regional Public Transportation Authority, and other local cities. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds Transit Tax 585,000 Transit Tax 300,000 BOR Federal Grant 140,000 Kyrene Canal Crossing @ Elliot Road $500,000 This project involves the design and construction of a pedestrian/ bicycle street crossing where the Kyrene Canal intersects with Elliot Road. Neighborhood Pedestrian Design $225,000 This project provides seed money for redesign of various residential collector streets within the City, to match potential federal grants. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds Transit Tax 50,000 TEA 21 Grant Transit Tax 01-02 Source of Funds 427,500 22,500 02-03 Source of Funds Transit Tax 75,000 55 n Rio Salado Land Purchase $2,000,000 This project will provide the funding necessary to purchase the property and building located at the northeast corner of Rio Salado Parkway and Ash Avenue. Tempe Beach Park is to the east and north of this property. Marina Operations Center 01-02 Source of Funds General Fund 1,375,327 Capital Projects FB (375,327) 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds General Fund 750,000 General Fund 02-03 Source of Funds General Fund 1,023,680 Capital Projects FB (23,680) 750,000 Rio Salado Parkway–McClintock to Price Road $1,027,000 This project provides for the construction of the Rio Salado Parkway from McClintock Drive to Price Road. The project includes roadway, lighting, water, sewer, storm drain, landscaping improvements, and right-of–way acquisition. Ash Avenue Bridge Abutment $727,000 This project will rehabilitate the Ash Avenue Bridge abutment and construct a visitor center, add a Veteran’s Plaza which would include a Veteran’s Memorial, and restore the stadium bleachers along old Ash Avenue. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds General Fund 1,027,000 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds General Fund 300,000 General Fund Tempe Beach Park Improvements $500,000 This project provides additional funding to complete the Children’s Interactive Water Playground in Tempe Beach Park. Design is already underway in the existing CIP Project. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds General Fund 500,000 Rio Salado Ancillary Projects 282,000 $320,000 Rio Salado Ancillary Projects will fund the various design, safety requirements, emergency signage and fencing projects, and any other unforeseen project that becomes necessary in the Rio Salado area. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds General Fund 20,000 General Fund 20,000 Municipal Arts Program– Rio Salado $65,301 This project provides for various Rio Salado related Municipal Arts projects as determined by the Rio Salado Division, Municipal Arts Commission, and the City Council. Signage $50,000 This project provides funding for signage all around the Rio Salado Project/Town Lake. Signs include safety signs, park entry, location signs, boat tie-up/marinas, banners & brackets, trail markers, direction signs, and interpretive signs. 01-02 Source of Funds General Fund 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds General Fund 10,000 General Fund n 56 $1,500,000 This project provides for boat ramps, parking for vehicles with and without trailers, an instructional area, and restrooms. The marina will enhance the use of Tempe Town Lake by those with sailboats and other trailered water craft. 02-03 Source of Funds 36,070 General Fund 20,620 10,000 Golf $2,555,000 Ken McDonald Golf Course Clubhouse Rehabilitation This project provides funding to stabilize settling soils, fill in air gaps between the floor slab and the soils, and re-level the floor in the Pro Shop, women’s bathroom, and kitchen areas. Golf Course Improvements $300,000 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds Golf Fund 300,000 Excise Tax 2,000,000 Golf Fund 255,000 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds Golf Fund 50,000 Golf Fund Rolling Hills Driving Range Lighting $100,000 This project is to provide electrical service, poles and fixtures to light the Rolling Hills Golf Course Driving Range. Fairway, Bunker & Tee Improvements $100,000 This project will provide funding for deep aeration, tree trimming and other fairway, bunker and tee improvements as determined for the City’s golf courses. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds Golf Fund 100,000 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds Golf Fund 100,000 This ongoing project provides funds for small annual renovation and improvement projects at both golf courses. 50,000 n Water JGMWTP: 30 MGD Plant Expansion $42,100,000 This project will provide the needed capacity and, coupled with new wells, allow us to market potable water to the City of Chandler. JGMWTP: Waterline Improvements $5,630,000 This project provides for replacing existing 42”diameter and 30” diameter pipes that have nearly reached their useful lives with 4500 l.f. of 54” diameter and 8600 l.f. of 36” diameter pipe to accommodate the increased future flows from the plant. 01-02 Source of Funds 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds W/WW Fund 370,000 W/WW Fund Chandler Participation 02-03 Source of Funds Chandler Participation 3,127,500 GO Bonds 3,100,000 W/WW Fund 27,500 New Production Wells $3,460,000 This project provides for five (5) new wells to be brought into production over a 3-year period. These wells would provide an additional 19.3 MGD of production capacity, and coupled with existing wells, meet the needs of an emergency situation. Automated Meter Reading $3,000,000 This project provides continued funding to equip water meters in the City to enable remote reading by mobile radio. This project will increase efficiency and accuracy and reduce the time required to read water meters. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds 1,325,000 GO Bonds GO Bonds 1,600,000 GO Bonds 450,000 GO Bonds W/WW Fund 60,000 W/WW Fund 50,000 JGMWTP: Re-hab Existing Filters $3,000,000 Chandler Delivery Connection (15 MGD) This project provides funding for the design and construction of improvements to the existing JGMWTP filters. 01-02 Source of Funds 01-02 Source of Funds 500,000 $2,320,000 This project provides the new waterlines necessary to provide the water for Chandler and includes 5300 linear feet of 24” diameter waterline and 7200 linear feet of 30” waterline. 02-03 Source of Funds 01-02 Source of Funds GO Bonds 3,000,000 General Fund 844,900 Capital Proj. FB (844,900) Waterline Upgrades & Extensions $2,000,000 The Integrated Master Plan (IMP) identified most of the specific waterlines that need to be replaced to meet increasing demands. This project provides a recurring funding source to replace water lines that break during normal operation. 435,600 69,400 02-03 Source of Funds Chandler Participation 504,000 Distribution System Fittings $1,500,000 This project provides for the acquisition, assembly, and installation of water works infrastructure including meters, valves, hydrants and water lines. 02-03 Source of Funds 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds GO Bonds 400,000 W/WW Fund 250,000 GO Bonds 250,000 CAP Capital Charge $1,194,000 An agreement with the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) imposes a semi-annual capital charge payable annually through 2034. These charges repay the federal government’s advance of construction funding. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds Capital Projects FB 199,000 W/WW Fund 180,000 GO Bonds 19,000 Compound Meter Replacement $1,050,000 This project provides for a systematic replacement program over a three year period. Less frequent maintenance and improved accuracy are the expected results of this program. JGMWTP: Capital Equipment Replacement $900,000 This project provides funding for pumps, valves, and other operating equipment that need replacement due to fatigue, wear, and structural failure. STWTP: Capital Equipment Replacement $900,000 This project provides a funding mechanism to facilitate replacement of equipment at the South Tempe Water Treatment Plant (STWTP) that fails and has not been specifically budgeted. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds W/WW Fund 350,000 GO Bonds 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds Capital Projects FB 150,000 GO Bonds 150,000 Capital Proj. FB 150,000 GO Bonds 350,000 150,000 57 Elevated Storage Tank Rehabilitation $500,000 This project provides initial funding to rehabilitate the four elevated tanks and recurring funding for annual maintenance to keep all six tanks in proper operating condition. Kyrene Booster Zone 01-02 Source of Funds W/WW Fund 500,000 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds W/WW Fund 255,000 GO Bonds 02-03 Source of Funds $440,000 This project will expand the booster zone and move the pumping function to the potable water storage and pump station located at the Kyrene WRF. This project also includes new valves and piping, and adding a new pump. 185,000 JGMWTP: Replace Pre-sed Flights $300,000 Alameda Waterline Replacement $250,000 This project provides for replacement of key components of the This project provides for an up-sizing of the existing waterline on pre-sed sludge removal system including drive and idler sprockets, Alameda between 48th Street and the I-10 freeway. and some chain flights. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds Capital Projects FB 150,000 W/WW Fund 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds 150,000 Capital Projects 250,000 FB Perry Lane & Pima $95,000 91st Avenue: CIP Excluding New Expansion n This project provides for the construction of waterlines on Perry Lane and Pima Street north of the Rio Salado Parkway in connection with new streets constructed to serve the county island after annexation. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds Capital Projects FB 95,000 Wastewater $36,112,000 Funding is provided for a series of projects designed to enhance the efficiency of the 91st Ave. Wastewater Treatment Plant and ensure compliance with new EPA regulations. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds GO Bonds 7,600,000 GO Bonds 8,500,000 Capital Proj. FB 4,000 W/WW Fund 8,000 91st Avenue: Plant Expansion IVA – 4.5 MGD $27,700,000 Kyrene WRF: Plant Expansion & Re-hab $25,000,000 This project provides funding for a 4.5 MGD plant expansion at the This project provides funding to build a new 5 MGD process train at 91st Ave. Wastewater Treatment Plant. The additional capacity is the Kyrene Water Reclamation Facility (WRF). required to treat Tempe’s future wastewater flows. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds GO Bonds 1,150,000 GO Bonds 5,700,000 GO Bonds 1,600,000 GO Bonds 4,800,000 Dev. Assist. 750,000 Development Fees 500,000 W/WW Fund 105,000 Development Fees 500,000 SROG System: New Transmission to 91st Avenue $22,400,000 SAI Rehabilitation $15,179,000 This project provides transmission capacity to the 91st Avenue This project combines all phases of the multi-year rehabilitation of WWTP equal to the City’s owned treatment capacity. the Southern Avenue Interceptor (SAI) into a single project. The project will be jointly funded by Tempe and Mesa. 01-02 Source of Funds 58 02-03 Source of Funds 01-02 Source of Funds GO Bonds 3,900,000 City of Mesa 429,375 W/WW Funds 580,000 W/WW Fund 425,000 Capital Proj. FB 4,375 02-03 Source of Funds City of Mesa 2,013,000 GO Bonds 2,000,000 W/WW Fund 13,000 SAI Diversion Structure $1,500,000 This project provides for the refinement of an existing design and construction of a diversion structure. This request will be jointly funded by both Tempe and Mesa. Storm Drain Improvements $1,400,000 This project will provide for the construction of minor storm drain extensions to relieve localized problems for replacement and/or upgrades associated with various storm water retention facilities. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds GO Bonds 750,000 City of Mesa 750,000 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds GO Bonds 200,000 GO Bonds 200,000 Sewerline Upgrades & Extensions $1,250,000 Kyrene WRF: Plant Reliability Upgrades $1,000,000 The Integrated Master Plan (IMP) identified most of the specific This project provides funding to renovate and refit the two diversion sewer lines that need to be replaced to meet increasing wastewater structures that send flow to the plant with early–warning analyzers. flows. This project provides a recurring funding source to replace sewer lines that break during normal operation. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds GO Bonds 01-02 Source of Funds 250,000 GO Bonds W/WW Fund 02-03 Source of Funds 320,000 GO Bonds 100,000 580,000 Sewer Upgrade Farmer 12”- 1st Street to 7th $356,000 Sewer Upgrade 1st Street 15” $338,000 Street This project provides funding to upgrade a 12” diameter line on This project provides funding to upgrade a 15” diameter pipe on 1st Farmer Ave. from 1st Street south to 7th Street. Street between Farmer and Mill. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds GO Bonds W/WW Fund NPDES–Stormwater Management 01-02 Source of Funds 350,000 GO Bonds 6,000 Perry Lane & Pima Street 147,000 GO Bonds $275,000 Carver/Rural Lift Station Pump Replacement This project will provide for the development of an inspection monitoring program, an audit program, a public education program, and a records management program as components of the City’s Storm Water Management Program. 01-02 Source of Funds 02-03 Source of Funds W/WW Fund 02-03 Source of Funds 191,000 $200,000 This project provides funding to replace worn and aging pumps with new self-priming pumps over a two year period. 01-02 Source of Funds 50,000 GO Bonds 02-03 Source of Funds 100,000 W/WW Fund 100,000 $140,000 This project provides for the construction of sewer mains in Perry Lane and Pima Street north of the Rio Salado Parkway in connection with the new streets constructed to serve the county island after annexation. 01-02 Source of Funds W/WW Fund 02-03 Source of Funds 140,000 59 Capital Improvements Program Summary Program General Purpose Program Police Fire Park Improvements Recreation Public Works General Governmental Community Services Development Services Financial Services Information Technology Neighborhood Program Municipal Arts Program Public Works Total General Purpose Transportation Program Transportation and R.O.W. Sidewalks and Bikeways Traffic Signals/Street Lights Total Transportation Total General/Transportation Special Purpose Program Transit Rio Salado Total Special Purpose Subtotal Tax-Supported Enterprise Program Golf Water Wastewater Subtotal Enterprise Total Program 60 2001-02 Funded Program 2002-03 Funded Program 2003-04 $2,767,478 1,636,391 $2,309,100 1,700,000 $3,426,000 $10,034,830 $10,164,000 $7,664,000 $36,365,408 500,000 1,700,000 504,334 0 6,040,725 4,107,000 50,000 6,285,000 50,000 2,298,000 50,000 630,000 50,000 340,000 17,655,239 960,000 837,000 225,000 424,384 2,426,750 31,429,242 323,400 2,460,000 960,000 622,000 225,000 654,130 1,142,900 16,731,530 0 8,738,000 167,000 705,000 250,000 708,824 375,000 17,217,824 0 4,318,000 175,000 510,682 250,000 670,853 300,000 18,639,365 0 0 663,400 2,062,750 1,162,750 36,396,739 175,000 175,000 2,612,000 0 0 2,674,682 275,000 275,000 1,500,000 514,253 414,526 3,386,970 300,000 300,000 4,844,650 14,545,337 10,541,276 109,104,574 3,801,968 33,000 1,450,000 5,284,968 36,714,210 4,186,639 410,000 1,450,000 6,046,639 22,778,169 5,070,176 100,000 1,150,000 6,320,176 23,538,000 6,351,498 100,000 1,150,000 7,601,498 26,240,863 5,806,061 5,577,878 30,794,220 100,000 100,000 843,000 1,150,000 1,150,000 7,500,000 7,056,061 6,827,878 39,137,220 21,601,398 17,369,154 148,241,794 24,785,400 3,643,070 28,428,470 65,142,680 59,703,524 2,082,620 61,786,144 84,564,313 76,134,810 637,364 76,772,174 100,310,174 73,501,740 90,900 73,592,640 99,833,503 51,171,650 36,350,910 321,648,034 90,900 50,500 6,595,354 51,262,550 36,401,410 328,243,388 72,863,948 53,770,564 476,485,182 550,000 4,879,000 14,969,750 20,398,750 $85,541,430 Additional Needs 2,305,000 200,000 13,923,000 19,159,000 29,846,000 35,952,250 46,074,000 55,311,250 $130,638,313 $155,621,424 2004-05 2005-06 500,000 50,000 2006-07 500,000 50,000 Total 6-Year Program 14,320,000 300,000 1,925,000 525,000 525,000 6,030,000 23,080,000 8,029,000 3,169,000 72,239,000 20,713,250 23,209,124 21,329,001 146,019,375 45,718,250 31,763,124 25,023,001 224,288,375 $145,551,753 $104,627,072 $78,793,565 $700,773,557 Capital Improvements Program Fund Balances Program General Purpose Police Protection Fire Protection Park Improvements General Governmental Subtotal General Purpose Estimated Fund Bal. 06-30-01 Transfers from Other Funds Outside Revenue Bond Proceeds Appropriation Estimated Fund Bal. 06-30-02 $1,089,779 4,557 (129,437) 39,219 1,004,118 $0 0 0 8,775,000 8,775,000 $91,000 0 520,000 13,898,727 14,509,727 $1,775,000 1,635,000 3,620,000 0 7,030,000 $2,767,478 1,636,391 4,157,000 22,868,373 31,429,242 $188,301 3,166 (146,437) (155,427) (110,397) Transportation Transp. & R.O.W. Improvements Sidewalks and Bikeways Traffic Signals/Street Lighting Subtotal Transportation 526,849 6,493 7,635 540,977 0 0 300,000 300,000 0 0 0 0 3,790,000 30,000 1,150,000 4,970,000 3,801,968 33,000 1,450,000 5,284,968 514,881 3,493 7,635 526,009 Special Purpose Transit Rio Salado Subtotal Special Purpose 443,129 393,020 836,149 1,268,200 4,018,397 5,286,597 23,517,200 0 23,517,200 0 0 0 24,785,400 3,643,070 28,428,470 443,129 768,347 1,211,476 0 3,325,502 3,325,502 550,000 2,500,000 3,050,000 0 2,429,375 2,429,375 0 13,900,000 13,900,000 550,000 19,848,750 20,398,750 0 2,306,127 2,306,127 $5,706,746 $17,411,597 $40,456,302 $25,900,000 $85,541,430 $3,933,215 Outside Revenue Bond Proceeds Enterprise Golf Water/Wastewater/Storm Drains Subtotal Enterprise Total Program Program General Purpose Police Protection Fire Protection Park Improvements General Governmental Subtotal General Purpose Transportation Transp. & R.O.W. Improvements Sidewalks and Bikeways Traffic Signals/Street Lighting Subtotal Transportation Special Purpose Transit Rio Salado Subtotal Special Purpose Enterprise Golf Water/Wastewater/Storm Drains Subtotal Enterprise Total Program Estimated Fund Bal. 06-30-02 Transfers from Other Funds $188,301 3,166 (146,437) (155,427) (110,397) $1,409,100 0 894,521 5,469,740 7,773,361 $0 0 20,000 917,690 937,690 $900,000 1,700,000 5,440,000 0 8,040,000 $2,309,100 1,700,000 6,335,000 6,387,430 16,731,530 $188,301 3,166 (126,916) (155,427) (90,876) 514,881 3,493 7,635 526,009 626,639 0 750,000 1,376,639 400,000 310,000 0 710,000 3,160,000 100,000 700,000 3,960,000 4,186,639 410,000 1,450,000 6,046,639 514,881 3,493 7,635 526,009 443,129 768,347 1,211,476 4,225,224 2,106,300 6,331,524 25,567,300 0 25,567,300 29,911,000 0 29,911,000 59,703,524 2,082,620 61,786,144 443,129 792,027 1,235,156 0 2,306,127 2,306,127 $3,933,215 305,000 2,500,000 2,805,000 $18,286,524 0 6,213,900 6,213,900 $33,428,890 2,000,000 35,900,000 37,900,000 $79,811,000 2,305,000 43,769,000 46,074,000 $130,638,313 0 3,151,027 3,151,027 $4,821,316 Appropriation Estimated Fund Bal. 06-30-03 61 Relationship Between Operating and Capital Budgets The City of Tempe prepares a separate Capital Budget from the Operating Budget, but the two budgets are closely linked. The Capital Improvements Program (CIP), as distinguished from the Operating Budget, is a multi-year financial plan for the acquisition, expansion, or rehabilitation of infrastructure, capital assets, or productive capacity of City services. Capital projects typically apply to: (1) expenditures that take place over two or more years, requiring continuing appropriations beyond a single fiscal year; (2) funding with debt because of significant costs to be shared by current and future beneficiaries; (3) systematic acquisition over an extended period of time; and (4) scheduled replacement or maintenance of specific elements of physical assets. Revenues for the Capital Budget derive primarily from General Obligation bond sales, long and short-term loans, lottery proceeds, development fees, and some current revenues. The Capital Budget, unlike the Operating Budget, is a six-year plan that is updated every two years. Only those projects scheduled during the first two years of the plan are financed and adopted as part of the City’s Biennial Budget. The property tax rate will remain at $1.35 per $100 assessed valuation. No property tax increase is necessary to fund debt service requirements of the FY 2001-03 Capital Budget. Total Impact of Capital Budget on Operating Budget 2001-02 2002-03 Existing Debt $27,736,408 $21,780,112 New Debt Water/Wastewater 1,436,866 4,566,791 Transportation 523,107 1,046,215 General Purpose 628,107 1,151,215 O&M by Project 1,375,506 612,185 Pay-As-You-Go 17,610,085 18,724,214 Total $49,310,079 $47,880,732 62 The preceding table provides a summary of the City’s entire financial program and the Capital Budget’s relation to it. The estimated impact of the Capital Budget on the Operating Budget is $49.3 million in FY 2001-02 and $47.9 million in FY 2002-03. This includes debt service costs incurred from long-term financing of capital projects approved this year and in prior years, operating and maintenance costs directly related to new capital projects, and “pay-asyou-go” financing of capital projects. As part of the FY 2001-03 Capital Improvements Program, departments were asked to identify those capital projects that have an impact on the operating budget. Operating impacts include those costs associated with the addition of full and part-time positions (i.e., personal services), supplies and services, and capital items. During CIP budget submissions, the following budgeted projects were identified as having an impact on the operating budget. The tables on the following pages summarize the projected impact of the capital improvement plan on the City’s operating budget for FY 2001-02 and FY 2002-03. Total operating impacts from the General Purpose Program are estimated at $1,375,506 in 2001-02 and $612,185 in 2002-03, with the majority ($306,718) and ($203,900) associated with the West Side Multi-Generational Center and the Elevated Storage Tank Rehabilitation projects. The West Side Multi-Generational Center provides continued funding in FY 2001-02 for personnel, and various supplies and services including electricity, contracted services, equipment and machinery repair, minor equipment and miscellaneous fees and services. Full-time additions to personnel include one Supervisor, two Custodians, one Facility Maintenance Worker, two Program Specialists, and one Community Education Specialist. Also funded under Parks/Recreation are various capital items for the Sports Facility Turf Renovation capital project. Funding has also been approved to hire a Facility Technician I/II and a Custodian in conjunction with the Orchid House Improvements capital project. This includes funding for custodial supplies, minor equipment, uniforms, and building materials. As part of the Apache Blvd. Redevelopment and Affordable Housing Program capital projects, a Redevelopment Specialist and a Principal Planner position have been approved for both years of the biennium. Within the Police capital program, funding will provide for various supplies, services, and capital items, as well as, the addition of two Jailers and two Civilian Identification Technicians as part of the Jail Improvements and Identification Unit Expansion capital projects. The Laptop Refresh capital project will provide funding for a laptop replacement program to support mobile computing in the field from patrol cars. FY 2001-02 Operating Budget Impacts Program Police Fire Parks/Recreation General Governmental Jail Improvements Laptop Refresh Identification Unit Expansion Technologically Integrated Police System (TIPS) Property and Evidence Facility Renovation Special Weapons and Tactics Van Surveillance Vehicle Equipment Police Main Bldg. Security Modifications Downtown Fire Station Maintenance Facility and Fire Station 2 Upgrades West Side Multi-Generational Center Sports Facility Turf Renovation KRC Tennis Center Office Renovation Orchid House Improvements Apache Blvd. Redevelopment Fund Affordable Housing Program Fund Elias-Rodriguez Renovation Community Services Reservation/Registration E-Government Portal Document Imaging Citywide GIS Total General Purpose Traffic Signals/Streets Streetlight Upgrades/New Installations Total Transportation Rio Salado Tempe Beach Park Improvements Marina Operations Center–Phase I Total Special Purpose Water Elevated Storage Tank Rehabilitation JGMWTP: 30 MGD Plant Expansion Kyrene Booster Zone Total Enterprise Total Program Salaries $80,675 49,644 45,299 Supplies & Services $4,100 3,570 4,100 25,000 Capital Outlay $7,000 3,500 11,500 5,000 3,000 3,000 23,114 6,117 195,218 68,153 70,788 41,826 25,000 23,843 $600,446 66,158 $66,158 $666,604 84,500 9,000 22,350 3,870 3,870 21,000 16,272 30,000 28,050 6,000 $313,413 23,640 $23,640 18,580 346 $18,926 203,900 1,878 21,500 $227,278 $583,257 2001-02 Impacts $91,775 53,214 52,899 25,000 11,500 5,000 3,000 3,000 23,114 6,117 27,000 45,000 25,600 3,780 3,780 3,500 $119,160 6,485 $6,485 $125,645 306,718 45,000 9,000 116,103 78,438 49,476 46,000 43,615 30,000 28,050 6,000 $1,033,019 23,640 $23,640 18,580 346 $18,926 203,900 74,521 21,500 $299,921 $1,375,506 63 Total operating impacts from the Transportation Program are estimated at $23,640 in FY 2001-02 and $946 in FY 200203 to fund contracted services and electricity costs associated with the Streetlight Upgrades and New Installations capital project. The estimated impacts of the capital budget on the operating budget for the Special Purpose Program are quite minimal ($18,926 in FY 2001-02 and $37,953 in FY 2002-03) when compared to the operating budget impacts from the prior Biennial Budget. Of these totals, $18,580 can be attributed to the Tempe Beach Park Improvements project within the Rio Salado capital program. Funding is provided for various supplies and services such as electricity, water, refuse and sewer, and other equipment. During FY 2001-03, there are no impacts associated with the Transit capital program. FY 2002-03 Operating Budget Impacts Program Police Parks/Recreation Identification Unit Expansion Tempe Sports Complex Phase II–Soccer Fields Sports Facility Turf Renovation Skate Park Development Park Lighting Improvements & Electrical Srvs. General Governmental Tax and License System Replacement Replacement of Automated Library System Citywide GIS Apache Blvd. Redevelopment Fund E-Government Portal Total General Purpose Traffic Signals/Streets Streetlight Upgrades/New Installations Total Transportation Rio Salado Tempe Beach Park Improvements Marina Operations Center–Phase I Total Special Purpose Golf Ken McDonald Golf Course Clubhouse Rehab Fairway, Bunker & Tee Improvements Rolling Hills Driving Range Lighting Water New Production Wells JGMWTP: 30 MGD Plant Expansion Total Enterprise Total Program Lastly, total operating impacts for the Enterprise Program are estimated at $299,921 in FY 200102 and $132,064 in FY 2002-03. The Elevated Storage Tank Rehabilitation capital project accounts for $203,900 of the FY 2001-02 total. This includes funding for contracted services to repair and re-coat four elevated storage tanks, and recurring funding for annual maintenance to keep all six storage tanks in proper operating condition. In addition, one full-time Senior Civil Engineer has been authorized as part of the Johnny G. Martinez Water Treatment Plant (JGMWTP): 30 MGD Plant Expansion project 64 Salaries $48,239 Supplies & Services $2,780 91,079 Capital Outlay 74,000 25,000 23,243 5,000 150,000 15,000 4,000 1,881 $50,120 43,487 3,107 $46,594 $96,714 1,000 $292,102 946 $946 37,240 713 $37,953 820 20,000 5,000 24,350 $50,170 $381,171 $99,000 35,300 $35,300 $134,300 2002-03 Impacts $51,019 165,079 25,000 23,243 5,000 150,000 15,000 4,000 1,881 1,000 $441,222 946 $946 $37,240 713 $37,953 79,607 20,000 5,000 24,350 3,107 $132,064 $612,185 to facilitate the increase in the number of Water/ Wastewater capital projects over the past few years. As part of the Golf capital program, one full-time Facility Maintenance Technician I/II has been approved in FY 2002-03 in conjunction with the Ken McDonald Golf Course Clubhouse Rehabilitation. Other funding provides for contracted services for the Fairway, Bunker and Tee Improvements project, and electricity for the Rolling Hills Driving Range Lighting capital project. Program Budget at a Glance Historically, Environmental Health and Public Safety Programs consumed the largest share of program expenditures, except for FY 1998-99, when Transportation represented the most significant share of the total financial program. Since then, Transportation has maintained a sizable share of program expenditures. For FY 2001-02, Environmental Health constitutes 23% of total program expenditures. This program reflects funding for the 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion, Kyrene Wastewater Plant and Interceptor enhancements, and improved efficiencies. Public Safety represents 21% of the total financial program, largely attributed to the addition of police personnel. For FY 2002-03, Transportation comprises 27% of the total program budget. This is principally due to funding for Transit Light Rail approximating $53.7 million. Environmental Health reflects 26% of the budget, largely driven by continued funding for water and wastewater plant expansion and process improvement projects. Per Capita (Thousands) 165 Thousands 400 300           160 155 150 145 200 140 100 135 130 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 General Services Development Services Public Safety Environmental Health Community Services Transportation Per  Capita Program 2000 2001 2002 2003 Historically, the majority of resources have been earmarked for Environmental Health and Public Safety. These areas, as well as Transportation, continue to increase as a result of legally mandated compliance requirements and the City’s commitment to public safety and transit. FYE 94 FYE 95 FYE 96 FYE 97 FYE 98 FYE 99 FYE 00 FYE 01 FYE 02 FYE 03 General Services 15,780 16,366 20,925 25,881 25,096 25,138 27,024 28,427 44,517 44,484 Development Services 11,024 12,250 15,698 20,172 29,563 37,949 20,483 21,842 35,036 20,423 Public Safety 39,184 45,188 47,943 44,271 49,853 50,509 58,040 63,479 66,277 69,101 Environmental Health 45,965 54,475 53,224 53,542 64,665 64,472 72,022 69,586 73,406 97,560 Community Services 21,263 20,996 26,166 32,027 32,982 32,138 43,320 36,232 37,070 40,727 Transportation 20,411 21,331 21,736 20,032 44,186 67,905 62,624 50,508 63,251 98,805 153,627 170,606 185,692 195,925 246,345 278,111 283,513 270,074 319,557 371,100 Total 65 Per Capita Operating Expenditures by Program The City's budget consists of six major programmatic areas: (1) General Services, (2) Development Services, (3) Public Safety, (4) Environmental Health, (5) Community Services, and (6) Transportation. In FY 2001-02, the total per capita operating cost is $1,444. In this fiscal year, for every $1 of expenditure, 26¢ is earmarked for Public Safety, 23¢ for Environmental Health and the remainder for General Services, Community Services, Transportation and Development Services. In FY 2002-03, the total per capita operating cost is $1,468, with Public Safety and Environmental Health accounting for 49¢ of every $1 of expenditure. In the two fiscal years, Public Safety and Environmental Health represent the greatest areas of expense. The increase in Public Safety is primarily due to additional Police patrol and the absorption of previously grant funded positions. Environmental compliance modifications and additional treatment plant capacity continue to impact enterprise operations resulting in increasing wastewater costs. FY 2001-02 General Services $247 FY 2002-03 Public Safety $382 Environmental Health $330 Transportation $205 Community Services $173 Development Services $107 General Services $254 Environmental Health $328 Community Services $177 (In Millions) Program General Services Transportation $202 Development Services $110 (In Millions) Per Capita Operating Expenditures Percentage FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 of Total $247 17% $254 Percentage of Total 17% Development Services 107 7% 110 7% Public Safety 382 26% 397 27% Environmental Health 330 23% 328 22% Community Services 173 12% 177 12% Transportation 205 14% 202 14% $1,444 100% $1,468 100% Total Operating Expenditures 66 Public Safety $397 Program By Fund Summary In the first year of the biennium, Environmental Health represents the greatest expense, reflecting the impact of federally mandated compliance programs for water/wastewater operations. In the second year of the biennium, Transportation expense is primarily attributed to capital improvement projects associated with light rail. The General Fund program budget reflects the City's commitment to Public Safety, comprising 48% or $62 million and increasing to 49% or $65 million of the total budget respectively in the two fiscal years. Fund General Rio Salado General Services $28,534,230 Development Services Public Safety Environmental Community Transportation Health Services FY 2001-02 $8,768,072 $61,873,325 $1,315,803 978,410 $24,935,850 374,681 Total $125,427,280 1,353,091 HURF 8,135,751 8,135,751 Transit 25,044,850 2,135,751 Debt Service 11,238,729 11,238,729 Performing Arts Golf Sanitation Water Utilities 295,455 CDBG/ Section 8 Total 40,068,414 Operating Capital 4,448,750 Improvements TOTAL $44,517,164 PROGRAM General $29,696,362 Rio Salado 317,048 317,048 2,327,698 2,327,698 10,515,860 41,725,785 10,515,860 42,021,240 7,633,824 7,633,824 17,380,306 61,873,325 53,557,448 27,955,277 33,180,601 234,015,370 17,655,239 4,403,869 19,848,750 9,114,454 30,070,368 85,541,430 $35,035,545 $66,277,194 $73,406,198 $37,069,731 $63,250,969 $319,556,800 FY 2002-03 $9,198,997 $65,092,110 $1,989,267 $25,681,669 $131,658,405 376,436 1,434,267 1,057,831 HURF 8,447,753 8,447,753 Transit 24,606,654 24,606,654 Debt Service 11,518,082 11,518,082 Performing Arts Golf Sanitation Water Utilities 319,673 CDBG/ Section 8 Total Operating Capital Improvements TOTAL PROGRAM 341,472 341,472 2,626,995 2,626,995 10,788,733 10,788,733 41,013,518 41,333,191 7,705,907 7,705,907 41,534,117 17,962,735 65,092,110 53,791,518 29,026,572 33,054,407 240,461,459 2,949,900 2,460,000 4,009,100 43,769,000 11,700,150 65,750,163 130,638,313 $20,422,735 $69,101,210 $97,560,518 $40,726,722 $98,804,570 $371,099,772 $44,484,017 67 Program By Department Summary Department General Services Development Services Public Safety Environmental Community Health Services Transportation Total FY 2001-02 Mayor & Council $523,001 $523,001 City Manager 1,998,888 1,998,888 Community Relations 1,436,347 1,436,347 City Clerk 717,900 717,900 Public Works represents 58% of the total General Services proCity Court 3,167,436 3,167,436 gram, while Police comprises Human Resources 3,055,512 3,055,512 71% of the total Public Safety City Attorney 2,816,651 2,816,651 program budget. Financial Services 5,227,487 5,227,487 Strategic Planning 221,941 221,941 Tempe Learning Ctr 674,709 674,709 Development Svcs. 14,929,610 975,855 15,905,465 Economic Dev/Rio 560,087 1,538,497 Police 43,851,476 43,851,476 Fire 14,854,413 14,854,413 Community Services $19,468,318 19,468,318 Water Utilities 26,369,823 26,369,823 Public Works 5,304,313 1,472,286 10,805,807 7,960,968 $30,286,127 55,829,501 TOTAL DEPT 22,536,836 17,380,306 61,873,325 38,151,485 27,429,286 30,286,127 197,657,365 Non-Departmental 3,597,440 3,597,440 Debt Service 11,238,729 14,355,963 149,555 2,445,241 28,189,488 Contingency 2,695,409 1,050,000 376,436 449,232 4,571,077 TOTAL 40,068,414 17,380,306 61,873,325 53,557,448 27,955,277 33,180,600 234,015,370 OPERATING Capital Improve4,448,750 17,655,239 4,403,869 19,848,750 9,114,454 30,070,368 85,541,430 TOTAL $44,517,164 $35,035,545 $66,277,194 $73,406,198 $37,069,731 $63,250,968 $319,556,800 PROGRAM FY 2002-03 Mayor & Council $538,462 $538,462 City Manager 2,141,535 2,141,535 Community Relations 1,280,651 1,280,651 City Clerk 471,235 471,235 Public Works represents 61% of the City Court $3,370,946 3,370,946 total General Services program, while Community Services comprises Human Resources 3,434,381 3,434,381 68% of the total Community program City Attorney 2,994,084 2,994,084 budget. Financial Services 5,573,791 5,573,791 Strategic Planning 236,362 236,362 Tempe Learning Ctr 757,031 757,031 Development Svcs $15,405,841 $1,055,316 16,461,157 Economic Dev/Rio 582,263 1,057,831 1,640,094 Police 46,031,157 46,031,157 Fire 15,690,007 15,690,007 Community Svcs 20,119,237 20,119,237 Water Utilities 27,040,692 27,040,692 Public Works 5,584,440 1,499,063 11,103,039 8,382,119 $32,605,175 59,173,836 TOTAL DEPT 23,594,235 17,962,735 65,092,110 39,199,047 28,501,356 32,605,175 206,954,658 Non-Departmental 3,615,704 3,615,704 Debt Service 11,518,082 13,542,471 148,780 25,209,333 Contingency 2,806,096 1,050,000 376,436 449,232 4,681,764 TOTAL 41,534,117 17,962,735 65,092,110 53,791,518 29,026,572 33,054,407 240,461,459 OPERATING Capital Improve2,949,900 2,460,000 4,009,100 43,769,000 11,700,150 65,750,163 130,638,313 TOTAL $44,484,017 $20,422,735 $69,101,210 $97,560,518 $40,726,722 $98,804,570 $371,099,772 PROGRAM 68 Bonded Debt Limits Summary, July 1, 2001 and July 1, 2002 Under Arizona law (1), cities may issue general obligation bonds for purposes of water, wastewater, artificial light, open space preserves, parks, playgrounds and recreational facilities up to an amount not exceeding 20% of the secondary assessed value. Cities may also issue general obligation bonds for all other purposes not included in the 20% Debt Margin category up to an amount not exceeding 6% of the secondary assessed value. FY 2001-03 Bonded Debt Limits FY 2001-02 6% 20% 6% FY 2002-03 20% Bond Limit (2) $86,268,910 $287,563,032 $89,719,666 $299,065,553 Outstanding Bonded Debt Previously Issued by City (52,315,000) (90,650,000) (48,655,000) (83,005,000) 0 0 (8,380,000) (10,000,000) (3,620,000) 0 0 0 (6,560,000) (15,500,000) (5,440,000) 0 $25,573,910 $183,293,032 $34,504,666 $195,120,553 Proposed Bonds to be Sold in FY 2001-03 Water/Wastewater Park Improvements All Others Debt Margin Available (1) Article 9, Section 8 – Arizona Constitution (2) FY 2001-02 is based upon an estimated secondary assessed value of $1,437,815,161, compared to the FY 2000-01 secondary assessed value of $1,356,429,397. FY 2002-03 is based upon an estimated secondary assessed value of $1,495,327,767. 69 Debt Policy The objective of the City of Tempe debt management policy is to maintain the City’s ability to incur present and future debt at the most beneficial interest rates in amounts needed for financing the adopted Capital Improvements Program without adversely affecting the city’s ability to finance essential City services. impacts will be coordinated with the development of the Operating Budget. Policy Statements: § A six-year capital improvement program will be developed and updated annually along with corresponding anticipated funding sources. § § § Capital projects financed through the issuance of bonded debt will be financed for a period not to exceed the useful life of the project. § Pay-as-you-go financing, at a minimal level of at least 5%, will be an integral part of each capital program. § Benchmark ratios of per capita debt, debt service to operating revenue, and outstanding debt as a percent of full cash value will be updated regularly and incorporated into the Debt Management Plan. (All debt is tax supported and does not include enterprise or overlapping debt.) Note: The data below is based on an average G.O. debt issuance of $12.0 million in fiscal years 200102 through 2006-07. Debt service schedules will be based upon level annual principal and interest payments. Capital improvement operating budget Debt to Full Cash Value Debt Per Capita $1000 $800 $600 2.50% Goal Range 2.00% $833 $751 1.50% $400 $200 1.00% $0 0.50% June 30, 2002 June 30, 2007 Goal: $700-$800 16.00% Goal Range 12.00% 8.00% 10.02% 9.40% 4.00% 0.00% June 30, 2002 June 30, 2007 Goal: 10%-15% 70 1.33% June 30, 2002 1.28% June 30, 2007 Goal: 1.10%-1.25% Debt Service to General Governmental Revenue 20.00% Goal Range Debt Service Schedule FY 2001-02 Original Issue General Purpose Existing Debt: 1992B General Obligation 1993A General Obligation 1994 General Obligation 1995 General Obligation 1997 General Obligation 1998 General Obligation 1998A General Obligation 1999 Certificates of Participation 2001A General Obligation Total Existing Debt 2002 Planned New Debt: General Obligation Total General Purpose Streets Existing Debt: 1992A General Obligation 1992B General Obligation 1993A General Obligation 1994 General Obligation 1995 General Obligation 1997 General Obligation 1998 General Obligation 1998A General Obligation 2001A General Obligation Total Existing Debt 2002 Planned New Debt: General Obligation Total Streets Golf Enterprise Existing Debt: 1993 Tempe Municipal Property Total Golf Fund Excise Tax Revenue Obligations 2000A $17.310 Excise Tax Ob. 2000A $17.310 Excise Tax Rio Salado (CFD) 1998 Excise Tax Revenue Obligation Outstanding Direct 7-1-01 Principal Direct Interest Fiscal Agent Pay- 2001-02 Total ments Requirements 5,100,000 3,850,000 4,000,000 5,600,000 4,000,000 4,035,000 10,500,000 5,110,000 3,300,000 45,495,000 1,215,000 3,035,000 3,180,000 4,640,000 3,520,000 4,035,000 9,285,000 4,270,000 3,300,000 36,480,000 280,000 160,000 155,000 230,000 145,000 775,000 370,000 460,000 90,000 2,665,000 80,344 153,315 175,875 247,525 193,903 190,365 436,750 195,685 169,400 1,843,162 35,000 35,000 360,344 313,315 330,875 477,525 338,903 965,365 806,750 655,685 294,400 4,543,162 6,000,000 59,238,500 6,000,000 49,851,250 163,107 3,319,357 360,000 2,589,098 105,000 140,000 628,107 6,048,455 8,665,000 4,000,000 4,800,000 3,500,000 9,400,000 4,500,000 3,390,000 9,500,000 6,700,000 54,455,000 1,255,000 990,000 4,650,000 2,780,000 7,765,000 3,960,000 3,390,000 8,405,000 6,700,000 39,895,000 520,000 225,000 0 135,000 400,000 165,000 650,000 335,000 180,000 2,610,000 65,628 65,400 240,770 153,800 414,325 218,141 159,955 395,325 343,823 2,057,167 6,000,000 60,455,000 6,000,000 45,895,000 163,107 2,773,107 360,000 2,417,167 0 523,107 5,190,274 1,400,000 1,400,000 735,000 735,000 105,000 105,000 41,555 41,555 3,000 3,000 149,555 149,555 7,743,500 5,035,000 7,371,250 2,612,500 491,250 2,612,500 385,936 101,656 40,500,000 40,500,000 Transit 2000A $17.310 Excise Tax Ob. 4,531,500 Total Excise Tax Revenue Obligations 57,810,000 2,351,250 52,835,000 2,351,250 5,455,000 585,628 290,400 240,770 288,800 814,325 383,141 809,955 730,325 523,823 4,667,167 877,186 2,714,156 2,025,000 110,000 2,135,000 91,491 2,604,083 2,500 112,500 2,445,241 8,171,583 71 Original Issue Outstanding 7-1-01 Direct Principal Direct Interest Fiscal Agent 2001-02 Total Payments Requirements Water/Wastewater Enterprise Existing Debt: 1992A General Obligation 1992B General Obligation 23,120,000 8,400,000 6,170,000 1,780,000 3,100,000 410,000 322,375 117,688 3,422,375 527,688 1993A General Obligation 8,655,000 8,320,000 0 431,068 431,068 1994 General Obligation 6,500,000 5,170,000 250,000 285,925 535,925 1995 General Obligation 11,300,000 9,335,000 480,000 498,075 978,075 1997 General Obligation 6,000,000 5,280,000 225,000 290,854 515,854 1998 General Obligation 1998A General Obligation 5,330,000 17,500,000 5,330,000 15,475,000 1,025,000 620,000 251,518 727,950 1,276,518 1,347,950 2001A General Obligation 14,000,000 14,000,000 380,000 718,488 71,000 1,169,488 105,840,000 73,472,500 9,102,500 3,745,597 71,000 12,919,097 10,000,000 10,000,000 271,846 600,000 125,000 996,846 3,900,000 3,900,000 106,020 234,000 100,000 440,020 Total Water/Wastewater Fund 119,740,000 87,372,500 9,480,366 4,579,597 296,000 14,355,963 226,705,000 18,029,080 11,743,908 551,500 30,324,488 Total Existing Debt 2002 Planned New Debt: General Obligation Excise Tax Obligations TOTAL ALL ISSUES 285,865,000 FY 2002-03 Original Issue Outstanding 7-1-02 Direct Principal Direct Interest Fiscal Agent 2002-03 Total Payments Requirements General Purpose Existing Debt: 1992B General Obligation 5,100,000 935,000 295,000 57,944 352,944 1993A General Obligation 1994 General Obligation 3,850,000 4,000,000 2,875,000 3,025,000 765,000 160,000 145,635 164,638 910,635 324,638 1995 General Obligation 5,600,000 4,410,000 250,000 232,575 482,575 1997 General Obligation 4,000,000 3,375,000 160,000 184,265 344,265 1998 General Obligation 4,035,000 3,260,000 30,000 153,940 183,940 1998A General Obligation 10,500,000 8,915,000 390,000 416,400 806,400 1999 Certificates of Participation 2001A General Obligation 5,110,000 3,300,000 3,810,000 3,210,000 475,000 95,000 176,365 164,000 40,000 651,365 299,000 Total Existing Debt 2002 Planned New Debt: 45,495,000 33,815,000 2,620,000 1,695,762 40,000 4,355,762 General Obligation 2003 Planned New Debt: 6,000,000 5,836,893 172,894 350,214 6,000,000 6,000,000 163,107 360,000 105,000 628,107 65,238,500 52,531,893 3,201,001 2,770,246 145,000 6,116,247 General Obligation Total General Purpose 72 523,108 Original Issue Outstanding 7-1-02 Streets Existing Debt: 1992A General Obligation 8,665,000 735,000 1992B General Obligation 4,000,000 765,000 1993A General Obligation 4,800,000 4,650,000 1994 General Obligation 3,500,000 2,645,000 1995 General Obligation 9,400,000 7,365,000 1997 General Obligation 4,500,000 3,795,000 1998 General Obligation 3,390,000 2,740,000 1998A General Obligation 9,500,000 8,070,000 6,700,000 6,520,000 2001A General Obligation Total Existing Debt 54,455,000 37,285,000 2002 Planned New Debt: General Obligation 6,000,000 5,836,893 2003 Planned New Debt: General Obligation 6,000,000 6,000,000 Total Streets 66,455,000 49,121,893 Golf Enterprise Existing Debt: 1992 Tempe Municipal 1,400,000 630,000 Property Total Golf Fund 1,400,000 630,000 Excise Tax Obligation Revenues 2000A $17.310 Excise Tax 7,743,500 6,880,000 2000A $17.310 Excise Tax 5,035,000 Rio Salado (CFD) 1998 Excise Tax Revenue Ob. 40,500,000 40,500,000 Transit 2000A $17.310 Excise Tax 4,531,500 Total Excise Tax Revenue 57,810,000 40,500,000 Water/Wastewater Enterprise Existing Debt: 1992A General Obligation 23,120,000 3,070,000 1992B General Obligation 8,400,000 1,370,000 1993A General Obligation 8,655,000 8,320,000 1994 General Obligation 6,500,000 4,920,000 1995 General Obligation 11,300,000 8,855,000 1997 General Obligation 6,000,000 5,055,000 1998 General Obligation 5,330,000 4,305,000 1998A General Obligation 17,500,000 14,855,000 14,000,000 13,620,000 2001A General Obligation 100,805,000 64,370,000 Total Existing Debt 2002 Planned New Debt: General Obligation 10,000,000 9,728,154 Excise Tax Obligations 3,900,000 3,793,980 2003 Planned New Debt: General Obligation 15,500,000 15,500,000 Excise Tax Obligations 20,400,000 20,400,000 Total Water/Wastewater 155,640,000 113,792,134 GRAND TOTAL Direct Principal Direct Interest Fiscal 2002-03 Total Agent Payments Requirements 735,000 240,000 175,000 145,000 415,000 175,000 25,000 350,000 190,000 2,450,000 38,588 47,400 240,770 144,013 388,325 207,196 129,405 376,900 333,023 1,905,620 773,588 287,400 415,770 289,013 803,325 382,196 154,405 726,900 523,023 4,355,620 172,894 350,214 523,108 163,107 2,786,001 360,000 2,615,834 0 523,107 5,401,835 110,000 35,780 3,000 148,780 110,000 35,780 3,000 148,780 245,000 364,270 1,200,000 2,025,000 110,000 3,335,000 1,200,000 2,025,000 110,000 3,335,000 3,070,000 430,000 35,000 265,000 500,000 225,000 35,000 645,000 405,000 5,610,000 161,175 84,888 431,068 267,800 466,875 275,993 203,343 693,850 695,688 3,280,680 85,000 85,000 3,231,175 514,888 466,068 532,800 966,875 500,993 238,343 1,338,850 1,185,688 8,975,680 288,156 112,381 583,689 227,639 421,361 554,565 6,986,463 930,000 1,224,000 6,246,008 125,000 100,000 310,000 1,476,361 1,878,565 13,542,471 333,765,000 256,575,920 14,283,465 13,692,868 568,000 28,544,333 609,270 871,845 340,020 73 Capital Budget, Debt Service and Property Tax Rate: Ten Year Historical Trends Budgeted Outstanding Debt Service Capital Improvements Principal Requirements Debt P&I Program Fiscal Year Net Secondary Assessed Value % Change Property in Secondary Tax Rate ($) Assessed Valuation Primary Secondary Total 1993-94 22,357,612 152,489,990 25,507,647 863,130,790 (0.6) .51 .89 1.40 1994-95 29,283,757 136,714,990 24,434,571 850,390,750 (1.5) .54 .86 1.40 1995-96 22,192,124 145,830,000 29,841,317 887,858,508 4.4 .56 .84 1.40 1996-97 35,466,698 141,285,000 27,161,881 912,856,941 2.8 .57 .83 1.40 1997-98 79,717,004 173,470,000 24,533,678 993,270,348 8.8 .56 .84 1.40 1998-99 87,651,929 203,495,000 24,297,657 1,098,826,160 10.6 .54 .86 1.40 1999-00 85,587,326 197,735,000 31,836,932 1,223,438,321 11.3 .55 .85 1.40 2000-01 61,256,862 200,805,000 29,772,986 1,356,429,397 10.9 .54 .81 1.35 2001-02 (est.) 85,541,430 208,675,920 27,976,330 1,437,815,161 6.0 .53 .82 1.35 2002-03 (est.) 130,638,313 242,292,455 32,696,239 1,495,327,767 4.0 .53 .82 1.35 Summary: (1) The increase in the Capital Budget from $35 million in FY 1996-97 to $80 million in FY 199798 is principally due to the addition of the Transit and Rio Salado capital programs, while the increase from $61 million in FY 2000-01 to $86 million in FY 2001-02 is attributed to the AZ Cardinal stadium construction and Transit program; the increase from $86 million in FY 2001-02 to $131 million in FY 2002-03 comes from the addition of light-rail construction within the Transit program, and an expanded Water/Wastewater capital program; (3) the City is expecting an increase in net secondary assessed valuation that should equal or exceed the peak years of 1990-91; and (4) the City implemented a planned increase in each of the three years beginning in fiscal year 1991-92, leveling at $1.40 per $100 valuation in 1993-94. The City decreased the property tax rate to $1.35 in FY 2000-01, with no change planned in FY 2001-02 or FY 2002-03. 74 Property Taxes Beginning with fiscal year 1980-81, property taxes were divided into two distinct levies, primary and secondary. The primary tax levy may be imposed for any type of municipal expenditure while the secondary tax levy may only be used to retire prprincipal principal and interest charges on bonded indebtedness. Primary levy increases are restricted by state statutes. However, secondary levy increases are “unlimited” in that they may be increased to the level necessary to retire bonded indebtedness. Millions 25 20 15 10 5 0 5 -'9 4 '9 6 -'9 5 '9 7 -'9 6 '9 '9 7'9 8 9 -'9 8 '9 Primary Tax Levy 0 -'0 9 '9 2 -'0 1 '0 1 -'0 0 '0 3 -'0 2 '0 Secondary Tax Levy Primary Tax Levy Secondary Tax Levy Total 1994-95 $4,247,312 $7,068,557 $11,315,869 $1.40 1995-96 4,760,417 7,537,093 12,297,510 1.40 1996-97 5,141,986 7,666,645 12,808,631 1.40 1997-98 5,382,818 8,449,186 13,832,004 1.40 1998-99 5,665,500 9,506,788 15,172,288 1.40 1999-00 6,145,600 10,416,336 16,561,936 1.35 2000-01* 6,799,300 11,615,100 18,414,400 1.35 2001-02* 6,956,700 11,913,000 18,869,700 1.35 2002-03* 7,117,700 12,926,100 20,043,800 1.35 Fiscal Year Tax Rate/ $100 * Amounts reflect estimated receipts. 75 Impact of Total Budget on Citizens In May of 2000, the citizens of Tempe approved a Performing Arts Tax of 0.1% through a special sales tax election changing the rate from 1.7% to 1.8%, effective January 1, 2001. The property tax rate for FY 2001-02 will remain unchanged at $1.35/$100 assessed valuation. The City anticipates modest increases in assessed valuation as the real estate market remains strong and the City approaches build out. The City maintains three utility services for water, sewer, and sanitation. For FY 1999-00, water and sanitation rates will not increase, while sewer rates will continue phased-in increases. Rate reviews for each of the utility services will continue annually. Local Taxes Sales Tax In May of 2000 voters in Tempe approved a 0.1% increase to the sales tax rate from 1.7% to 1.8% effective January 1, 2001. The proceeds from this increase are dedicated to the Visual and Performing Arts. Property Tax No increase in the property tax rate is required with this budget. The FY 2001-02 tax rate is $1.35/$100 of assessed valuation, unchanged from the prior year. The primary tax rate is $0.53 and the secondary tax rate is $0.82. Utility Charges for Services Water/Sewer For FY 1999-00, there will be no water rate increase. In May 1997, sewer fees increased, beginning a phased-in approach to rate increases. Rates will be adjusted this fall to attain full cost recovery, as customer charges are based upon water consumption and strength of discharge into the sewer system. Irrigation rates will be adjusted 5% effective the fall of 1999. Irrigation rates were last adjusted in July of 1997 to address irrigation rehabilitation needs. Sanitation There is no sanitation fee adjustment proposed for FY 2001-02. Our last fee adjustment of 3% was implemented in March 1998. Utility Charges for Services (monthly) 2 Local Taxes 1 2 76 Fiscal Year Sales Tax1 Property Tax Water Sewer Sanitation 2000-01 1.7% $1.35 $20.35 $11.79 $11.75 2001-02 1.8% $1.35 $20.35 $11.79 $11.75 Sales Tax rate increased from 1.7% to 1.8% effective January 1, 2001. Charges reflect rates effective July 1. Personnel Summary The number of full-time employees for fiscal year 2001-02 totals 1,727, a 4.0% increase from the prior year, and 1,734 in fiscal year 2002-03 representing a 0.4% increase from the prior budget. Total employees per 1,000 population for 2001-02 is estimated at 10.66, a 2.9% increase from the previous fiscal year, and 10.59 in 2002-03, a 0.7% decrease from fiscal year 2001-02. Full-time Employees Per 1,000 Population 2000 12 10 1500 8 1000 6 The total number of full-time employees has increased from 1,314 to 1,734 from 1994 to 2003 for a 32% increase. During that same period the number of employees per 1,000 population rose by 20%. 500 4 2 0 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Fiscal Year Full Time Employees Per 1,000 Population Fiscal Year-End Full- Time Employees Employees Per 1,000 Population 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1,314 1,357 1,416 1,460 1,488 1,556 1,628 1,661 1,727 1,734 8.85 9.01 9.21 9.41 9.45 9.71 10.27 10.36 10.66 10.59 77 Comprehensive Financial Plan The following section summarizes the comprehensive financial plan which served as the cornerstone for the financial actin plan and capital and operating budget decision-making. It includes long-range forecasts of revenues and expenditures, issues, trends, resource choices for all funds, and debt management program. Comprehensive Financial Plan Contents Page Comprehensive Financial Plan Overview ..................................................................................... 80 Forecast Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 83 Forecast and Major Revenue Assumptions................................................................................... 84 Economic Outlook ........................................................................................................................... 88 General Fund ................................................................................................................................... 90 Transit Fund .................................................................................................................................... 92 Transportation Funds ..................................................................................................................... 94 Enterprise Funds Water/Wastwater Fund ................................................................................................................. 96 Sanitation Fund ............................................................................................................................. 98 Golf Fund .................................................................................................................................... 100 Rio Salado and Community Facilities District Funds ................................................................ 102 Financial Action Plan .................................................................................................................... 104 79 Comprehensive Financial Plan Overview General Fund totaled $38.6 million as of June 30, 2000. This balance represents 31.1% of FY 1999-01 total General Fund revenue (25% is the working guideline used by the City as an optimum fund balance level). Introduction The Comprehensive Financial Plan, first published in March 1991, is a vital component of Tempe’s financial management strategy. Its purpose is to provide a five-year perspective on the financial condition of each of the City’s major appropriated funds. As a planning tool for short-term budgetary decisions, the Plan gives us insight into the long-term implications of today’s policy choices. n Self-insurance reserve of $9.4 million (considered adequately protected from potential liability claims). n Restricted debt service reserves of $7.6 million, sufficient to absorb debt obligations over the next five years. n Water/Wastewater fund balance of $56.4 million provides necessary coverage for operating and capital expenses and critical strategic flexibility over the next several years. n The City enjoys bond ratings of: "AAA" --Fitch, "AA+" --Standard and Poor's "Aa1" --Moody's Study Approach As part of this study, the Management and Budget Section within Financial Services has established financial models that examine the City's appropriated operating funds and their underlying revenue and expenditure structures for the period of fiscal year 2001-2002 through fiscal year 2005-06. Forecast models are presented along with trends, forecasts, and fund balances for each of the major funds. Operating funds examined include the: • • • • • • • General Fund Transportation Fund Transit Fund Water/Wastewater Fund Sanitation Fund Golf Fund Rio Salado Fund Major Study Findings Highlights of the major findings and conclusions from the long-range financial study follow: (A) The City continues to have strong fund balances and reserves. This is best depicted by the following: n 80 The City's unrestricted fund balance in the (B) Revenue growth and operating surpluses in the General Fund have allowed the City to address high priority needs in public safety, information technology, development and community services. Annual operating surpluses, in the General Fund, are expected to decrease over the next five years as the economy enters a period of predicted slower growth, affecting economic-sensitive revenue sources (such as the sales tax). (C) The successful transit tax proposal in September 1996, increasing the sales and use tax rate by one half of one percent should provide sufficient revenue for transit purposes through the end of the forecast period. It should be noted that Light-Rail operating impacts are planned to occur in FY 2006-07, which is beyond the five year horizon of this report. (D) Our projection is for continued reductions in our percentage share of state revenues for transportation from the Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) and the state Lottery as Tempe’s share of statewide population falls. This factor, combined with expenditure growth, may produce a deficit condition in the Transportation Funds in future years. (E) The Water/Wastewater Fund may require further rate increases over the next five years to meet the fiscal impact of water/wastewater compliance and sewer capacity demands. These costs are driven primarily by federally mandated modifications at the 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant, increased sewage processing capacity, along with compliance required improvements. . In the near term, we expect rate adjustments to occur in the wastewater operation, utilizing a phased-in approach to bring wastewater into full cost recovery and to ensure that all customers are charged equitably based on discharge volume and strengths. In November 1999, sewer rates were increased for residential, commercial and industrial customers as part of a planned three year phased-in rate increase to bring sewer customers closer to full cost recovery. (F) Continued close monitoring of the Sanitation and Golf Enterprise Fund operations will be required, which may include the possibility of rate adjustments to avoid operating deficits and to maintain adequate reserves for capital needs and contingencies. 81 Financial Overview The following financial overview provides a summary of revenues, expenditures, and historical budget trends. Ten Year Budget Trends Millions Operating Budget Total budgeted revenues for FY 2000-01 are $270.1 million, with operating revenues of $242.4 million and the remainder from bond proceeds and other CIP funding. General Governmental revenues combine for $139.5 million of the total operating revenues, including $49.5 million of special revenues. Enterprise revenues represent the remainder of total operating revenues, most of which derives from water/wastewater service charges and user fees. Summary overviews of FY 2000-01 appropriations and revenues provide a base reference for the fund specific forecast models that follow. A ten year history of budget trends is depicted in the following graphs. 82 250 200 150 100 50 Fiscal Year Operating Budget Capital Budget 2000-01 1999-00 1998-99 1997-98 1996-97 1995-96 1994-95 1993-94 0 1992-93 Major funding sources include $86.0 million in local taxes (sales and property), $34.6 million of intergovernmental revenues, $53.3 million of enterprise revenues, and $49.5 million of special revenues (Transit, Highway User, Lottery, Community Development Block Grant and Section 8 Housing). Capital Budget 300 1991-92 The FY 2000-01 total budget of $270.1 million provides for a $208.8 million operating budget and a $61.3 million capital budget. The operating budget includes $117.7 million of general governmental operations, $49.9 million of enterprise operations (water/ wastewater, sanitation, and golf) and $41.2 million of special revenue operations (transportation, transit, redevelopment, and housing). Total Budget 2000-01 $222,169,282 $67,408,152 $289,577,434 1999-00 197,926,204 85,587,326 283,513,530 1998-99 190,459,638 87,651,929 278,111,567 1997-98 174,865,699 79,717,004 254,582,703 1996-97 162,042,739 35,466,698 197,509,437 1995-96 150,047,736 22,192,124 172,239,860 1994-95 139,929,485 29,283,757 169,213,242 1993-94 131,123,501 22,357,612 153,481,113 1992-93 129,172,994 26,199,719 155,372,713 1991-92 124,937,849 21,825,485 146,763,334 Forecast Methodology Forecasting as used in this report refers to the estimating of the future values of revenues and expenditures. It provides an estimate of how much revenue will be available and the resources required to meet current service levels and programs over the forecast period, along with an understanding of how the total financial program will be affected by the demographic and economic factors driving these forecasts. The value of forecasts is in estimating whether, given assumptions about local financial policies and economic trends, the City will have sufficient resources to meet the resource requirements of ongoing, planned, or mandated programs. Forecast models have the added value of providing a planning tool for capital projects and/or whether bonded indebtedness will be required for capital funding. In short, forecasting provides an estimate of the financial flexibility of the City, as well as insight into tax, revenue, and service options the Council must address. Our forecasting methodology reflects a combination of internal analysis and locally generated consensus forecasts covering such factors as population growth, retail sales, and inflation. Specifically, for the revenue forecasts, we begin with models that include prior year actual collections and project the balance of the current fiscal year based on prior year patterns. For the remaining years of the revenue forecast, we look to consensus forecasts (such as the Bank One Arizona Blue Chip Forecast, Western Blue Chip Economic Forecast, and AZB/Arizona Business published by the ASU College of Business) for an indication of the expected trends in key economic and demographic indicators. Typically, these forecasts cover the state or the metro-Phoenix area as a whole, so adjustments to reflect unique conditions in Tempe are sometimes necessary. In general, we seek to match revenue sources with the economic and/ or demographic variables that most directly affect year-to-year changes in those revenues. For example, a revenue such as the city sales tax will reflect consensus forecasts related to taxable sales growth; whereas, revenue from building permits and plan review will be tied to the expected trends in development and redevelopment. Other revenues, such as those from recreation services, are linked to Tempe’s expected population growth. By identifying and utilizing as many revenue-related variables as possible in our forecast, we hope to minimize the risks of overstating or understating revenues that could arise from using only a few variables to forecast all revenue sources. For expenditures, growth is most closely linked to two major factors: 1) inflation (including general inflation, market adjustments to salaries, and changes in benefits costs), and 2) City financial policies related to the amount of new funding added each year for new programs and/or the expansion of existing programs (including new funding associated with Capital Improvement Program projects). As with our revenue forecasts, we consider consensus forecasts related to general inflation (particularly the trends projected). For certain expenditure categories (such as fuel and utilities), we apply inflation factors that reflect the historical rate of price inflation in these categories relative to overall inflation. Amounts for new programs and/or program expansions are assumed to be constant over the forecast period (same amount is added to each year of the forecast). 83 Forecast and Major Revenue Assumptions Our approach to forecasting, in general, is to apply a conservative philosophy that will produce our long-term goal of not overstating revenues nor understating expenditures. We recognize that economic forecasting is not an exact science and at times relies upon the best professional judgement of the forecaster. To reduce the risks of miscalculating revenues or expenditures, we attempt to identify as many factors as possible that may contribute to changes in revenues and expenditures. The City’s revenue and expenditure budgets are comprised of many unique elements that respond to a variety of external factors such as population growth, development, inflation, and interest rates. The following provides our assumptions relating to major revenues and expenditures. n Tempe Taxable Sales Taxable sales in Tempe have increased an average of $256 million each year over the past five years, indicative of continued development in Tempe and the strong local economy. As the table below shows, taxable sales are $1.3 billion (33%) higher in FY 1999-00 than total taxable sales in FY 1995-96. Tempe Taxable Sales This level of expected growth covers all forms of sales that generate sales tax revenue for the City. The primary categories of sales (based on FY 1999-00 annual averages) are retail sales (52%), commercial and residential rent (17%), utility sales (9%), restaurant sales (7%), and building materials sales (7%). Construction sales are expected to decline sooner than retail and other sales as a slowdown in construction typically precedes an overall economic downturn. n Population Population in Tempe is assumed to increase by 1.08% in FY 2000-01, with the rate of growth gradually declining over the forecast period to 1.01% annual growth by FY 2005-06. State population growth is assumed to average 2.7% per year over the next five years. Tempe Population Thousands 200 150 100 Population increased from 64,000 in 1970 to 158,000 in 1999 50 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1990 1980 0 6.0 1970 Billions 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.2 4.8 5.0 5.3 1999-00 1998-99 1997-98 1996-97 0.0 1995-96 1.0 In the forecast, General Fund retail sales are expected to increase by 5.1% in FY 2000-01, with the level of growth gradually slowing over the period of the forecast, with 3.6% annual growth being the norm in the later years of the forecast. This declining rate of growth is based on the predictions of economists for an expected economic downturn over the next 2-3 years. 84 Following the strong population growth period of the late 1970's (5.3%) and the 1980's (2.8%), Tempe is expected to experience steady but slower population growth as land use approaches build out. To a large extent the revenue growth of the 70's and 80's was fueled by the City's population growth. Continued population growth statewide and in Maricopa County in particular has been credited for much of the increased state revenues during the latest economic expansion. While Tempe is now seeing the benefit of statewide population growth through increased stateshared revenue, our slower pace of growth relative to other cities could produce a smaller share of the statewide pool of funds after the 2000 Census. That decline will affect our FY 2001-02 revenues. Our long-range revenue forecasts reflect these economic assumptions and the estimated impact of the 2000 census. The temptation to tap the state-shared revenues may persist over the next five years. Therefore our assumption that state revenue distribution formulas will not change may prove to be overly optimistic as the state is faced with the task of balancing its budget. n Development/Redevelopment New housing and commercial starts (construction activity) are expected to decline to a moderate level of activity as the City's undeveloped land approaches build-out. Building permit activity for 2001 should decline, after the 1997 peak during this latest construction cycle. While we expect redevelopment efforts to sustain some level of construction activity, we have conservatively assumed a level of growth equivalent to the projected rate of population growth. Building Permits 3,000 2,500 n Assessed Valuation Throughout the 1980's, Tempe experienced growth in net secondary assessed valuations. In 1990 this trend began to slow, and in 1991 net secondary assessed valuations increased by only 0.3%. From 1991 through FY 199495, Tempe experienced a decline in assessed valuation resulting from a countywide decrease in assessed valuations reflective of the general decline in the real estate market and a methodological change from a "cost" to an "incomes" approach by the county assessor for valuing commercial real estate. In FY 1999-00, Tempe's secondary assessed valuation was up by 12.9%, following 10.6% 2,502 2,352 2,000 1,801 1,500 1,574 1,415 Assessed Valuation 1,905 1,902 1,715 1,569 Millions 1,285 1,000 1400 500 800 600 930 933 850 888 913 993 1099 1240 400 99-00 98-99 97-98 96-97 95-96 0 94-95 200 90-91 n State-Shared Revenue For purposes of the forecast, we have assumed that State law related to shared revenue distributions will remain unchanged. Recent tax cuts enacted by the state Legislature have contained provisions holding cities and towns harmless from potential reductions in state-shared revenues, although action in the 1998 legislative session to further reduce the state income tax did not contain a hold harmless provision, meaning that locally-distributed funds will bear a proportionate share of the expected revenue reduction. This latest state income tax cut will affect FY 2000-01 revenues and could result in a $275,000 reduction in state-shared revenues for Tempe. The forecast reflects this potential loss in FY 2000-01 and its impact on subsequent years. 1000 89-90 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1200 0 growth the prior year. Consistent with the City's Debt Management Plan, the forecast assumes a 9.3% annual increase in assessed valuation in FY 2000-01, with assessed value growth gradually slowing over the period of the forecast to 3.50% by FY 2005-06. In November 1999, the Maricopa County Assessor’s Office implemented a two-year cycle of valuations of residential, vacant land, and agricultural properties. This will cause a freeze on property valuations and incur a fiscal impact of approximately $227,000 to the City of Tempe in FY 2002-03. 85 n Interest Rates/Cash Balances Interest revenue is expected to increase modestly in most funds, while yields tied primarily to short-term government interest rates are expected to average 5.5% for FY 2000-01 and declining to 5.0% in FY 200506. Some planned, short-term drawdowns of cash balances may occur periodically over the period of the forecast, reducing interest earnings. 86 Major Expenditure Assumptions and Economic Outlook n Salaries and Wages On the expenditure side, we have assumed a salary and wage market adjustment of 3.5% in FY 2000-01 and in all subsequent years through FY 2005-06. Any planning for the next several years must address the issue of compensation because of its significant expenditure impact. For example, every one percent change in compensation has an estimated expenditure impact of $700,000 to the General Fund and another $150,000 to the Enterprise Funds. It is obvious that whatever policy decision is made with regard to compensation scenarios will have a profound effect on future decision-making options. n Fringe Benefits Health insurance costs continue to rise at a range of 12-15% annually. Market forces, the movement towards managed care, and an excellent claims history had contained the growth in the City’s health care costs for a time, but we are now seeing a resumption of growth in excess of general inflation, much of which is derived from higher claims costs. Our expectation is that health care costs will rise at a rate exceeding the overall Consumer Price Index. Historically, annual growth in the health care component of the metro-Phoenix CPI has been nearly 50% above annual growth in the overall CPI. Retiree health care cost will continue to rise as our work force matures and greater percentages of employees retire. n Inflation (Consumer Price Index) Inflation is expected to increase by 3.75% in FY 2000-01, growing to 4.00% annually for the later years of the forecast. For those areas where exceptions are anticipated, we have factored in higher inflation impacts specific to those costs. One unknown cost that may prove to be understated is the cost of fuel, which may undergo significant price fluctuations over the period of these projections. n Supplemental Limits For the period of the forecast, we have assumed that recurring General Fund supplemental funding will be limited to $750,000 for FY 2000-01 and declining to $500,000 in FY 2005-06 ("supplemental" refers to additional funding for new initiatives, Council priorities, and other new funding). n Capital Improvement Program Operating Budget Impacts An important aspect of the City’s Capital Improvement Program is the identification of operating budget impacts associated with capital projects. Over the period of the forecast, we estimate that CIP projects will add $750,000 in annual recurring costs to the General Fund until FY 2004-05 and then decreases to $500,000 in FY 2005-06. Along with the supplemental limit, a limit for new funding associated with CIP projects will be evaluated annually. n State Expenditure Limitation The City's FY 2000-01 total financial program is estimated at $270.1 million, including capital improvements. In May 1996, Tempe citizens approved a budget override to the state imposed expenditure limitation, allowing the City to permanently adjust its FY 1979-80 base budget. The City's base expenditure level of $29,579,379 established in FY 79-80 increased by $15 million to $44,579,379 in FY 1996-97. The new expenditure limitation in FY 2000-01 is $161,592,142, with allowable exclusions totaling $128 million. At the time of the latest voter-approved expenditure limitation adjustment, the City estimated that the new base budget adjustment would be sufficient for 10 years, barring the addition of any major programs. The expanded Transit program, added as a result of the 1996 Transit tax ballot measure, is such a program. Our new estimates show we will have sufficient expenditure limit authority through FY 2003-04. The plan is to seek a similar permanent base adjustment (as was approved in 1996) during the May 2002 General City election to cover expenditures associated with recently budgeted projects and programs. Economic Outlook Following the mild recession in mid 1990 to 87 1991, both the local and state economies have enjoyed a prolonged robust period. The metropolitan Phoenix area has been among the nation’s leading major metropolitan areas in population and job growth, factors that have undoubtedly benefited Tempe. Tempe’s economy, along with those of other Phoenix area cities have also become stronger through increased diversification. In 1993 Arizona's and Tempe's economic growth accelerated, driven largely by a surge in construction and later joined by growth in other sectors. Construction, however, appears to have peaked during this cycle and will likely decline during the next few fiscal years. The outlook is for economic growth to continue for the next year or two, but at gradually slowing rates. The consensus among state economic forecasters is for continuing moderate growth in the Arizona economy for the year 2001 and a mild downturn thereafter. The duration of the economic expansion may largely be a function of Federal Reserve policy, inflation, and the rate of economic growth. Due to the relatively low cost of living and moderate tax burden, the Arizona economy should continue to do well, even with a slow-down in the economy. It is predicted that Arizona’s performance relative to other states will continue to be favorable. 88 This page intentionally left blank. General Fund: Projected Revenue and Expenditures ($000) 170,000 150,000 Actual 130,000 110,000 90,000 Projected 70,000 50,000 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 Revenue 96/97 Revenue ($000) Local Taxes Intergovernmental Bldg & Trades/Plan & Zoning Cultural and Recreation Fines, Fees and Forfeitures Business Licenses Interest Income Franchise Fees Other Revenue Sources Total Revenue Expenditures ($000) Personal Services Materials and Supplies Fees and Services Travel and Training Non-Dept/Contributions Capital Outlay Loan Repayment Trans Maintenance of Effort Internal Services/Adj. Total Expenditures Designated for Capital Projects Net Operating Deficit 90 04-05 05-06 Expenditures 57,195 64,014 64,682 68,567 73,941 78,079 81,649 85,293 88,846 26,670 29,026 32,625 36,055 38,251 35,119 37,093 38,726 40,308 3,693 4,119 2,738 2,958 3,142 3,013 2,893 2,786 2,691 92,387 41,841 2,605 3,915 4,440 99/00 03-04 05/06 3,762 3,700 98/99 02-03 04/05 3,508 3,269 97/98 01-02 4,204 4,778 00/01 3,852 4,683 01/02 3,894 4,733 02/03 3,933 4,781 03/04 3,973 4,829 4,012 4,878 4,053 4,927 937 947 1,100 605 971 971 971 971 971 971 5,217 5,764 5,596 5,940 6,000 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 1,019 1,368 1,221 1,281 1,136 1,209 1,273 1,339 1,403 1,466 2,957 1,630 2,022 2,246 2,038 2,253 2,253 2,253 2,253 2,253 104,463 114,331 118,338 126,635 134,013 134,770 140,345 145,668 150,861 156,002 61,704 64,646 71,247 79,005 87,472 95,067 102,184 109,366 117,982 127,109 5,250 5,543 5,955 6,324 6,484 6,867 7,275 7,697 8,151 8,623 11,597 14,013 15,477 15,268 18,161 19,086 20,056 21,039 22,072 23,124 750 729 903 955 992 1,041 1,092 1,144 1,199 1,255 1,829 2,039 2,009 2,330 2,200 3,943 5,335 5,605 5,890 6,183 3,703 2,478 2,396 2,687 2,595 2,732 2,876 3,020 3,171 3,324 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 (4,654) (9,533) (8,341) (10,063) (8,932) (9,176) (9,417) (9,635) (9,856) (10,054) 82,297 82,031 91,763 98,625 111,089 121,676 131,518 140,354 150,726 161,680 22,165 32,300 26,575 28,009 22,925 13,094 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,827 0 5,314 0 135 0 0 (5,678) General Fund Trend/Forecast In the early 1990's the City experienced declining annual surpluses as expenditure growth exceeded revenue growth by as much as 5%-6% per year. In response to this situation, the City invoked three years of spending reductions to slow the rate of expenditure growth. The success of the expenditure reduction strategy alone was limited, however, because it coincided with a slow-down of the national and regional economy. The outlook for the General Fund improved dramatically in 1993 with voter approval of an increase in the sales tax rate from 1.0% to 1.2%. The sales tax increase was projected to add $5 to $6 million each year and keep the General Fund fiscally sound. That expectation has been confirmed, while improvements in retail sales and commercial development have also bolstered General Fund revenue. Annual operating surpluses should decline, however, as revenue growth slows as a result of a predicted downturn in the economy over the next 2-3 years. In addition, our share of locallydistributed state income, sales and vehicle license tax revenues are projected to decline in FY 2001-02 as the 2000 Census shows Tempe’s expected declining percentage of statewide population. Our forecast is for operating surpluses to decline such that an operating deficit within the forecast period appears in FY 2005-06. In the assumptions related to future revenue and expenditure growth, it appears that over the long-term, the current economic growth trend is not sustainable and thus leads to operating deficits within this forecast horizon. An important caveat to our projections concerns the issue of state-shared revenues, which has come under attack in recent years and may in the future. Income and vehicle license tax reductions enacted at the state level in recent years have been mitigated in part by a strong state economy and population growth. In addition, the state has recently assumed significant responsibilities for funding the capital costs of local school districts and alternative fuel vehicles. Our concern as a local government is how the state will balance its budget when the economy inevitably slows. Close monitoring of the Legislature's efforts to alter the distribution formulas for state-shared revenues or to enact laws that may narrow the local tax base will be required. Policy choices made now regarding annual supplemental limits will have a significant impact on the long-term condition of the General Fund. The forecast assumes that new, recurring funding will be limited to $750,000 for FY 2001-02 and will decline to $500,000 in FY 2005-06. The operating budget impact of capital projects are estimated to average $750,000 in FY 2001-02 and will also decline to $500,000 in FY 2005-06. Fund Balance The General Fund's unreserved fund balance has grown from $23.2 million just six years ago to $38.6 million for FYE 2000. Over the next several years, we anticipate some drawdown of fund balances primarily for "pay-as-you-go" capital financing, bringing the General Fund balances in line with the financial policy of 25% of General Fund revenues. FYE 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 Unreserved Fund Balance $10,765,333 10,143,466 14,121,709 23,196,449 28,590,826 30,639,891 34,682,895 38,201,087 38,615,537 91 Transit Fund: Projected Revenue and Expenditures ($000) 45,000 40,000 35,000 Actual 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 Projected 10,000 5,000 0 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 Revenue 96/97 97/98 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 Expenditures 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 Revenue ($000) Transit Tax 10,429 23,212 24,542 26,384 28,610 29,926 31,272 32,586 33,889 35,245 Lottery Transfer In 0 340 334 325 305 302 298 294 290 286 ASU-Flash Transit 0 316 532 1,407 279 279 279 279 279 279 Interest Income 0 931 1,375 1,936 2,300 1,780 1,850 2,260 2,810 3,350 11 1 4 23 290 397 509 626 748 877 Miscellaneous Revenue Total Revenue 10,440 24,800 26,787 30,076 31,784 32,683 34,208 36,044 38,016 40,037 Expenditures ($000) Personal Services 133 512 807 1,110 1,262 1,326 1,413 1,506 1,612 1,724 12 99 60 29 21 22 22 23 24 25 1,580 3,926 7 23 28 53 41 28 30 30 30 30 13 95 61 170 5 50 52 54 56 58 Debt Service 0 73 6,837 4,748 2,351 0 0 0 0 0 Internal Service Charges 3 15 23 494 860 909 962 1,018 1,077 1,141 Indirect Cost Allocations 0 484 213 154 157 163 170 176 183 190 1,749 5,228 101 9,680 2,975 9,272 12,441 12,454 13,335 14,241 15,277 16,319 8,590 9,892 8,220 2,119 Materials and Supplies Fees and Services Travel and Training Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Designated for Capital Projects Net Operating Surplus/ (Deficit) 92 7,563 11,927 14,645 17,731 18,224 18,996 19,757 20,548 15,592 18,685 19,343 20,229 20,872 21,803 22,739 23,717 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transit Fund Trend/Forecast Since the transit tax is a component of the overall City sales tax, the growth trend projected in General Fund sales tax revenue is mirrored here in the Transit Fund. Revenue growth is projected to slow in the later years of the forecast as the economy enters a mild downturn. The pattern of growth reflected in the expenditure estimates relies upon the 10-Year Transit Business Plan and the assumptions made in that plan regarding the expansion of routes and the acquisition of new buses. The forecast is for planned fund surpluses in the early years due primarily to the implementation time required to expand routes. However, expenditures are expected to increase as the plan is more fully implemented. In FY 199798, the first full year of the transit tax, operating expenses were $5.2 million. By the end of the forecast period, expenses are estimated to climb to $23.7 million. FYE Unreserved Fund Balance 97 $8,552,661 98 18,450,631 99 26,673,832 00 28,793,058 93 Transportation Funds: Projected Revenue and Expenditures ($000) 15,000 14,000 13,000 Projected 12,000 11,000 Actual 10,000 9,000 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 Revenue 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 Expenditures 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 Revenue ($000) Highway User Revenue Tax 9,810 9,684 10,781 11,074 11,240 11,038 11,248 11,462 11,680 11,901 State Lottery Proceeds 1,144 1,020 1,001 ASU-Flash Transit Maintenance of Effort Transfer Lottery Transfer to Transit Other Revenue Total Revenue Expenditures ($000) Personal Services Materials and Supplies Fees and Services 926 914 902 890 878 867 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 (305) (302) (298) (294) (290) (286) 0 0 0 0 0 0 243 0 0 (340) 23 14 0 (334) (325) 0 0 13,070 12,228 13,299 13,575 13,710 13,500 13,702 13,908 14,118 14,332 2,850 2,903 3,001 3,141 3,447 3,601 3,836 4,091 4,378 4,686 557 579 601 624 649 675 1,611 1,455 1,324 1,434 1,640 551 509 446 523 1,714 1,791 1,873 1,960 2,054 546 567 589 612 636 661 Debt Service 4,726 4,534 4,603 4,000 4,300 4,500 4,000 4,000 3,500 3,300 Transit Routes/Dial-A-Ride 1,377 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Loan Repayment 356 356 356 356 356 356 356 356 356 356 Internal Service Charges 460 473 532 609 815 846 878 913 949 987 Indirect Cost Allocations 940 630 935 978 1,108 1,194 1,287 1,386 1,493 1,608 Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Net Operating Surplus/ (Deficit) 94 976 291 351 369 254 13,162 11,211 11,565 11,295 12,770 13,356 13,338 13,855 13,920 14,326 (93) 1,017 1,734 2,280 940 145 364 53 198 6 Transportation Funds Trend/Forecast Small surpluses are expected through the forecast period, although unforeseen circumstances could easily push this fund into a deficit condition. We have already witnessed a reduction in our allocations of HURF and Lottery revenues resulting from Tempe's declining percentage of statewide population. We expect that the results of the 2000 census will further worsen the situation, contributing to the problems we are forecasting for this fund. With only small surpluses projected over the period of the forecast, limited resources will be available to address transportation capital project needs. FYE 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 Unreserved Fund Balance $1,002,647 2,127,532 3,686,673 3,300,576 3,326,715 4,092,879 5,792,212 7,592,808 One approach now in place to minimize operating deficits is to limit debt service payments to established caps ($4.5 million in FY 2001-02, down to $3.3 million by FY 200506). Any excess General Obligation debt service requirements beyond this cap will be absorbed by the Debt Service Fund. Over the longer term, we will need to monitor the level of General Obligation tax-supported debt applied to Transportation projects and the resulting impact on the Debt Service Fund, being aware that opportunities for pay-as-yougo financing of capital projects will be limited. Fund Balance Transportation Fund balances have recovered somewhat from the lows experienced a few years ago. Maintaining an adequate fund balance for contingencies and transfers for capital projects will become a difficult challenge with little or no revenue growth. No relief on the expenditure side can be found as the cost of inflation and debt service requirements appear to be factors that will be with us throughout the forecast period. 95 Water/ Wastewater Fund: Projected Revenue and Expenditures ($000) 60,000 55,000 50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 Actual Projected 25,000 20,000 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 Revenue 96/97 Revenue ($000) Charges for Service-Water Charges for ServiceWastewater Interest Income Land and Facility Rental Loan Repayment Other Miscellaneous Rev. 96 97/98 98/99 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 Expenses 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 26,151 26,993 25,086 27,152 28,473 28,775 29,063 29,354 29,647 29,943 13,744 16,955 15,021 17,519 17,587 17,775 17,955 18,135 18,318 18,502 1,990 2,697 2,912 3,727 3,300 3,300 3,490 3,670 3,770 3,720 498 490 490 495 500 490 490 490 490 490 413 397 380 624 624 624 624 624 624 624 116 665 210 213 24 24 24 25 25 25 Total Revenue Expenses ($000) Personal Services Materials and Supplies Fees and Services Travel and Training Depreciation Expense Share of 91st Avenue Depreciation Debt Srvc Intrst/Fiscal Agent Fees Internal Service Charges Indirect Cost Allocations 42,913 48,198 44,098 49,729 50,508 50,988 51,646 52,297 52,874 53,305 Total Expenses Designated for Capital Projects Net Operating Surplus/ (Deficit) 34,349 35,810 33,749 36,809 39,866 42,262 44,367 46,844 50,038 52,456 7,024 2,046 9,153 67 7,960 553 7,031 2,625 9,063 65 8,021 753 7,332 2,242 7,714 78 8,143 1,187 7,623 1,995 7,890 79 8,605 3,096 8,402 8,665 9,234 9,847 10,540 11,283 2,427 2,519 2,616 2,718 2,825 2,938 9,834 10,276 10,750 11,238 11,704 12,197 71 74 77 80 83 86 9,294 10,037 10,840 11,708 12,644 13,656 1,750 1,760 1,770 1,780 1,780 1,780 3,909 3,835 3,751 3,831 4,052 4,636 4,508 4,605 5,276 4,989 1,732 1,904 2,457 1,960 1,585 1,715 1,557 2,133 1,851 2,186 2,026 2,269 2,216 2,357 2,420 2,449 2,641 2,545 2,880 2,647 0 0 894 6,387 4,198 580 583 178 150 150 8,564 12,388 9,456 6,532 6,443 8,146 6,696 5,276 2,686 699 Water/ Wastewater Fund Trend/Forecast Unreserved Retained Earnings The sewer rate increase approved by the Council in November 1999 appears to be having the intended effect of eliminating, at least in the short-term, a projected deficit condition in the Water/Wastewater Fund. The primary intent of this rate adjustment was to ensure full cost recovery in the wastewater operation. Additionally, the new rate structure is intended to equitably charge all customers based on the volume and strength of discharges. The November increase was part of the planned phased-in sewer rate increase, with the goal of achieving full cost recovery by the third year. A history of Water/Wastewater Fund balances shows the drawdown that occurred in the early 1990's as the result of pay-as-you-go financing for infrastructure improvements. To illustrate, unreserved retained earnings were $22.9 million at FYE 90 and were drawn down as low as $14.3 million in FYE 91, before being built back up to $56.4 million by FYE 00. The need for further rate adjustments in the sewer service area will be reviewed annually. Uncertainties still exist regarding the impact of the new usage and "strength-based" rate structure on the major industrial customers. The new rate structure may have the effect of encouraging these customers to reduce discharges or at least alter the strengths of discharges, both of which could substantially reduce revenues. Such changes should produce reductions in the City's shared cost of operating the 91st Avenue facility, although those reductions may not mirror revenue losses. Thus, the long-term outlook for this fund could change substantially depending to large extent on 91st Avenue costs. Over the period of this forecast, healthy fund balances should be retained, notwithstanding the impact of compliance driven contingencies. With $40.0 million in projected FY 2000-01 expenses, the $56.4 million fund balance provides 141% coverage to operating expenses in this fund, providing a degree of flexibility likely to be required in the future. FYE 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 Unreserved Retained Earnings $18,217,298 20,667,194 21,671,776 24,383,051 33,746,270 36,796,384 41,020,060 55,159,498 56,434,920 As the long range forecast predicts, the Water/ Wastewater Fund may enter a deficit condition by the end of the forecast period as the growth in treatment costs outpace revenue growth. For the purposes of the forecast, we have assumed no further rate adjustments. As more data becomes available revealing the longer term impact of the new rate structure, this assumption must be revisited. Throughout the forecast period, pay-as-you-go financing for Water/Wastewater Capital Improvements Program will continue to be utilized to help offset higher debt service costs. 97 Sanitation Fund: Projected Revenue and Expenditures ($000) 14,000 13,000 Actual 12,000 11,000 10,000 9,000 Projected 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 Revenue 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 Expenditures 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 8,493 143 95 107 8,838 8,822 218 123 101 9,264 9,132 223 126 0 9,481 9,407 10,040 10,144 10,246 10,349 10,452 10,557 123 210 212 214 217 219 221 100 70 79 79 57 11 0 193 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,823 10,320 10,435 10,539 10,622 10,682 10,778 2,589 166 2,877 890 48 2,596 203 2,905 897 42 2,769 440 2,882 915 137 3,029 342 2,875 1,206 137 1,587 571 8,728 111 1,529 763 8,935 329 1,388 550 9,082 399 1,617 1,821 1,930 2,047 2,172 2,305 2,448 708 653 678 704 731 760 790 9,913 10,153 10,440 10,933 11,458 12,042 12,664 (90) 167 (5) (394) (836) (1,360) (1,886) Revenue ($000) Charges for Services Sludge Disposal Interest Income Other Revenue Sources Total Revenue Expenses ($000) Personal Services Materials and Supplies Fees and Services Depreciation Loan Repayment-Interest Only Internal Service/Adj. Indirect Cost Allocations Total Expenses Net Operating Surplus 98 3,181 155 2,988 1,217 137 3,326 161 3,102 1,228 16 3,547 167 3,221 1,239 8 3,786 174 3,347 1,250 0 4,057 180 3,479 1,261 0 4,348 188 3,619 1,272 0 Sanitation Fund Trend/Forecast With the FY 1999-00 shortfall in this fund, sanitation rates were modified to fully recover the cost of the sanitation operation and replacement obligations. Although, an industrial, commercial, and residential rate increase was implemented in November 1999, shortfalls are still projected over the course of the forecast period (assuming no further rate increases are enacted). Unexpected increases in personal services, landfill usage charges, recycling costs, and inflation could worsen projected shortfalls in this fund beyond our estimates. FYE 93 Unreserved Retained Earnings $1,672,646 94 1,442,692 95 96 1,542,782 1,135,131 97 1,623,386 98 1,979,294 99 2,168,155 00 1,162,872 Sanitation rates will be subject to annual rate reviews to ensure that the fund remains fully self-sufficient and to smooth the effect of potential rate adjustments on the City’s residential and commercial customers. Unreserved Retained Earnings There is a $1,162,872 fund balance in the Sanitation Fund, providing 11.5% coverage to estimated FY 2000-01 expenses of $10.2 million. Unreserved retained earnings in this fund may be depleted by FY 2005-06 without an increase in rates. With environmental mandates always present, this enterprise operation will require as much financial flexibility as possible for contingent compliance driven costs. 99 Golf Fund: Projected Revenue and Expenditures ($000) 3,000 2,800 2,600 Actual 2,400 2,200 2,000 1,800 Projected 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 Revenue Revenue ($000) Greens Fees Pro Shop and Restaurant Revenue Interest Income Other Revenue Sources Transfer to Fund Youth Programs Total Revenue Expenses ($000) Personal Services Materials and Supplies Fees and Services Depreciation Debt Service Interest Internal Service Charges Indirect Cost Allocations Total Expenses Net Operating Surplus/ (Deficit) 100 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 Expenses 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 2,068 262 1,990 243 1,982 250 1,942 284 2,183 218 2,207 220 2,229 223 2,252 225 2,274 227 2,297 229 27 17 0 66 7 0 76 0 0 86 23 (44) 86 0 (69) 110 0 (94) 120 0 (97) 120 0 (101) 110 0 (105) 100 0 (109) 2,374 2,305 2,309 2,292 2,419 2,444 2,474 2,495 2,506 2,517 826 110 305 265 70 116 126 1,818 556 792 146 296 279 64 96 151 1,824 481 790 140 396 305 61 102 187 1,981 328 834 188 326 354 55 134 229 2,120 173 911 146 373 330 47 155 233 2,195 224 969 152 388 347 42 172 242 2,311 133 1,034 158 403 366 36 191 251 2,439 35 1,105 164 420 387 30 212 261 2,578 (83) 1,186 171 438 410 23 234 271 2,732 (226) 1,274 177 456 435 16 257 282 2,897 (380) Golf Fund Trend/Forecast Over the forecast period, we expect revenue growth to generally follow the historical use patterns, although other unpredictable factors such as weather conditions, may improve or worsen the revenue picture. Given our revenue assumptions, the Golf Fund could experience a deficit condition beginning in FY 2002-03, provided no rate adjustments are approved by the Council. As with the City’s other selfsupporting Enterprise operations, annual rate reviews will be conducted to maintain a favorable financial position in the Golf Fund. Unreserved Retained Earnings After six consecutive years of fund balance losses the trend was reversed, at least in the short-term, in FY 1995-96 as increased rounds of play bolstered the reserve to over $350,000. Fiscal years 98-99 through 99-00 proved to be good years as the fund ended the FY 99-00 with a balance of $1,538,156. This balance will provide some flexibility in funding current and future capital improvements. FYE Unreserved Fund Balance 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 $346,301 345,712 139,693 54,780 50,000 351,158 896,542 1,397,897 1,806,479 1,538,156 101 Rio Salado and Community Facilities District Funds 14,000 12,000 10,000 Actual 8,000 6,000 4,000 Projected 2,000 0 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 Revenue 96/97 97/98 Revenue ($000) General Fund Allocation Sales Tax Transient Lodging Tax Interest Revenue Sale of Real Estate Bond Forfeiture Other Revenue CFD Revenue Total Revenue Expenditures ($000) Personal Services Materials and Supplies Fees and Services Travel and Training Contributions (Aircraft Noise) Capital Outlay Purchase of Land Internal Service Charges CFD Administrative Credit CFD Operating and Maintenance Total Expenditures Designated for Capital Projects Net Operating Surplus/ (Deficit) 102 4,500 7,000 0 461 0 63 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,500 7,566 98/99 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 Expenditures 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 8,600 685 85 65 0 0 24 592 10,050 7,260 583 109 473 888 300 33 173 9,819 7,794 580 112 270 0 0 33 183 8,973 5,445 612 124 240 0 0 33 158 6,612 3,940 639 136 430 0 0 33 161 5,339 2,724 667 150 550 0 0 33 163 4,288 935 667 150 570 0 0 33 166 2,521 0 694 165 540 0 0 33 255 1,687 54 0 0 0 0 104 1 95 0 0 374 21 102 8 123 540 16 176 46 0 577 59 629 14 0 608 62 653 19 0 647 64 678 20 0 689 67 704 22 0 737 69 732 23 0 789 72 761 25 0 24 3,577 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 0 63 (62) 146 0 96 (440) 0 0 68 (440) 0 0 78 (457) 0 0 89 (475) 0 0 101 (493) 0 0 114 (513) 0 0 127 (533) 0 449 258 1,940 3,606 3,623 3,641 3,659 3,679 3,699 3,655 648 892 2,520 4,514 4,585 4,664 4,749 4,841 4,940 4,074 4,025 7,614 9,511 3,490 4,478 303 333 300 300 (3,228) 2,893 1,544 (2,212) 969 (2,451) 372 (794) (2,620) (3,553) Rio Salado and Community Facilities District Funds Trend/Forecast Rio Salado’s single largest revenue source is the General Fund allocation (1/3 of any surplus). If the General Fund expenditures exceed revenue collections it will have a direct negative affect, and is depicted in the later years of this forecast. The second largest revenue source, tax revenue, is highly responsive to changes in economic activity. The financial health of this fund is dependent on the nature of development in Rio Salado. CFD revenue includes assessment collections from property owners and boat permits, concessions, and special event fees. Overall revenue is projected to decrease as next fiscal year reflects a price decrease in boat permits. Unreserved Fund Balance The unreserved fund balance reached a high of $5.4 million in FY 1998-99. The variations depiction of the unreserved fund balance is due to planned drawdowns to fund capital and land purchase costs. 97 Unreserved Fund Balance $1,138,546 98 4,031,073 99 00 5,440,869 2,534,762 FYE 103 Financial Action Plan Recommended Plan of Action Several recommendations are offered as key elements of a financial action plan, which can be implemented to meet future operating and infrastructure objectives. Many recommendations are intended to adjust expenditure growth in order to keep the rate of expenditure growth in line with anticipated revenue growth. n Expenditure Control/Supplemental Limits Decreasing personnel growth has the advantage of providing both near term benefits and long-term expenditure control for the City. The addition of personnel has a greater fiscal impact on a fund than any other type of budget appropriation. Any successful effort to control spending in the General Fund or any of our funds will need to be directed at slowing the growth in personnel and associated costs. For each one percent increase in staffing levels, expenditures are increased by $600,000 to $750,000 per year. We recommend a continued annual evaluation of an appropriate General Fund supplemental limit, with consideration given to our longrange revenue and expenditure forecasts and how various supplemental scenarios will affect our long-term financial condition. Over the forecast period, we have assumed a $750,000 limit for recurring General Fund supplementals. n Maintain the Current Property Tax Rate Given the number of unfunded Capital Improvement Program projects, the City should maintain its property tax rate at $1.35/ $100 of assessed value in order to provide funding for its capital program. Each $.05 change in the property tax rate either increases or reduces the revenues by $650,000, capable of financing $7.5 million in projects over a 20 year period. n Modified Base Budget Plan Continuation of a modified base budget review program is recommended. This entails a review 104 of departmental base budgets, with the size of modifications linked directly to financial forecasts. Modified base budgets incorporate historical spending patterns, price adjustments, and long-range forecasts, thereby limiting budgetary growth within departments. n Continue to Limit Midyear Adjustments Even as the City effectively manages supplemental additions through the normal biennial budget process, there is a tendency to circumvent this process for additional midyear appropriations and personnel, often with little or no needs assessment, fiscal impact analysis or prioritization with other budgetary needs. The fiscal impact of these midyear adjustments poses a risk to careful long-range financial planning and should be discouraged except under unusual circumstances where an adjustment is warranted. n Adhere to Debt Management Plan Continued commitment to the Debt Management Plan is strongly recommended. Sizing the City's Capital Improvement Program budget to the Debt Management Plan will stabilize per capita outstanding tax-supported debt while lowering annual debt service costs. This will also help to preserve our sound financial standing and bond ratings. Adoption of the Debt Management Plan has been one of the most significant financial decisions over the last decade. n Comprehensive Financial Plan The Comprehensive Financial Plan, along with the Debt Management Plan, have served as the cornerstones of the long-term fiscal strength of the City. We recommend a continued update of this financial capacity study to provide a longterm perspective to the policy decisions of today. n Identify and Limit CIP Operating Budget Impacts In addition to establishing a viable supplemental limit, identifying the operating budget impact of Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects is a significant factor in achieving control over expenditure growth. We recommend continued efforts to refine the process of identifying these impacts and ensuring that provisions are made in operating budgets for these impacts as CIP projects are approved. n Financial Policies Continued adherence to our operating budget, debt service, capital expenditure and investment policies, while maintaining ample fund balances and reserves, is the best strategy the City has to ensure its sound fiscal position. These policies require periodic review to strengthen and update as necessary. The point here is to warn against "creative finance" solutions and the underlying impacts these solutions may have on the City in the longer term. n Protect State-Shared Revenues It is recommended that we continue our efforts in coalition with the League of Arizona Cities and Towns to protect state-shared revenues. They are very likely to continue to be at risk over the next few years. A freeze of stateshared revenues or a significant change in distribution methodologies could pose a costly financial risk to General Fund and Transportation revenues. n Economic Development/Redevelopment A further recommendation is to continue improving our economic development and redevelopment efforts to increase property valuation, commercial growth and job growth in the City. Effective decision-making on economic development and redevelopment will require us to evaluate the relative merits of development projects, placing emphasis on those adding the greatest value for Tempe’s citizens. n Review Benefits Program We recommend that the City explore employee benefit options to ensure that Tempe’s benefits package remains competitive with other Valley cities. On the other hand, the city must also explore alternative means of minimizing expected increases in health care costs, both employee and retiree. n Rio Salado Financial Plan We recommend the continuation of the Rio Salado Project Financial Plan, which addresses operating, maintenance costs and debt service requirements. The City has created a Community Facilities District, a legal entity with assessment and taxing authority, that will provide part of the financial strategy. n Transit Plan With voter approval of a dedicated funding source for transit and the expansion of transit services, the City has created a 10-year Transit Plan. Also, Transit has developed an extensive benchmarking program in conjunction with the Transit Advisory Committee to evaluate services and assist in long-range planning. Both the Transit Plan and the benchmarking effort are valuable tools in the City’s continued expansion of transit service and should be regularly updated. n Water/Wastewater Infrastructure Costs Careful financial planning will be required to address the increasing capital costs associated with water infrastructure and sewage treatment, primarily at the regional 91st Avenue Plant. We recommend a financial plan that minimizes sudden spikes in rates and controls expenditure growth. n Regular Review of City Fees and Charges Incremental increases in City fees and charges maintain the City’s ability to keep pace with inflation. The City’s long-term revenue outlook should include regular review of all City fees to ensure cost recovery as allowed by Council policy. n Program Sunsetting We recommend that the City continue, through the budgetary process, the annual sunset review program. This program facilitates a review of all existing citywide programs, using evaluation criteria to serve as guides in considering the merits of sunsetting an existing program. 105 n Strategic Issues Program The Strategic Issues Program has provided a linkage between the City’s budget process (resource allocation) and the long-term goals of the City. The strategic issues are periodically updated and refined, while departmental budget requests are associated with strategic issues. This gives direction to the budget process and a clearer rationale for resource allocation decisions. We recommend a continuation of this process and further reinforcement of the value in linking budget requests to strategic issues. n Benchmarking/Competitive Analysis We recommend that the City continue its efforts in benchmarking and competitive analysis. These activities will provide the City with opportunities to evaluate and improve service delivery while enhancing accountability to the citizens. The challenge facing the City is to position itself to manage stability as effectively as it has managed the growth in the past. Financial flexibility, which is often facilitated during rapid revenue growth periods, must be intentionally constructed through effective decision-making when managing stability. It requires reliable projections, clear priorities, effective planning, efficient systems, and continued adherence to sound fiscal guidelines. How well we manage these challenges will go a long way toward improving basic services provided our citizens, as well as improving the quality of life in the City. 106 Revenue Information The following section summarizes assumptions, trends, major influences, restrictions and composition of the City’s revenue sources. Revenue Information Contents Page Total Revenues ............................................................................................................................... 108 Components of Total Revenue...................................................................................................... 109 Total Revenue by Source............................................................................................................... 111 Comparative Revenue by Source ................................................................................................. 112 General Governmental Revenues: Ten Year Historical Trends City Sales Tax.......................................................................................................................... 115 City Property Tax .................................................................................................................... 116 Transient Lodging Tax ............................................................................................................ 117 Salt River Project In-Lieu Tax ................................................................................................ 118 State-Shared Sales Tax ............................................................................................................ 119 State-Shared Vehicle License Tax .......................................................................................... 120 State-Shared Income Tax......................................................................................................... 121 Charges for Services/Recreation and Social Services ............................................................. 122 Charges for Services/Development Related ............................................................................ 123 Fines and Forfeitures ............................................................................................................... 124 Interest Earnings ...................................................................................................................... 125 Special Revenues: Ten Year Historical Trends Transit Tax .............................................................................................................................. 126 Performing Arts Tax ................................................................................................................ 127 Highway User Tax ................................................................................................................... 128 Local Transportation Assistance Fund .................................................................................... 129 Community Development Block Grant/Section 8 Housing Grant .......................................... 130 Enterprise Revenues: Ten Year Historical Trends Water and Wastewater User Fees ............................................................................................ 131 Sanitation Fees ........................................................................................................................ 132 Golf Course Fees ..................................................................................................................... 133 107 Total Revenue Total revenue for the biennial budget is estimated at $319.6 million for FY 2001-02 and $371.1 for FY 2002-03, reflecting $260.4 million in operating revenue and $59.2 million from Bond Proceeds, Fund Balances and Other Funding Sources in FY 2001-02, and $267.8 million in operating revenue and $103.3 million from Bond Proceeds, Fund Balances and Other Funding Sources in FY 2002-03. The FY 2001-02 operating revenue total represents 7.5% growth over budgeted FY 2001-02 operating revenues, with operating revenue growth expected to slow to 2.8% in FY 2002-03. The slowing revenue trend reflects sluggish taxable sales growth and decreased state-shared revenue. Bond Proceeds and Other Funding Sources will increase in the second year of the biennium, corresponding to the size of the Capital Improvements Program budget. FY 2001-02 Other 5.5% Transportation 17.6% Bonds/CIP Fund Balance 18.5% Enterprise 21.4% Operating Revenues 81.5% General Governmental 55.5% FY 2002-03 Other 5.5% Transportation 17.6% Bonds/CIP Fund Balance 27.9% Operating Revenues 72.1% Enterprise 20.8% General Governmental 56.1% TOTAL REVENUES 2001-02 2002-03 OPERATING REVENUES General Governmental Local Taxes, Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Miscellaneous and Debt Transportation/Transit Performing Arts CDBG/Section 8 Housing Rio Salado Special Revenue Enterprise $91,321,600 35,178,000 7,080,600 10,966,700 45,818,000 5,604,000 7,633,800 1,050,300 55,775,800 $95,886,600 37,093,200 7,081,200 10,293,600 47,084,900 5,874,000 7,705,900 1,051,100 55,723,100 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES $260,428,800 $267,793,600 Bond/Note Proceeds $1,607 25,900,000 $1,635 79,811,000 CIP Other Funding Fund Balances 40,283,000 (7,055,000) 33,000,000 (9,504,800) $319,556,800 $371,099,800 $1,972 $2,266 Operating Revenue Per Capita TOTAL REVENUES Total Revenues Per Capita 108 Components of Total Revenue-FY 2001-02 2001-02 Total Revenue $319,556,800 Operating Revenue $260,428,800 Capital Revenue $59,128,000 General Governmental Special Revenue Enterprise Bond/Note Proceeds CIP– Outside Revenues Other Fund Balances $144,546,900 $60,106,100 $55,775,800 $25,900,000 $40,283,000 $(7,055,000) Transit Tax Water Utilities Federal Funds $35,030,800 _______________ $43,127,700 _______________ Enterprise G.O Bonds $10,000,000 _______________ Highway User Revenue $10,162,600 _______________ Sanitation $10,460,300 _______________ Local Taxes/ Licenses & Permits $91,321,600 _______________ Intergovernmental $35,178,000 _______________ Tax-Supported G.O Bonds $12,000,000 _______________ $23,608,200 _______________ Development Fees $1,250,000 _______________ State Grant Charges for Services $7,080,600 _______________ Section 8 Housing Golf $4,996,200 _______________ $2,187,800 Interest Miscellaneous $5,307,000 _______________ $742,600 _______________ Fines and Forfeitures $4,321,400 _______________ CDBG $2,637,600 Other $1,338,300 Water Revenue Bonds $3,900,000 $525,000 _______________ Outside Participation $14,879,800 _______________ Performing Arts Tax $5,604,000 _______________ Lottery Funds (LTAF) $932,300 109 Components of Total Revenue-FY 2002-03 2002-03 Total Revenue $371,099,800 Operating Revenue $267,793,600 General Governmental Special Revenue Enterprise Bond/Note Proceeds CIP– Outside Revenues Other Fund Balances $150,354,600 $61,715,900 $55,723,100 $79,811,000 $33,000,000 $(9,504,800) Transit Tax Water Utilities Federal Funds $36,125,100 _______________ $42,863,700 _______________ Enterprise G.O Bonds $15,500,000 _______________ Highway User Revenue $10,355,700 _______________ Sanitation $10,676,500 _______________ Section 8 Housing Golf $5,018,300 _______________ $2,182,900 Local Taxes/ Licenses & Permits $95,886,600 _______________ Intergovernmental $37,093,200 _______________ Charges for Services $7,081,200 _______________ Tax -Supported G.O Bonds $12,000,000 _______________ Water Revenue Bonds $20,400,000 _______________ Fines and Forfeitures $4,321,400 _______________ Miscellaneous Transit $753,600 _______________ $29,911,000 _______________ Interest CDBG Excise Tax $4,583,000 _______________ $2,687,600 _______________ $2,000,000 Other Lottery Funds (LTAF) $901,600 _______________ $1,389,200 Performing Arts Tax $5,874,000 110 Capital Revenue $103,306,200 $25,777,300 _______________ Development Fees $1,000,000 _______________ Outside Participation $6,222,700 Total Revenue by Source Intergovernmental 17% Local Taxes 39% User Charges 18% Bonds 8% Local Taxes 36% All Other 5% User Charges 15% CIP– Other Funding 13% Bonds 21% All Other 4% CIP– Other Funding 9% 2002-03 2001-02 Revenue Source Local Taxes Local Sales Taxes Transit Tax Other Local Taxes Performing Arts User Charges Water/Wastewater Sanitation Community Services Building/Trades & Planning/Zoning Intergovernmental State-Shared Revenue HURF/LTAF CDBG/Section 8 Housing All Other Interest Revenue Miscellaneous Revenue Fines and Forfeitures Licenses and Permits Bonds/Note Proceeds CIP - Outside Revenues* Other - Fund Balance Total Revenue Intergovernmental 15% Where the Money Comes From 1999-00 2000-01 Actual Revised 2001-02 Budget 2002-03 Budget $62,285,300 26,384,500 19,433,500 $65,971,300 27,609,500 21,198,200 1,900,000 $69,261,100 29,193,000 21,636,800 5,500,000 $72,708,900 30,506,000 22,778,800 5,740,000 41,156,200 9,406,900 4,204,000 2,957,600 39,260,300 10,188,100 3,899,000 3,550,000 39,454,600 10,301,900 3,777,000 3,303,600 39,489,500 10,518,000 3,777,600 3,303,600 36,055,300 13,575,000 7,014,200 38,250,500 13,700,200 7,953,400 35,178,000 10,787,200 7,633,800 37,093,300 10,959,800 7,705,900 13,538,800 8,667,500 4,709,700 1,200,500 22,000,000 8,647,000 1,201,200 $282,437,200 12,357,500 7,333,700 4,179,200 1,360,000 22,000,000 8,647,000 280,100 $289,638,000 10,440,500 8,490,100 4,321,400 1,149,800 25,900,000 40,283,000 (7,055,000) $319,556,800 9,059,800 8,668,100 4,310,500 1,173,800 79,811,000 33,000,000 (9,504,800) $371,099,800 * Includes Federal and State Grants and Residential Development Tax and Fees. 111 Comparative Revenue by Source 1999-00 Actual 2000-01 Revised 2001-02 Budget 2002-03 Budget $59,967,700 6,145,600 1,625,300 $63,566,000 6,799,300 1,713,000 $66,744,000 6,956,700 1,782,000 $70,081,00 7,117,700 1,853,000 67,738,600 72,078,300 75,482,700 79,051,700 17,045,900 13,511,400 5,498,000 17,950,500 14,400,000 5,900,000 16,542,100 12,676,900 5,959,000 17,747,400 13,386,800 5,959,000 36,055,300 38,250,500 35,178,000 37,093,200 Building & Trades/Planning & Zoning Building Permit Fees Plan Check Fees Electrical Permit Fees Planning & Zoning Fees Other Bldg & Trades Fees Total Bldg & Trds/Plan & Zoning 1,210,100 694,700 207,400 555,200 290,200 1,149,600 660,000 207,400 742,200 790,800 1,149,600 660,000 207,400 517,200 769,400 1,149,600 660,000 207,400 517,200 769,400 2,957,600 3,550,000 3,303,600 3,303,600 Cultural and Recreational Registration Fees Recreation Admission Charges Library Fines and Fees Other Cultural and Rec Fees Total Cultural and Recreational 3,087,400 330,200 367,400 419,100 2,946,700 284,800 298,200 369,300 2,866,000 290,200 298,200 322,600 2,865,900 290,500 298,200 323,000 4,204,100 3,899,000 3,777,000 3,777,600 Fines, Fees and Forfeitures Traffic Fines Criminal Fines Parking Fines Other Fines, Fees and Forfeitures Total Fines, Fees and Forfeitures 1,476,900 881,800 302,300 2,048,700 4,709,700 1,193,800 735,400 247,500 2,002,500 4,179,200 1,375,900 761,400 225,000 1,959,100 4,321,400 1,375,900 761,400 225,000 1,948,200 4,310,500 Business/Non-Business Licenses 1,200,500 1,360,000 1,149,800 1,173,800 1,514,000 435,400 6,747,300 181,100 1,843,500 10,721,300 127,587,100 1,664,500 435,400 6,272,000 206,400 890,400 9,468,700 132,785,700 1,695,600 416,700 5,307,000 137,500 1,209,800 8,766,600 131,979,100 1,710,100 398,800 4,583,000 137,500 1,262,600 8,092,000 136,802,40 Revenue Source General Fund Local Taxes City Sales Tax Primary Property Tax Transient Lodging Tax Total Local Taxes Intergovernmental Revenue State Income Tax State Sales Tax Vehicle License Tax Total Intergovernmental Other Revenue Sources Franchise Fees SRP Payment in Lieu of Taxes Interest Income Loan Repayment Other Miscellaneous Revenue Total Other Revenue Total General Fund 112 Comparative Revenue by Source Revenue Source Debt Service Fund Secondary Property Tax SRP Payment in Lieu of Taxes Interest Income Total Debt Service Fund 1999-00 Actual 2000-01 Revised 2001-02 Budget 2002-03 Budget 10,416,400 675,100 247,000 11,615,100 684,800 0 11,913,000 654,800 0 12,926,100 626,100 0 11,338,500 12,299,900 12,567,800 13,552,200 26,384,500 325,300 316,000 2,120,300 1,090,800 23,100 27,609,500 305,400 308,400 2,518,000 2,216,900 17,100 29,193,000 307,700 345,000 2,242,000 2,925,400 17,700 30,506,000 297,500 345,000 1,936,000 3,022,200 18,400 30,260,000 32,975,300 35,030,800 36,125,100 11,041,100 976,000 11,240,100 925,500 10,162,600 932,300 10,355,700 901,600 12,017,100 12,165,600 11,094,900 11,257,300 1,850,000 (325,300) 33,300 1,850,000 (305,400) 0 0 (307,700) 0 0 (297,500) 0 13,575,100 13,710,200 10,787,200 10,959,800 583,500 108,800 492,700 1,221,600 580,000 112,300 427,000 32,200 611,600 123,500 283,000 32,200 639,000 135,900 244,000 32,200 2,406,600 1,151,500 1,050,300 1,051,100 0 0 1,900,000 28,000 5,500,000 104,000 5,740,000 134,000 0 1,928,000 5,604,000 5,874,000 2,390,100 4,624,100 2,967,700 4,985,700 2,637,600 4,996,200 2,687,600 5,018,300 7,014,200 7,953,400 7,633,800 7,705,900 Transit Fund Transit Tax Lottery Transfer In ASU-Flash Transit Interest Income Federal and State Funding Miscellaneous Revenue Total Transit Fund Transportation Funds Intergovernmental Revenue Highway User Revenue Tax State Lottery Proceeds Total Intergovernmental Revenue Maintenance of Effort Transfer Lottery Transfer to Transit Other Revenue Total Transportation Funds Rio Salado Fund City Sales Tax Transient Lodging Tax Interest Income Miscellaneous Revenue Total Rio Salado Fund Performing Arts Fund Performing Arts Tax Interest Income Total Performing Arts Fund CDBG/Section 8 Housing Funds Community Development Block Grant Section 8 Housing Total CDBG/Section 8 Housing Funds 113 Comparative Revenue by Source Revenue Source Water/Wastewater Fund Charges for Service-Water Water Consumption Water Service Irrigation Other Water Charges Total Charges for Service-Water Charges for Service-Wastewater Sewer Usage Sewer Service Other Wastewater Charges Total Charges for Service-Wastewater Interest Income Land and Facility Rental Loan Repayment from General Fund Other Miscellaneous Revenue Total Water/Wastewater Fund Sanitation Fund Charges for Services Residential Service Commercial Service Roll-Off Service Recycling Total Charges for Service Sludge Disposal Interest Income Other Revenue Sources Total Sanitation Fund Golf Fund Greens Fees Pro Shop and Restaurant Revenue Interest Income Other Revenue Sources Transfer to General Fund Total Golf Fund Total Revenue - All Funds 114 1999-00 Actual 2000-01 Revised 2001-02 Budget 2002-03 Budget 17,885,900 6,160,900 268,800 556,100 17,074,000 6,136,200 274,100 689,600 17,920,000 6,140,000 275,200 707,400 17,940,000 6,150,000 280,200 710,800 24,871,700 24,173,900 25,042,600 25,081,000 10,456,100 4,799,800 1,028,600 10,738,300 3,579,400 768,700 10,775,000 3,500,000 107,000 10,800,000 3,500,000 108,500 16,284,500 15,086,400 14,382,000 14,408,500 3,726,700 495,000 624,000 294,200 46,296,100 3,013,000 505,000 624,000 115,300 43,517,600 2,454,000 515,000 624,000 110,100 43,127,700 2,119,000 520,000 624,000 111,200 42,863,700 4,890,700 3,360,200 970,100 185,900 9,406,900 5,238,600 3,766,700 930,700 252,100 10,188,100 5,311,700 3,841,000 977,300 171,900 10,301,900 5,402,200 3,917,800 1,026,100 171,900 10,518,000 123,100 116,400 193,700 9,840,100 64,800 31,500 65,300 10,349,700 93,000 500 64,900 10,460,300 93,000 500 65,000 10,676,500 1,942,500 265,100 88,400 18,900 (43,600) 2,271,300 1,858,500 182,000 68,000 0 (68,900) 2,039,600 1,935,000 202,800 50,000 0 0 2,187,800 1,975,000 164,900 43,000 0 0 2,182,900 $250,589,000 $258,710,900 $260,428,800 $267,793,600 City Sales Tax Amount Percent Change 1992-93 $26,465,874 9.8 1993-94 33,859,498 27.9 1994-951 49,632,044 46.6 1995-96 48,488,111 (2.3) 1996-97 50,495,336 4.1 1997-98 57,283,547 13.4 1998-99 During 1995, Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 22 required revenue from taxpayer-assessed taxes to be 1999-00 recognized in the accounting period in which they become susceptible to accrual. This resulted in 13 months being recorded in FY 94-95. 2000-01 est. Account: 4001 2001-02 est. 60,100,000 4.9 59,967,700 (.2) 63,566,000 6.0 66,744,000 5.0 2002-03 est. 70,081,000 5.0 Restrictions Current rate of 1.8% can be increased only by electorate. Fiscal Year Proceeds are pledged as security for bond payments due under Municipal Property Corporation Agreements. Revenues from a voterapproved 0.5% portion are dedicated to transit purposes, as well as a voter approved 0.1% dedicated funding for Performing Arts. In addition, all transaction privilege tax revenues generated in the Rio Salado Enterprise Fund Zone are deposited to the Rio Salado Fund for the operating expenses of the Rio Salado project. 1 Assumptions The City sales tax, known formally as the transaction privilege tax, is derived from a 1.8% tax on a variety of financial transactions, including retail sales, rental payments, contracting sales, utility, telecommunications payments, and hotel/restaurant sales. The increased revenue growth in FY 1993-94 was the result of a voterapproved increase in the sales tax rate from 1.0% to 1.2%. Although Tempe voters approved increases of 0.5% (September 1996) and 0.1% (January 2001), these additional revenues are devoted to transit and performing arts needs and are not reflected in the amounts above. Our projection for 5.0% growth reflects the expectation that sales tax growth will remain steady. Major Influences: Taxable Sales, Population, and Consumer Price Index City Sales Tax $ Millions 80.0 60.0 40.0 60.1 57.3 49.6 20.0 70.1 66.7 63.6 60.0 50.5 48.5 33.9 26.5 0.0 3 4 -9 1 2 99 5 -9 1 3 99 6 -9 1 4 99 7 -9 1 5 99 8 -9 1 6 99 9 -9 7 99 1 1 t. 0 -9 8 99 -0 1 9 99 1 -0 00 20 t. es 2 -0 01 20 t. es 3 -0 es 02 20 Fiscal Year 115 City Property Tax Restrictions Fiscal Year 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 est. 2001-02 est. 2002-03 est. Primary Levy: Limited to annual increase of 2% plus amount generated by new construction. No restriction on usage. Secondary Limit: Restricted for debt service purposes only. No limit on rate. Account: 4012 Percent Change (2.0) 4.2 (4.1) 8.7 4.2 8.0 9.7 9.2 11.2 2.5 6.2 Amount $11,323,512 11,803,199 11,315,869 12,297,510 12,808,631 13,832,004 15,172,288 16,561,936 18,414,400 18,869,700 20,043,800 Assumptions The City’s property tax is levied based on the full cash value of property from the previous February 10th as determined by the Maricopa County Assessor, whose office both bills and collects all property taxes. Changes in total revenue collected during these years have been the result of state policy affecting assessed valuations, assessed valuation growth, and new development. The combined primary and secondary property tax rate for FY 2001-02 will total $1.35 per $100 assessed valuation, consisting of $0.53 per $100 of primary assessed valuation for operating and maintenance costs and $0.82 per $100 of secondary assessed valuation to fund principal and interest payments on bond indebtedness. The City held the aggregate property tax rate at $1.40 for six fiscal years before decreasing it by .05 in FY 200001. A change in the County Assessor’s methodology for valuing residential property explains much of the growth in FY 2000-01. For the biennial budget period, assessed valuation growth is expected to be lower than the long-term average due to valuation methodology changes and compliance with truth in taxation legislation. Major Influences: Development, Assessor Appraisal Methodology, State Policy, Population Growth, and Policy Regarding Property Tax Rates City Property Tax $ Millions 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 11.8 11.3 5.0 15.2 13.8 12.8 12.3 11.3 20.0 18.9 18.4 16.6 0.0 1 2 99 -9 3 1 3 99 -9 4 1 4 99 -9 5 1 5 99 -9 6 1 6 99 -9 7 1 7 99 -9 8 1 Fiscal Year 116 8 99 -9 9 1 9 99 -0 0 20 00 1 -0 es t. 20 01 2 -0 es t. 20 02 3 -0 es t. Transient Lodging Tax Restrictions Fiscal Year 1992-93 Fifty percent of the proceeds are pledged for the Tempe Convention and Visitors Bureau. Excess proceeds are for unrestricted General Fund usage, except for bed tax revenue generated within the Rio Salado Enterprise Zone, which is deposited to the Rio Salado Fund for operating costs of the Rio Salado Project. Account: 4002 Amount $862,036 Percent Change 13.2 1993-94 965,382 12.0 1994-95 1,160,235 20.2 1995-96 1,236,458 6.6 1996-97 1,379,301 11.6 1997-98 1,584,138 14.9 1998-99 1,649,000 4.1 1999-00 1,625,300 (1.4) 2000-01 est. 1,713,000 5.4 2001-02 est. 1,782,000 4.0 2002-03 est. 1,853,000 4.0 Assumptions The current transient lodging tax is 2%, which originated in June 1988 for businesses within the city charging for lodging for any period of not more than 30 consecutive days. Our projection for the biennium is for transient lodging revenues to grow at the historical rate. Major Influences: Economy, Competition from Hotels Located in Neighboring Cities, and Consumer Price Index Transient Lodging Tax $ Thousands 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 66.5%* 74.3%* 79.3%* 80.3%* 79.8%* 3,091 3,185 3,185 3,185 3,505 72.8%* 3,823 66.3%* 67.8%* 68.0%* 68.0%* 68.0%* 4,504 4,720 4,720 5,000 5,000 0 3 -9 92 9 1 4 -9 93 9 1 5 -9 94 9 1 6 -9 95 9 1 7 -9 96 9 1 8 -9 97 9 1 9 -9 98 9 1 0 -0 99 9 1 1 -0 00 0 2 t. es 2 -0 01 0 2 t. es 3 -0 02 0 2 t. es Fiscal Year *Percent Occupied/Number of Rooms 117 Salt River Project In–Lieu Tax Restrictions Amount $1,101,364 Percent Change 3.9 1993-94 1,311,706 19.1 1994-95 1,357,799 3.5 1995-96 1,322,950 (2.6) 1996-97 1,263,705 (4.5) 1997-98 1,199,458 (5.1) 1998-99 1,144,363 (4.6) 1999-00 1,110,500 (3.0) 2000-01 est. 1,120,200 (0.9) 2001-02 est. 1,071,500 (4.3) 2002-03 est. 1,024,900 (4.3) Fiscal Year 1992-93 No restrictions on usage. Account: 4015 Assumptions As a government-operated public utility, the Salt River Project pays no franchise or property taxes. In lieu of these taxes, an amount is received from the utility based on a computation involving property location and plant investment. Proceeds from this revenue source are received through Maricopa County in June and December. The SRP In-Lieu Payment is expected to fall by 4.3% in FY 2001-03 as the assessment ratio will be reduced from 30% to 25% according to state statute. Major Influences: Real Property Value and State Policy (assessment ratio) Salt River Project In-Lieu Tax $ Thousands 1,400 1,200 1,000 30%* 1,358 30%* 800 30%* 600 1,312 29%* 28%* 27%* 1,323 26%* 1,264 25%* 25%* 1,199 25%* 25%* 1,144 1,111 1,120 1,072 1,025 1,101 400 200 0 3 4 -9 2 99 1 5 -9 1 3 99 6 -9 1 4 99 7 -9 1 5 99 8 -9 1 6 99 1 Fiscal Year *Percents represent the assessment ratio on SRP real property. 118 9 -9 7 99 1 t. 0 -9 8 99 -0 1 9 99 01 t. es - 00 20 02 t. es - 01 20 - 03 02 20 es State-Shared Sales Tax Restrictions Proceeds are pledged as security for bond payments under Municipal Property Corporation agreements. Excess proceeds are restricted to usage. Account: 4204 Fiscal Year 1992-93 Amount $9,280,400 Percent Change 8.0 1993-94 10,062,100 8.4 1994-95 10,937,700 8.7 1995-96 11,474,400 4.9 1996-97 10,857,100 5.4 1997-98 11,467,000 5.6 1998-99 11,700,000 2.0 1999-00 13,511,400 15.5 2000-01 est. 14,400,000 6.6 2001-02 est. 12,676,900 (12.0) 2002-03 est. 13,386,800 5.6 Assumptions The state assesses a 5% sales tax, of which 2% is designated for educational purposes and 1% deposited in the State general fund. From the remaining 2%, cities and towns share in 25% of the collections total (estimated at $323.3 million for FY 2001-02) on the basis of their population to total state population. Distributions beginning in FY 2001-02 are based on the 2000 Census. Prior to 2000, Tempe accounted for 4.5% of the state’s population (state-shared revenue distributions until FY 2000-01 are based on the 1995 Special Census), but with the 2000 Census, Tempe’s share fell to 4.0%. This reduction explains much of the decline in Tempe’s state-shared sales tax revenue. Although the strength of the state’s economy has offset the effect of the Census, the result of the 2000 Census is a reduction to our state-shared revenues. Major Influences: Taxable Sales, Population (relative to State) and State Policy State-Shared Sales Tax $ Millions 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 170.7* 6.0 9.3 184.3* 200.1* 10.1 10.9 219.9* 11.5 230.3* 245.0* 256.1* 10.9 11.5 11.7 252.8* 283.6* 14.4 13.5 323.3* 341.4* 12.7 13.4 4.0 2.0 0.0 1 2 99 -9 3 1 3 99 -9 4 1 4 99 -9 5 1 5 99 -9 6 1 6 99 -9 7 1 7 99 -9 8 1 8 99 Fiscal Year -9 9 1 9 99 -0 0 20 00 1 -0 es t. 20 01 2 -0 es t. 20 02 3 -0 es t. *Total state-shared sales tax revenue pool for distribution to cities and towns ($ in millions) 119 State-Shared Vehicle License Tax Restrictions No restrictions on usage. Must be expended for public purpose. Amount $2,560,309 Percent Change (1.5) 1993-94 3,238,166 26.5 1994-95 4,031,788 24.5 1995-96 3,863,003 (4.2) 1996-97 4,150,865 7.5 1997-98 4,390,865 5.8 1998-99 4,700,000 7.0 1999-00 5,498,000 17.0 2000-01 est. 5,900,000 7.3 2001-02 est. 5,959,000 1.0 2002-03 est. 5,959,000 0.0 Fiscal Year 1992-93 Account: 4214 Assumptions Cities and towns receive 25% of the net revenues collected for vehicle licensing within their county. The respective shares are determined by the proportion of population to total incorporated population of the county. The remainder of the revenues collected are shared by schools, counties, and the state. Continued strong economic performance in the state during FY 1998-99, sustained in large part by high population growth, more than offset the recovery of overpayments made to cities by Maricopa County from 1992 to 1995. Expected declining auto sales should bring growth for this revenue down during the next biennium. Major Influences: Population (relative to State), State Policy and Auto Sales State-Shared Vehicle License Tax $ Millions 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 2.6 4.4 4.2 3.9 3.2 6.0 5.9 5.5 6.0 4.7 1.0 0.0 3 -9 92 9 1 4 -9 93 9 1 5 -9 94 9 1 6 -9 95 9 1 7 -9 96 9 1 8 -9 97 9 1 Fiscal Year 120 9 -9 98 9 1 0 -0 99 9 1 01 00 20 t. es 02 10 20 t. es 03 20 20 t. es State-Shared Income Tax Restrictions Proceeds are pledged as security for bond payments due under Municipal Property Corporation agreements. Excess proceeds are unrestricted as to usage. Amount $9,175,251 Percent Change 4.4 9,256,278 1.0 11,139,519 20.4 1995-96 9,939,946 (10.8) 1996-97 11,139,519 12.1 1997-98 13,158,548 18.1 1998-99 15,000,000 14.0 1999-00 17,045,900 13.6 2000-01 est. 17,950,500 5.3 2001-02 est. 16,542,100 (7.9) 2002-03 est. 17,747,400 7.3 Fiscal Year 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1 During 1995, Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 22 required revenue from taxpayerassessed taxes to be recognized in the accounting period in which they become susceptible to accrual. This resulted in 13 months being recorded in FY 1994-95. Account: 4208 1 Assumptions The right to levy income taxes in Arizona is a state responsibility. Amounts distributed are based on actual income tax collections from two years prior to the fiscal year in which the City receives the funds. Arizona cities and towns were entitled to receive 15% of the State’s income tax collections until FY 1992-93 when the percentage dropped to 13.6%. The percentage share then was restored to 15% in FY 1997-98 and then increased in FY 199900 to 15.8%. However, in a 1999 state legislation session, the local share fell back to 15% and is the percentage at present. This state-shared revenue is distributed to cities or towns based on the relation of their population to the total population of all incorporated cities and towns in the state. Prior to 2000, Tempe accounted for 4.5% of the state’s population (state-shared revenue distributions until FY 2000-01 were based on the 1995 Special Census), but with the 2000 Special Census, Tempe’s share fell to 4.0%. This accounts for the decline in FY 2001-02. The estimated growth in FY 2002-03 is in accordance with historical standards and driven by statewide population and personal income growth. Major Influences: Personal Income (current $), Corporate Net Profits, Population (relative to State) and State Policy State-Shared Income Tax $ Millions 20 15 10 13.6%* $185.4 15.0%* $183.7 5 13.6%* $205.6 15.0%* $291.2 13.6%* 13.6%* 15.0%* $452.6 15.0%* $421.9 15.8%* $396.5 15.8%* $377.7 15.0%* $340.3 $257.8 $218.6 Fiscal Year 0 9 19 2- 93 9 19 3- 94 9 19 4- 95 9 19 5- 96 9 19 6- 97 9 19 7- 98 9 19 8- 99 9 19 9- 00 20 00 1 -0 es t. 20 01 2 -0 es t. 20 02 3 -0 es t. * Percent of state income tax collections distributed to cities and towns/Total state-shared tax revenue pool ($ in millions) 121 Charges for Services/Recreation and Social Services Restrictions No restrictions on usage, but intended to defray costs of recreation and social service programs. Accounts: 4301-4315 Fiscal Year 1992-93 Amount $2,066,438 Percent Change 6.4 1993-94 2,333,299 12.9 1994-95 2,524,369 8.2 1995-96 2,732,022 8.2 1996-97 3,145,907 15.2 1997-98 3,369,509 7.1 1998-99 3,345,728 (0.7) 1999-00 3,836,700 14.7 2000-01 est. 3,600,800 (6.2) 2001-02 est. 3,478,800 (3.4) 2002-03 est. 3,479,400 0.02 Assumptions Revenue in this category is derived from a wide array of recreational activities (such as softball, swimming, and tennis) and social services programs (such as counseling services and after-school programs). By Council policy, many of these activities and services are partially or fully-funded through user charges. Fees are based on a targeted percentage for cost recovery of direct program operating costs, including wages and supply costs but excluding facility costs, administration, and capital outlay. The percentage of recovery of direct program costs is by classification of user groups as follows: adult programs, 100% cost recovery; youth programs and senior programs, 50% cost recovery; and all Kiwanis Recreation Center classes/programs, 100% cost recovery. Most of the additional revenue generated in FY 1996-97 and FY1997-98 was related to the expansion of social service programs, especially Kid Zone and Teen Zone, which operate under the 100% cost recovery policy. Over the longer term, we expect recreational and social services to increase as the department plans to expand services. Major Influences: Population, Internal Policy and Program Development Charges for Services/Recreation and Social Services $ Millions 4.0 3.0 2.0 3.8 3.4 3.1 3.5 3.5 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.0 3.6 3.3 0.0 1 2 99 -9 3 1 3 99 -9 4 1 4 99 -9 5 1 5 99 -9 6 1 6 99 -9 7 1 7 99 -9 8 Fiscal Year 122 1 8 99 -9 9 1 9 99 -0 0 20 00 1 -0 es t. 20 01 2 -0 es t. 20 02 3 -0 es t. Charges for Services/Development Related Restrictions Proceeds are pledged as security for bond payments due under the Municipal Property Corporation Agreements. Excess proceeds are unrestricted as to usage. Accounts: 4102-4112 (Building & Trade Permits) 4401-4405, 4411-4413 (Engineering Fees) 4406-4410, 4414-4418 (Planning & Zoning) Fiscal Year Percent Change Amount 1992-93 $1,361,825 6.4 1993-94 2,980,551 118.9 1994-95 2,860,656 (4.0) 1995-96 2,711,393 (5.2) 1996-97 3,586,390 32.3 1997-98 3,973,347 10.8 1998-99 2,822,892 29.0 1999-00 2,957,600 4.8 2000-01 est. 3,550,000 20.0 2001-02 est. 3,303,600 (2.6) 2002-03 est. 3,303,600 0.0 Assumptions Declines in development related permit revenues in the early 1990’s were largely a function of slower population growth, a more stringent Tax Reform Act of 1986, and a downturn in both the economy and development. A new building permit and plan check fee structure was implemented in August 1991, while planning, zoning, and engineering fees were revised in FY 1992-93. The annual growth rates shown above reflect the sometimes extreme cyclical nature of development. Following a year that included permit revenue related to the new Arizona Mills Mall, FY 1998-99 saw a drop-off in development activity in all sectors, consistent with declining rates of growth county-wide. In the long term, development revenue growth should accelerate again with new, major developments planned for the downtown area and Rio Salado. Further, effective FY 2001-02, development related activities fees increased. Major Influences: Population, Tax Laws, Economy and Development Charges for Services Development Related $ Millions 5.0 4.0 3.0 2298* $265.1 2.0 2291* $275.4 2532* $492.4 1984* $406.8 2038* $248.5 1429* $262.2 1717* $317.1 1882* $302.8 1400* $240.0 1400* $240.0 1307* $87.8 1.0 * Number of building permits/Valuation ($ in millions) 0.0 19 92 -9 3 19 93 -9 4 19 94 -9 5 19 95 -9 6 19 96 -9 7 19 97 -9 8 Fiscal Year 19 98 -9 9 19 99 -0 0 20 0 0 0- 1 es t. 20 0 0 1- 2 es t. 20 0 0 2- 3 es t. 123 Fines and Forfeitures Restrictions Amount $2,402,640 Percent Change 12.3 1993-94 2,509,835 4.5 1994-95 2,918,357 16.3 1995-96 3,234,571 10.8 1996-97 3,162,253 2.2 1997-98 3,636,208 15.0 1998-99 3,856,034 6.1 1999-00 4,709,700 22.1 2000-01 est. 4,179,200 (11.3) 2001-02 est. 4,321,400 3.4 2002-03 est. 4,310,500 (0.03) Fiscal Year 1992-93 No restrictions on usage. Accounts: 4601-4609, 4612-4625 Assumptions The fines and forfeitures revenues to the City derive from fines related to parking, traffic, criminal, animal control, defensive driving school, adult diversion, domestic violence, and false alarms, plus revenues from public defender reimbursements, forfeitures, and boot fees. Much of the FY 2001-02 increase is related to Council– approved increases in false alarm fines and alarm system registration fees and a police selective neighborhood traffic enforcement unit. Major Influences: Population (Demographics), Crime Rate and Internal Policy (Enforcement, Number of Police Officers) Fines and Forfeitures $ Millions 5.00 4.00 3.00 4.71 2.00 3.23 2.92 2.51 2.40 3.64 3.16 4.32 4.18 3.86 4.31 1.00 0.00 1 2 99 -9 3 1 3 99 -9 4 1 4 99 -9 5 1 5 99 -9 6 1 6 99 -9 7 1 7 99 -9 8 Fiscal Year 124 1 8 99 -9 9 1 9 99 -0 0 20 00 - 01 es t. 20 01 - 02 es t. 20 02 - 03 es t. Interest Earnings Restrictions: No restrictions on usage. Enterprise Funds Percent Amount Change $1,508,623 4.4 Fiscal Year 1992-93 General Governmental Percent Amount Change $2,722,322 24.2 1993-94 1,487,856 1.4 2,147,608 21.1 1994-95 1,854,923 24.7 3,644,455 69.7 1995-96 1,945,695 4.9 4,750,313 30.3 1996-97 2,111,981 8.6 5,296,770 11.5 1997-98 2,759,749 30.7 5,527,174 4.4 1998-99 3,003,500 8.8 5,814,000 5.2 1999-00 3,931,500 30.9 6,994,300 16.1 2000-01 est. 3,112,500 (20.8) 6,272,000 (7.0) 2001-02 est. 2,504,500 (19.5) 5,307,000 (15.4) 2002-03 est. 2,162,500 (13.7) 4,583,000 (13.6) Assumptions Interest earnings are derived from the investment of cash. The City’s investment policy authorizes investments in U.S. Treasury and Agency obligations, certificates of deposit, commercial paper, bankers’ acceptances, repurchase agreements, money market funds, and the State of Arizona’s Local Government Investment Pool. Revenues are influenced by the amount of temporarily idle cash on hand, prevailing short-term interest rates, and the scope and timing of the City’s bond issues. Expenditure controls and rate adjustments in the Enterprise Funds, particularly the Water/Wastewater Fund have produced higher cash balances and greater interest income recently. Revenue growth, resulting from the strong economy, has bolstered cash balances in the General Fund as well. FY 2000-01 should see a reversal of this trend, with planned drawdowns of fund balances occurring to fund capital projects as the City continues its policy of utilizing these balances as “pay-as-you-go” financing in place of debt financing. Major Influences: Cash Balances, Short-Term Governmental Interest Rates, and Bond Sales Interest Earnings $ Millions Enterprise Fund 12.0 General Governmental 10.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.3 5.3 4.8 4.0 6.3 5.8 5.5 4.6 3.6 2.7 2.1 1.5 1.5 2.0 3.9 3.0 2.8 2.1 1.9 1.9 3.1 2.5 2.2 0.0 3 -9 92 9 1 4 -9 93 9 1 5 -9 94 9 1 6 -9 95 9 1 7 -9 96 9 1 8 -9 97 9 1 9 -9 98 9 1 Fiscal Year 0 -0 99 9 1 01 00 20 t. es 02 10 20 t. es 03 20 20 t. es 125 Transit Tax Restrictions Represents a portion of the City sales tax dedicated by public vote to transit-related purposes, such as bus acquisition and maintenance, connecting bus routes to neighboring cities, bus stop construction, and transit planning. Amount $10,429,431 Percent Change - 1997-98 23,212,252 122.6 1998-99 25,300,000 9.0 1999-00 26,384,500 4.3 2000-01 est. 27,609,500 4.6 2001-02 est. 29,193,000 5.7 2002-03 est. 30,506,000 4.5 Fiscal Year 1996-97 Account: 4004 Assumptions The Transit Tax represents 1/2 cent of the 1.8% City sales tax. The amount for transit was approved by Tempe voters in September 1996. The additional tax became effective January 1, 1997, thus the revenue for FY 1996-97 only reflects collections over the last half of the fiscal year. The estimate for FY 2001-02 and FY 2002-03 closely follows our estimate for overall City sales tax growth of 5.0%. Major Influences: Taxable Sales, Population and Consumer Price Index Transit Tax $ Millions 35.00 30.00 Transit Tax effective January 1, 1997 25.00 26.38 25.30 29.19 30.51 t. es t. es 27.61 23.21 20.00 15.00 10.00 10.43 5.00 0.00 3 4 -9 2 99 1 5 -9 1 3 99 6 -9 1 4 99 7 -9 1 5 99 8 -9 1 6 99 1 Fiscal Year 126 9 -9 7 99 0 -9 1 8 99 -0 1 9 99 1 -0 00 0 2 t. es 2 -0 01 0 2 3 -0 02 0 2 Performing Arts Tax Restrictions Represents a portion of the City sales tax dedicated by public vote for a Performing Arts center and related activities. Fiscal Year 2000-01 est. Amount $1,900,000 Percent Change - 2001-02 est. 5,500,000 189.5 2002-03 est. 5,740,000 4.4 Account: 4005 Assumptions The Performing Arts Tax represents a voter-approved 0.1% increase to the 1.8% City Sales Tax. These funds are dedicated for a Visual and Performing Arts Center. The tax for the performing arts was implemented in January 2001, therefore, FY 2000-01 reflects a partial year. Major Influences: Taxable Sales, Population, and Consumer Price Index Performing Arts Tax $ Millions 6.00 5.7 5.5 5.00 4.00 3.00 Performing Arts Tax effective January 1, 2001 2.00 1.9 1.00 0.00 93 29 19 94 39 19 95 49 19 96 59 19 97 69 19 98 79 19 99 89 19 1 -0 00 0 2 t. es 2 -0 01 0 2 t. es 3 -0 02 0 2 t. es Fiscal Year 127 Highway User Tax Restrictions Proceeds can be used only for street and highway purposes including right-of-way acquisition, construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and payment of debt services on highway and street bonds. Fiscal Year 1992-93 Amount $8,361,432 Percent Change 3.4 1993-94 8,965,553 7.2 1994-95 1995-96 9,449,774 10,238,951 5.4 8.4 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 est. 2001-02 est. 2002-03 est. 9,788,235 9,684,269 10,000,000 11,041,100 11,240,100 10,162,600 10,355,700 4.4 1.1 3.3 10.4 1.8 (9.6) 1.9 Assumptions Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) revenues are comprised primarily of a share of the state-imposed tax on fuel (18 cents per gallon), but also include a portion of vehicle license taxes and other motor carrier permits and fees. Of the statewide total HURF revenues, 27.5% is distributed to cities and towns. Of this amount, one-half is distributed based on each city or town’s percentage share of the statewide total population of all incorporated cities and towns. The remaining one-half is divided into county pools based on each county’s share of statewide fuel sales. Within each county, cities and towns receive an allocation based on their percentage share of total incorporated population in the county. The sudden drop in FY 1991-92 was the result of an action by the state Legislature to fund a portion of the state Highway Patrol from HURF revenue, thereby lowering the pool of funds available for distribution to cities and towns. Continued reduction in FY 1996-97 and FY 1997-98 were the result of Tempe’s Special Census, which placed Tempe at 4.5% of the state’s population, down from our 5% share which resulted from the 1990 Census. The FY 2001-02 decline is a reflection of the 2000 Census, which resulted in Tempe’s share again declining to 4.0%. Major Influences: Population, State Policy, Economy and Gasoline Sales. Highway User Tax $ Millions 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 237.9* 210.5* 228.6* 8.36 8.97 9.45 4.00 215.3* 225.6* 240.8* 255.3* 9.79 9.68 10.00 10.24 265.5* 264.8* 11.04 11.24 290.9* 306.6* 10.16 10.36 2.00 0.00 9 19 2- 93 9 19 3- 94 9 19 4- 95 9 19 5- 96 9 19 6- 97 9 19 7- 98 Fiscal Year * Represents the assessment ration of SRP real property. 128 9 19 8- 99 9 19 9- 00 20 0 0 0- 1 es t. 20 0 0 1- 2 es t. 20 0 0 2- 3 es t. Local Transportation Assistance Fund Restrictions Proceeds can be used only for street and highway projects, for any construction or reconstruction in the public right-of-way as well as transit programs. Account : 4212 Amount $1,130,372 1,123,762 Percent Change 1.0 0.6 1994-95 1,107,750 1.4 1995-96 1,089,151 1.7 1996-97 1,081,122 0.7 1997-98 1,019,776 5.7 1998-99 950,000 6.6 1999-00 976,000 2.7 2000-01 est. 925,500 (5.2) 2001-02 est. 932,300 0.8 2002-03 est. 901,600 (3.3) Fiscal Year 1992-93 1993-94 Assumptions Revenues are derived from the state lottery game and the multi-state Powerball lottery game. By state statute, the state must distribute at least $20.5 million annually to cities and towns from state lottery revenues, up to a maximum total distribution pool of $23 million. Amounts distributed to cities and towns are based on their percentage share of statewide population as determined and updated annually by the state Department of Economic Security. Revenues derived from Powerball may be received only after the state first collects $21 million from Powerball sales. If this threshold is reached, the state will distribute up to a total of $18 million from Powerball revenues, dividing the pool into amounts based on each county’s share of lottery ticket sales. Amounts from these county pools distributed to cities and towns are based on each city or town’s share of incorporated population in the county. Continued reductions in lottery revenues over the past 10 years reflect the overall decline in the total amount of funds available statewide for distribution. State lottery sales continue to suffer since the introduction of Powerball and casino-style gaming on Native American Reservations. Further exacerbating problems in this revenue is Tempe’s declining share of statewide population. Major Influences: Population (relative to State) and Lottery Ticket Sales Local Transportation Assistance Fund $ Thousands 1,200 1,000 800 600 1,130 1,124 400 1,108 1,089 1,081 1,020 976 950 932 926 902 Declining revenue reflects lower statewide Lottery revenue and Tempe’s slower population growth 200 0 3 -9 92 9 1 4 -9 93 9 1 5 -9 94 9 1 6 -9 95 9 1 7 -9 96 9 1 8 -9 97 9 1 Fiscal Year 9 -9 98 9 1 0 -0 99 9 1 1 -0 00 0 2 t. es 2 -0 01 0 2 t. es 3 -0 02 0 2 t. es 129 Community Development Block Grant/Section 8 Housing Grant Restrictions Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds are awarded by the federal government and may be used only for the rehabilitation of owner-occupied housing and the removal of “slum and blight”. Section 8 Housing Grants, also federal funds, may be used only for rent and utility subsidies for low income persons. Account : 4202 Community Development Block Grant Percent Amount Change Fiscal Year Section 8 Housing Grant Percent Amount Change 1992-93 $1,912,124 128.4 $3,725,246 24.2 1993-94 2,325,740 21.6 3,630,121 (2.6) 1994-95 1,610,050 (30.8) 3,719,248 2.5 1995-96 1,980,305 23.0 3,846,066 3.4 1996-97 2,700,015 36.3 3,861,578 0.4 1997-98 2,915,622 8.0 3,843,309 (0.5) 1998-99 2,399,237 (17.7) 4,068,842 5.9 1999-00 2,390,100 (0.4) 4,624,100 13.6 2000-01 est. 2,967,700 24.2 4,985,700 7.8 2001-02 est. 2,637,600 (11.1) 4,996,200 0.2 2002-03 est. 2,687,600 0.0 5,018,300 0.4 Assumptions Funding levels in both programs are based on a federal formula which reflects local factors such as the percentage of people living in poverty, unemployment, population, age of existing housing, and the need for housing. Major Influences: Federal Policy, Poverty Levels and Population Community Development Block Grant/Section 8 Housing Grant $ Millions Community Development Block Grant 10.0 Section 8 Housing Grant 8.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.6 3.7 2.0 2.3 3.8 2.7 2.9 4.1 4.6 2.4 2.4 5.0 5.0 2.6 2.7 3.8 3.7 1.9 3.9 2.0 1.6 3.0 0.0 1 2 99 -9 3 1 3 99 -9 4 1 4 99 -9 5 1 5 99 -9 6 1 6 99 -9 7 1 7 99 -9 8 1 Fiscal Year 130 8 99 -9 9 1 9 99 -0 0 20 00 - 01 es t. 20 01 - 02 es t. 20 02 - 03 es t. Water/Wastewater Revenues User Fees Restrictions Water/Wastewater is a self-supporting, enterprise operation. Amount $26,434,331 28,913,908 Percent Change 13.0 9.4 1994-95 33,107,522 14.5 1995-96 32,895,352 (0.7) 1996-97 34,979,993 6.3 1997-98 37,928,781 8.4 1998-99 37,540,000 (1.0) 1999-00 46,296,100 23.3 2000-01 est. 43,517,600 (6.0) 2001-02 est. 43,127,700 (0.9) 2002-03 est. 42,863,700 (0.6) Fiscal Year 1992-93 1993-94 Accounts: 4282, 4284, 4821-4831, 4834-4842 Assumptions Water/Wastewater revenues are derived from fees and service charges assessed to residential and commercial customers of the City’s water and wastewater systems. Revenues also include charges to the City’s residential irrigation customers. As the graph below depicts, water and sewer rate and fee adjustments were made over three consecutive fiscal years (FY 1991-92 to FY 1993-94) to address increased costs resulting from inflation, debt service on capital projects, operational impact of the South Tempe Water Reclamation Plant, and environmental regulation compliance. In FY 1996-97, irrigation rates were increased by 5%, while sewer rates for residential customers increased an average of 6%. Sewer rates for commercial and industrial customers increased as well in accordance with a new wastewater rate structure based on strength and volume of discharge. Pending rate increases should both bring the water operation into full cost recovery and additional funding for plant expansion. Major Influences: Population, Internal Policy, Water Consumption Patterns and Weather Water/Wastewater Revenues User Fees $ Millions 50.00 40.00 30.00 46.30 20.00 33.11 28.91 26.43 37.93 34.98 32.90 43.52 43.13 42.86 37.54 10.00 0.00 1 2 99 -9 3 1 3 99 -9 4 1 4 99 -9 5 1 5 99 -9 6 1 6 99 -9 7 1 7 99 -9 8 1 8 99 -9 9 1 9 99 -0 0 20 00 - 01 es t. 20 01 - 02 es t. 20 02 - 03 es t. Fiscal Year 131 Sanitation Fees Restrictions Used to defray costs of providing solid waste collection and disposal service. Any operating deficits are covered by the General Fund from unrestricted revenue. Amount $7,512,296 Percent Change 13.0 1993-94 7,798,631 9.4 1994-95 8,038,917 14.5 1995-96 8,484,046 0.6 1996-97 8,636,576 6.3 1997-98 9,039,504 8.4 1998-99 9,256,680 1.0 1999-00 9,840,100 6.3 2000-01 est. 10,349,700 5.2 2001-02 est. 10,460,300 1.1 2002-03 est. 10,676,500 2.1 Fiscal Year 1992-93 Accounts: 4251-4259 Assumptions The collection and disposal of solid waste constitutes the City’s second largest enterprise operation. Revenues derive from user fees for residential, commercial, roll-off, and uncontained solid waste service. As the graph below indicates, residential solid waste fees were increased three times starting in FY 1991-92 to address increased landfill and recycling costs. Most recently, residential rates were increased in January 1998 by 3% to address projected shortfalls in the Sanitation Fund. Solid waste fees are reviewed annually to determine if the fee structure will generate sufficient revenue to cover fund operating expenses and provide a reserve for capital expenditures and contingencies. As the City approaches build-out (Tempe is a landlocked city), Sanitation revenue growth should slow to a level closely following population and development, aside from any further rate adjustments. Major Influences: Population, Internal Policy, and Commercial Market/Competition Sanitation Fees $ Millions 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 $10.40 5/92 $11.75 3/98 $11.40 2/93 2.00 * Monthly residential rate changes are indicated in the FY when rates were modified. 0.00 3 -9 92 19 4 -9 93 19 5 -9 94 19 6 -9 95 19 7 -9 96 19 8 -9 97 19 Fiscal Year 132 9 -9 98 19 0 -0 99 19 1 -0 00 20 t. es 2 -0 01 20 t. es 3 -0 02 20 t. es Golf Course Fees Restrictions Revenues are used to defray costs of operating the Rolling Hills and Ken McDonald golf courses. Rolling Hills Percent Amount Change $744,171 1.5 818,018 9.9 824,968 0.9 1,016,217 23.2 1,051,586 3.5 994,964 5.4 997,000 0.2 882,082 (11.5) 840,000 (4.8) 875,000 4.2 895,000 2.3 Fiscal Year 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 est. 2001-02 est. 2002-03 est. Ken McDonald Percent Amount Change $879,451 0.4 1,076,361 22.4 1,086,521 0.9 1,156,946 63.5 1,294,228 11.9 1,237,961 4.4 1,246,000 0.7 1,060,418 (14.9) 1,018,500 (4.0) 1,060,000 4.1 1,080,000 1.9 Assumptions Revenue from greens fees account for nearly 91% of golf course revenues, with the rest coming from lease agreements with the pro shops and restaurant concessionaires. Fees are reviewed annually to ensure that revenues will fully cover the cost of Golf Fund operations while providing a sufficient reserve to address capital funding needs. Golf fees were last adjusted in June 1999 when greens fees for nine holes for non-residents during the Summer increased by $1. FY 1997-98 revenues fell from the prior year as weather conditions reduced rounds of play. Our projection over the biennium is to conservatively assume no growth in revenues, particularly in light of the volatility that can result from weather conditions or fee changes. Major Influences: Competition from Other Golf Courses, Weather, and City Fee Policy Golf Course Fees $ Thousands Rolling Hills 2500 Ken McDonald 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1 2 99 -9 3 1 3 99 -9 4 1 4 99 -9 5 1 5 99 -9 6 1 6 99 -9 7 1 7 99 Fiscal Year -9 8 1 8 99 -9 9 1 9 99 -0 0 20 00 1 -0 es t. 20 01 2 -0 es t. 20 02 3 -0 es t. 133 Performance Budget The following section includes departmental per capita and aggregate appropriations, goals, objectives, performance indicators, and staffing levels. This section describes activities, services, and functions carried out by organizational units including the measurement of results by unit, objective and fiscal year. Performance Budget Contents Page Issues Management/Strategic Budgeting ........................................................................................................... 136 Strategic Issues: Goals and Strategy/Action Plan ............................................................................................ 137 Per Capita Performance Budget ........................................................................................................................ 145 Performance Budget Summary .......................................................................................................................... 146 Performance Benchmarking ............................................................................................................................... 147 Mayor and Council .............................................................................................................................................. 148 City Manager ....................................................................................................................................................... 150 Internal Audit .......................................................................................................................................... 152 Neighborhood Program ........................................................................................................................... 153 Government Relations ............................................................................................................................. 155 Economic Development ....................................................................................................................................... 156 Community Relations .......................................................................................................................................... 158 Tempe Learning Center ...................................................................................................................................... 160 Strategic Planning................................................................................................................................................ 162 City Clerk ............................................................................................................................................................. 164 City Court............................................................................................................................................................. 166 Human Resources ................................................................................................................................................ 168 City Attorney ....................................................................................................................................................... 170 Financial Services ................................................................................................................................................ 172 Administration, Accounting, Budget, Risk Management, Central Services, and Tax & License ............ 173 Information Technology ...................................................................................................................................... 176 Development Services .......................................................................................................................................... 178 Administration and Planning & Code Compliance Division ................................................................... 180 Housing Services Division ...................................................................................................................... 182 Community Design and Development Division ...................................................................................... 184 Building Safety and Permits Division...................................................................................................... 185 Police ..................................................................................................................................................................... 188 Office of the Chief ................................................................................................................................... 190 Patrol ....................................................................................................................................................... 192 Support Services ...................................................................................................................................... 194 Investigations........................................................................................................................................... 196 Fire ........................................................................................................................................................................ 198 Administration and Fire Prevention......................................................................................................... 200 Emergency and Medical Services ............................................................................................................ 201 Training and Professional Development.................................................................................................. 203 Special Operations................................................................................................................................... 204 Support Services and Personnel Safety ................................................................................................... 205 Community Services ............................................................................................................................................ 206 Administration and Parks & Recreation .................................................................................................. 208 Library ..................................................................................................................................................... 210 Cultural Services ..................................................................................................................................... 212 Social Services ........................................................................................................................................ 214 Public Works ........................................................................................................................................................ 216 Administration and Engineering .............................................................................................................. 218 Field Services/Administration and Sanitation.......................................................................................... 220 Field Services/Streets Maintenance ......................................................................................................... 222 Field Services/Facility Management........................................................................................................ 224 Field Services/Parks and Golf Course Maintenance ................................................................................ 226 Equipment Management .......................................................................................................................... 228 Transportation ......................................................................................................................................... 230 Water Utilities ...................................................................................................................................................... 234 Water Utilities-Customer Services .......................................................................................................... 236 Water Utilities-Environmental................................................................................................................. 238 135 Issues Management/Strategic Budgeting Scope Tempe implemented an Issues Management Program designed to enhance the identification, prioritization, and management of emerging strategic issues which, by virtue of their scope, complexity, and/or potential impact on City planning, operations and its citizens, require a coordinated multidepartmental action plan and multiyear budget commitment. Issues for consideration are substantive matters of broad concern to the City including internally generated issues resulting from the City's own operations as well as externally generated issues resulting from governmental and regulatory actions, economic and technological developments, social/ demographic trends, or citizen surveys. Purpose The purpose of an Issues Management program for Tempe is to provide a mechanism for identifying, prioritizing, and managing top priority emerging issues which require interdepartmental coordination and to provide a process for integrating strategic planning and budgeting. Issues Management, to have value, should not be an independent process but must be integrated with budget and operational planning. By design, the program should improve the flexibility and quality of decision making on critical emerging issues by clarifying, sorting, analyzing, and winnowing issues to yield specific priorities and plans which have multiyear operational and budget implications. Strategic Issues Management Process Activity Responsibility Identify and prioritize 4 to 5 key goals that each Council Committee City Council wants to achieve and see further progress on for the upcoming budget year. Incorporate goals into Council Committee’s workplan. Establish cross-functional teams and/or standing groups to advance City Manager each goal identified and develop action plans for each. Executive Team Identify and recommend corresponding strategies, action plans, and/or Cross-functional departmental activities to further bring improvement and/or results to Teams goals identified by each committee. Review strategies, action plans, and or departmental activities Staff Coordinators recommended by the cross-functional team/groups with the Executive Executive Team Team. Review strategies/action plans associated with goal with oversight City Council Council Committee for recommendations, and interface to Committee Committee’s work plan. Review strategies, action plans, responsibilities, and associated Staff Coordinator Council Committee work plan with City Council. City Council Incorporate approved goals, strategies, and action plans into operating Executive Team and capital improvement budget program and structure budget requests. Hear and consider FY 2001-03 budget requests from departments City Council (based on FY 2001-03 goals and action plans). Executive Team Evaluate status of FY 2000-01 goals and action plans with management team (midyear review). Evaluate budget requests and allocate budget resources accordingly (based on approved FY 2001-03 goals and action plans). Conduct public sessions on operating and capital improvement budget program (FY 2001-03). Adopt budget program. Review results of goals and action plans established for the fiscal year just completed. Update on goals and strategies established for the current biennium (FY 2001-03). Begin process anew for the next biennial period. 136 Timeframes August Council Advance August September/October Late October, early November Executive Retreat Mid/late November December/January December/January February City Council Executive Team Executive Team February (midyear review) March/April City Council Executive Team City Council City Council Executive Team April/May June August Council Retreat Strategic Issues: Goals and Strategy/Action Plan Neighborhood Enhancement and Public Safety ◊ Goal Examine and implement efficient and cost-effective public safety services F F F F F ◊ Review and assess planning and preparation for Disaster and Civil Disorder programs and procedures F F F ◊ Review and assess public safety prevention and educational efforts F F F F F F F F Strategy/Action Plan Carry out the revised police recruiting plan to achieve full police staffing by implementing the second Neighborhood Traffic Enforcement Squad to service neighborhood traffic complaints and promote school safety, expanding the Crime Prevention unit from one to four officers, and by collaborating with the school districts to staff proposed school resource grant positions with additional police officers Implement the amended alarm ordinance to address false alarms and reduce calls for police service Provide on-going support and follow-up for Fire Department Six Year Plan including moving forward with fire station location plan Prepare for Fire Department Reaccreditation in 2002 Maintain Fire Department staffing at authorized levels and develop a leadership/experience training program in preparation for a higher level of retirements in the future Train staff and plan for the Police Department (PD) response to potential civil disorder through the acquisition of civil disorder equipment, supplies, and line level training, which will occur over the next fiscal year Maintain operation readiness of City of Tempe Emergency Management Plan Conduct an Emergency Management exercise involving all appropriate City departments Maintain and provide crime statistics and tactical crime information to citizens and PD operational units through the PD Crime Analysis Unit Provide crime bulletins, Block Watch data, sex offender information and call for service information during meetings, upon citizen request, and on the PD web site Report exceptional crime incidents near the Arizona State University (ASU) campus to the ASU Department of Public Safety (DPS) in compliance with the Creary Act Work directly with apartment managers on reducing crime and police calls for service in apartment complexes through the PD's Crime Free Multihousing Program Provide comprehensive distribution to citizens of City of Tempe Emergency Preparedness Guide Implement Fire Department’s Urban Survival program in 3 elementary schools as a pilot program Continue comprehensive drowning prevention efforts community wide Expand efforts to insure that smoke detectors are in every residence F Assist neighborhood associations and Tempe Leadership in neighborhood enhancement efforts through smoke detector installation. F Canvas targeted areas door to door 137 Neighborhood Enhancement and Public Safety (continued) Goal ◊ Identify and facilitate current neighborhood issues (crime, transportation, neighborhood deterioration) raised by residents, associations, the Neighborhood Advisory Commission and City staff F F F F F F F F F F F F F Strategy/Action Plan Continue to conduct annual citizen surveys for beat specific information Assign Patrol Officers to beats for one-year periods with individual Patrol Sergeants overseeing problem-solving in specific beats Assign Crime Prevention Officers and police staff to attend neighborhood association meetings, conduct residential/business surveys, and coordinate Block Watch programs Provide information to citizens on crime trends, patterns and crime prevention techniques through StreetBeat, the PD cable show Expand the yearly GAIN (Getting Arizona Involved in Neighborhoods) event sponsored by the Crime Prevention Unit to include other City departments such as Public Works, Fire, Planning, Code Compliance, Neighborhood Program, etc. Address code violations, loud party complaints, and miscellaneous neighborhood issues currently handled by Code Compliance, PD, and the Neighborhood Program Office Review need for possible amendments to City Codes (Noise, Nuisance, Rental Housing) Review perceived non-enforcement of existing codes (e.g., "handbills distributed to houses") Investigate cooperative relationships between neighborhoods and adjacent strip malls in terms of landscaping maintenance, cleanliness and noise issues Promote neighborhood partnerships and ownership of their issues such as neighborhood clean-ups (Code Enforcement provides Tempe's TOOL Box - "Tools Out On Loan" + Code Enforcement's "HELP" program that provides $2,000 grants to low-moderate income residents with code violations) Review Neighborhood Program Office's scope of work Develop clear, effective communication with neighborhood groups and public-at-large such as assisting a neighborhood association's consensus assessment (through mailing postcard ballots) on significant neighborhood issues (e.g., curb ramp improvement procedure) Work with Neighborhood Advisory Commission to develop leadership capacity and motivation within neighborhoods through programs (e.g. Neighborhood Leadership Training and Celebrate Neighborhoods Programs) Human Services and People Improvement Program ◊ F Collaborate and partner with community groups and organizations to address Tempe's homeless problem and implement F the Homeless Task Force Plan Work with the Maricopa Association of Governments Consortium of Care Regional Committee on Homelessness to integrate Tempe's plan into the regional effort Staff a homeless coordinator position to facilitate the delivery of services to homeless individuals and link with the Day Resource Center ◊ F Collaborate with Tempe Adult Day Health Care and review space F needs Determine space needs and assess utilization of an existing facility on Maryland Street Pursue rezoning of the facility for adult day care use Complete building improvements to meet licensure requirements Pursue licensure of the facility for adult day care use F F 138 ◊ Human Services and People Improvement Program (continued) Goal Strategy/Action Plan F Continue to address overall needs for human services through Implement a multi year Tempe People the annual Agency Review process, including projected needs Improvement Plan (PIP) to guide the City in for new resources to cope with inflationary pressures and other addressing quality of life needs for Tempe unusual factors such as economic downturn; as discussed by residents through development, funding and the City Council, Capital Improvement Project (CIP) provision of human services in Tempe proposals related to human services to be added to the Agency Review process F Using a strategic planning approach, address future People Improvement needs through the following phased Study Products: F Inventory of Tempe’s human services and needs during FY 2001-02 F Study needs through ad hoc task forces by Target Groups during upcoming City of Tempe two-year budget cycles, followed by overall review ◊ F Continue creating and enhancing opportunities for professional and personal F development for City of Tempe Employees F ◊ Implement employee relation initiatives to make the City of Tempe the employer of choice F F F Educational partnerships with various institutions Command Spanish and Customer service training programs Management Super Track (MST) 2001 (supervisory training facilitated by City employees) Reorganization of Human Resources to respond effectively and efficiently to City departmental needs Ongoing evaluation of benefits to help retain quality employees Rewrite of the Personnel Rules and Regulations, primarily focusing on the areas of Equal Employment Opportunity, Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Fair Labor Standards Act (FSLA), American with Disabilities Act (ADA), and diversity Rio Salado ◊ Create a live, work and play environment in the Rio Salado Project that adds to the quality of life in Tempe and the region F F Revise the Rio Salado Masterplan, including , but not limited to: F Former Bureau of Land Management property F Southside from the former land to Tempe Beach Park F Rio East site F Boardwalk East and West F County islands – 1) East of McClintock and 2) North of the 202 from Indian Bend west to Rural Road Explore potential public/private partnerships in Rio Salado, including: F Programming of the future marina building/ASU Intercollegiate Athletics Rowing F Rio Salado Town Lake Foundation Capital Campaign F Fiesta Bowl/Arizona Cardinals/Events F Concessions 139 ◊ ◊ Technology Advancement and Community Development Goal Strategy/Action Plan F Provide staff support for the Neighborhood Specific Area Planning Continue Implementation of the necessary to complete the program within ten-fifteen years; Neighborhood Planning Program planning efforts are prioritized to provide planning services to neighborhoods located in the northern one third of the City first then proceed south as the Program and the City mature F Continue to provide maximum public involvement and education in the Neighborhood Planning Program through Neighborhood Workshop and Neighborhood Block Talk Programs F Continue close citizen coordination with the Redevelopment & Neighborhood Planning Programs utilizing existing neighborhood associations, Project Area Committees (PAC) and Planning Area Advisory Boards (PAAB) F Continue implementation of adopted plans as an integral part of the Redevelopment and Neighborhood Planning Programs, including: F University Hayden Butte Redevelopment Area F Rio Salado Redevelopment F North Tempe Neighborhood Associations Strategic Area F Northwest Tempe Neighborhoods Strategic Area F Apache Blvd. Redevelopment Area Continue to strengthen City’s affordable housing programs F F F ◊ ◊ Adopt “best practices” in our dealings with citizens, vendors and departments through the implementation of “e-government” F Implement systems and technologies that improve the Quality of Life for our residents and employees F F F F F F F F F 140 Research, plan and prepare for adoption, a comprehensive Community Affordable Housing Strategy, including needs assessment, asset inventory, program development and finance plan Work with newly formed Tempe Community Land Trust (TCLT) to provide for long-term housing affordability throughout the community; TCLT affordability model can be used to provide longterm affordability in City’s first-time homebuyer, non-profit new construction and existing housing rehabilitation programs Establish a citywide, single-purpose redevelopment district, with a blighted housing condemnation provision, and link to the City’s rehabilitation and first-time homebuyer/family self-sufficiency housing programs Reduce requirements for staff interaction in most common business transactions Improve the speed of our service delivery through web access Reduce the number of steps in our workflow and business processes Extend choices and decisions to our citizens through web enablement Evaluate and modify the City’s Command Centers with improved connectivity and communications Investigate and develop technology enhancement and clerical support alternatives for public safety employees Evaluate and develop improved system for record keeping and the dissemination of information Develop redundancy in our critical business system Investigate and develop strategic/tactical communications and response systems Investigate and develop systems and devices for monitoring resource deployment Technology Advancement and Community Development (continued) Goal ◊ Enhance the availability of technology and its use by our residents and businesses Strategy/Action Plan F F F ◊ Advance business technology infrastructure needs F F Complete the Comprehensive Transportation Plan ◊ F Improve the Street Network consistent with Comprehensive Transportation Goals F F Create an improved regional transportation system and management structure Inventory Tempe’s current broadband suppliers, networks, and miles of fiber in the City Partner with telecommunications to meet business and city needs Transportation Develop and finalize implementation strategies for the plan’s primary elements: F Streets and travelways F Transit F Parking F Bicycle/Pedestrian F Relationship to land use F Public art F Update all pertinent ordinances to reflect comprehensive transportation plan goals F Develop a Tempe transportation model, based on the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) model F Identify potential transportation funding sources necessary for implementing elements of the plan ◊ ◊ Create partnerships with the private sector to improve opportunities for web access, to improve the availability of technology ownership, and to foster business and community alliances to meet community needs as they relate to the Digital Divide Coordinate efforts through the Community Services Department and the Tempe Community Council to enable the physically challenged Work with various school systems and private sector organizations to improve internet access opportunities for residents of all ages F F F Reduce speed on arterial streets through design, enforcement, and safety education Strengthen traffic calming/neighborhood traffic management efforts Develop a timely City response to Vision 21 recommendations, especially relative to local control and funding concerns Coordinate and address neighborhood issues and concerns related to US 60 projects Monitor potential revenue sharing/funding impacts related to the state’s budget/finance strategies (e.g., reacting to the “alternative fuels” issues) 141 ◊ Goal Enhance the Transportation System Transportation (continued) Strategy/Action Plan Light Rail Transit F Complete preliminary engineering and obtain environmental approval from the Federal Transit Administration to begin the final design of the Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail Transit project through Tempe F Complete final design F Coordinate with federal, state, and local agencies to determine the feasibility of accelerating construction of a segment of the project to coincide with the opening of the Cardinal’s stadium prior to the projected service opening in 2006 Bus Service F Increase transit customer service through a transit store which will provide an interim (until completion of the downtown transit center) passenger facility for transit ticket sales, security, and public restrooms F Strengthen priority of bus/shuttle movement during major special events F Enhance quality assurance of transit service through increased monitoring of bus service operations F Implement and expand neighborhood circulator service F Enhance marketing and public information strategies regarding alternative modes in Tempe, especially involving major employers and partnerships with public and private entities F Improve express bus service to increase ridership of the express system F Explore opportunities for School/City partnerships Transportation Operations Develop and implement an automated infrastructure management system for tracking and predicting important maintenance and operations work F Conduct technical traffic engineering studies and analyses in support of efforts to strengthen the efficiency and safety of the transportation system F Complete the city’s Light Emitting Diodes (L.E.D) retrofit program for traffic signal lights, complete signal system power audit, introduce new energy efficient L.E.D pedestrian signal heads, and introduce new energy efficient fluorescent ballasts for illuminated street signs, all in support of traffic signal efficiency improvements and energy management efforts F Complete streetlight inventory throughout the city; implement program to identify and replace older, structurally deficient streetlights F Continue to build intelligent transportation systems to optimize the efficiency of moving people and vehicles through and in Tempe F 142 Finance ◊ Goal Ensure Long-Term Financial Health of Tempe F F F F F F F F F ◊ Maintain Tempe’s Favorable Bond Rating F F F F ◊ Consider Endowment and bonding programs F F Strategy/Action Plan Update Comprehensive Financial Plan (CFP) and Debt Management Plan (DMP) Revise budget policies to incorporate CFP & DMP Maintain balanced budget for operating funds Review sunsetting provisions for budget items Consider implementation of zero-based or other non incremental budget process Monitor effect of e-commerce on tax base Implement further reductions in property tax and sales tax Consider adjustments to sources of sales tax Plan for 2002 Bond Election and Permanent base adjustment Operate within updated CFP & DMP Review fund balance standards Review bond rating goals Review and make recommendations regarding recurring operating expenses Consider bond financing for neighborhood reinvestment Review five year Community services and identify other funding needs Economic Development ◊ Retain, Enhance, and Diversify Tempe’s F F Economic Base F F ◊ F Examine and implement strategies for developing broader tax base from special F sources and economic development opportunities F ◊ Enhance Information Technology F F F Review incentive policies Develop strategic alliances with schools, industry groups and organizations to assist resident businesses and stimulate new business opportunity Establish recommendations for establishing a sustainable economy and neighborhood supportive businesses Oversee design and implementation of strategies to reduce aviation related pollution and risks to Tempe residents and businesses Provide assistance and oversight on stadium and arena opportunities Consider status of Rio Salado project development and creation of project-wide plan Consider Economic Development opportunities of Art Center and Arts Incubator Provide funding for enhanced use of information technologies Expand/advance tech oasis and technology infrastructure to support tech oasis Consider additional technology “incubator” programs 143 Cultural & Community Programs ◊ Goal F Assure community recreational and community services needs are being met through the development of multigenerational F centers and maintenance of parks and athletic F fields F F ◊ Monitor various aspects of recreational programming and examine impacts F F ◊ ◊ Examine golf course operations and assure appropriate administration through a coordinated request for proposal and vendor selection process Expand Youthfest Courage Awards F F F F F F 144 Strategy/Action Plan Complete construction of the West Side Multigenerational Center and begin operations (Summer 2001) Begin the community planning and design process for the North Tempe Multigenerational Center Work in collaboration with the Jewish Community Center to develop the first phase of the South Tempe Multigenerational Center Develop a strategy to ensure that athletic fields do not deteriorate due to overuse Consider designation of parks and preserves Monitor reorganization of Little League and City softball programs Monitor previously approved policies including resident vs. non-resident fees and tournament vs. league play utilization Coordinate administration of Rolling Hills and Ken McDonald Golf Courses under one administrative contract Develop golf course concession proposal Select a golf course concessionaire Determine need and use of current and/or additional facilities Expand existing Youthfest to include a larger festival similar to the Tardeada or the Martin Luther King celebrations Collaborate with Tempe Schools and businesses to involve them in Youthfest activities ◊ Maintain and enhance Tempe's role in coordinating special events F F F Ensure one-stop shop for events process Examine capacity of staff to manage events Examine performance and successes of events ◊ Examine issues related to the development of the Visual and Performing Arts Center (after direction from Council of the whole) F Review various project aspects after direction from the Council of the whole ◊ Address the operational issues relating to Double Butte Cemetery. F F Examine issue of cemetery entrance and signage Develop a long-term master plan for Double Butte Cemetery Per Capita Performance Budget The citywide operating budget for FY 2001-02 totals $234.0 million and for FY 2002-03 totals $240.5 million. This represents per capita growth of 5.8% and 2.8%. In each fiscal year, the City continues to give priority to the areas of Public Works, Public Safety, and Community Services, which accounts for 73% and 74% of the total departmental Department Mayor & Council City Manager Internal Audit Neighborhood Program Government Relations Economic Development Community Relations Tempe Learning Center Strategic Planning City Clerk City Court Human Resources City Attorney Financial Services Information Technology Development Services Police Fire Community Services Public Works Water Utilities Total Departmental Per Capita Debt Service Non-Departmental Contingencies Total Operating Per Capita 1999-00 Actual 2.56 4.86 1.23 1.05 1.98 6.45 7.61 1.19 3.83 16.03 12.46 13.61 27.34 82.22 228.52 79.61 93.91 285.31 131.70 $1,001.47 203.06 27.28 $1,231.81 budgets in each respective year. Public Works’ increase can be attributed to costs associated with the scheduled replacement of sanitation vehicles and enhanced transit service. The increase in per capita cost for Police is primarily due to additional patrol and absorption of grant funded positions. Community Services’ growth reflects the City’s continued commitment to youth and social services programs. 2000-01 Budget 2.65 6.08 1.36 1.44 2.49 8.76 8.04 1.42 2.79 18.62 12.13 15.15 28.33 88.95 250.24 82.90 103.30 318.45 156.08 $1,109.18 135.46 32.40 96.11 $1,373.15 2000-01 Revised 2.97 8.71 1.47 1.40 2.79 8.98 7.67 3.96 1.00 2.56 17.35 10.83 15.65 28.08 90.30 240.79 82.20 106.04 312.85 151.11 $1,096.71 77.87 20.93 $1,195.51 2001-02 Budget 3.23 6.03 1.79 1.61 2.89 9.49 8.86 4.16 1.37 4.43 19.54 18.85 17.38 32.26 98.14 270.58 91.66 120.13 344.49 162.71 $1,219.60 173.94 22.20 28.21 $1,443.95 2002-03 Budget 3.29 6.42 1.93 1.72 3.00 10.01 7.82 4.62 1.44 2.88 20.58 20.97 18.28 34.03 100.50 281.03 95.79 122.83 361.27 163.41 $1,261.82 153.91 23.73 28.58 $1,468.04 145 Performance Budget Summary Department 146 Personal Services Mayor & Council City Manager Internal Audit Neighborhood Program Government Relations Economic Development Community Relations Tempe Learning Center Strategic Planning City Clerk City Court Human Resources City Attorney Financial Services Information Technology Development Services Police Fire Community Services Public Works Water Utilities Total Departmental Debt Service Non-Departmental Contingencies Total Operating Budget Capital Improvements Total Financial Program $291,692 1,075,182 258,428 226,203 250,220 811,749 593,978 535,098 196,216 316,104 2,161,337 2,997,082 2,233,204 3,797,107 6,250,155 6,925,432 34,493,576 12,039,325 13,376,535 21,208,677 8,718,023 $118,755,323 Mayor & Council City Manager Internal Audit Neighborhood Program Government Relations Economic Development Community Relations Tempe Learning Center Strategic Planning City Clerk City Court Human Resources City Attorney Financial Services Information Technology Development Services Police Fire Community Services Public Works Water Utilities Total Departmental Debt Service Non-Departmental Contingencies Total Operating Budget Capital Improvements Total Financial Program Supplies/Services/ Contributions 2001-02 $157,700 145,575 5,617 22,300 199,791 975,620 513,350 117,720 12,665 368,150 463,737 624,288 402,971 1,685,650 5,805,483 7,977,889 2,779,176 1,004,005 3,455,040 33,103,675 12,281,223 $72,101,625 $118,755,323 $72,101,625 $118,755,323 $303,521 1,159,723 281,422 246,514 272,719 869,441 633,945 608,372 210,144 338,347 2,346,045 3,515,861 2,402,834 4,142,104 6,660,978 7,420,219 36,689,821 12,727,179 14,088,191 22,861,093 9,220,018 $126,998,491 $72,101,625 2002-03 $158,700 145,575 7,212 22,300 199,791 989,486 518,250 125,985 12,670 98,100 462,778 577,242 407,219 1,748,396 6,001,288 7,985,097 2,854,911 1,116,907 3,362,728 34,960,415 12,498,068 $74,253,118 $126,998,491 $74,253,118 $126,998,491 $74,253,118 Capital Outlay 205,000 3,450 27,795 883,690 58,705 122,794 642,125 132,000 2,941,420 698,841 $5,715,820 $5,715,820 85,541,430 $91,257,250 23,250 2,275 755,810 40,000 675,190 39,500 2,576,770 419,700 $4,532,495 $4,532,495 130,638,313 $135,170,808 Internal Services $73,609 (242,997) 26,810 13,060 18,699 (248,872) 124,019 21,891 13,060 33,646 542,362 (565,858) 177,026 (283,065) (12,939,328) 943,439 6,455,930 1,168,958 2,504,743 (1,424,270) 4,671,736 $1,084,598 28,189,488 3,597,440 4,576,077 $37,447,603 $37,447,603 $76,241 (254,480) 27,800 13,548 19,411 (242,083) 128,456 22,674 13,548 34,788 562,123 (658,722) 184,031 (318,984) (13,418,076) 1,015,859 6,486,425 1,170,731 2,628,818 (1,224,442) 4,902,906 $1,170,572 25,209,333 3,615,704 4,681,764 $34,677,373 $34,677,373 Total Budget $523,001 977,760 290,855 261,563 468,710 1,538,497 1,436,347 674,709 221,941 717,900 3,167,436 3,055,512 2,816,651 5,227,487 15,905,465 43,851,476 14,854,413 19,468,318 55,829,502 26,369,823 $197,657,366 28,189,488 3,597,440 4,571,077 $234,015,370 85,541,430 $319,556,800 $538,462 1,050,818 316,434 282,362 491,921 1,640,094 1,280,651 757,031 236,362 471,235 3,370,946 3,434,381 2,994,084 5,573,791 16,461,157 46,031,157 15,690,007 20,119,237 59,173,836 27,040,692 $206,954,628 25,209,333 3,615,704 4,681,764 $240,461,459 130,638,313 $371,099,772 Performance Benchmarking In the following Performance Budget Section, the reader will note a number of performance measures, or benchmarks related to each department's statement of its goals and objectives. These benchmarks are part of a project currently underway to develop a benchmarking program throughout Tempe city government. Benchmark measures found in this section reflect a sampling of the more critical measures of department performance and service delivery which will be used as the City moves on to the next phases of benchmarking. Benchmarking has been used for many years in the private sector as a tool for improving efficiency and accountability, lowering costs, and enhancing competitiveness. Companies found that they could improve their own work processes by learning “best industry practices” from recognized leaders in various business sectors. In recent years, governments have become involved in benchmarking, realizing that they too can learn from each other. Properly implemented, benchmarking can provide a systematic tool for evaluating an organization’s work processes and service delivery to determine if costs and service levels are meeting desired objectives and are competitive within the industry. The City has tracked performance indicators for several years as a means of identifying service trends and communicating results to the public. The City made a commitment to develop a benchmarking program modeled after other successful private and public sector efforts. Taking advantage of much work already done on benchmarking nationally, we utilized consensus benchmarks established by several national programs addressing benchmarking, including the International City/County Management Association (ICMA), the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), Services Efforts and Accomplishments (SEA) program and the Innovation Group. Tempe’s benchmarking project began in 1994 with its participation in an experimental program coordinated by the Innovation Group, a non-profit organization serving local government. Data for Innovation Groupsuggested benchmarks were gathered for a “test” group of City departments for possible comparisons with other local governments in the Innovation Group benchmark database. In addition, the City formally participated in ICMA’s Comparative Performance Measurement Program. Within the past year, the City has further refined the benchmarks tracked to include benchmarks developed by national professional organizations, as well as those developed by individual departments. Efforts have focused on establishing a database of historical information on a wide array of benchmarks for most City departments. As a result of discussions with the City's management team and input from departments, we have identified the most important 25-30 comparative benchmarks. Concurrent with these efforts, a comparative benchmarking program was established with peer cities. The goal was to develop and maintain partnerships with cities having comparable demographic and financial characteristics (i.e., population and operating budget size). Further, our intention was to gather data from the benchmark cities to evaluate Tempe’s performance across critical operational areas. The first Peer City Comparative Benchmarking Program Report was generated in FY 2000. The City has made a long-term commitment to benchmarking and expects to utilize this program as a means to continuously improve our service delivery at the lowest possible cost to the citizens. 147 Mayor and Council Mayor and Council Boards and Commissions City Clerk City Court Council Committees City Attorney City Manager Deputy City Manager Deputy City Manager The Mayor and six City Council Members are the elected representatives of the citizens of Tempe. They are charged with the formulation of public policy to meet community needs. The City Council is responsible for appointing the City Manager, City Clerk, City Court and City Attorney. Services provided by this division are as follows: (1) represent the City of Tempe citizens (citizen input, advisory boards, intergovernmental relations); (2) formulate legislation (ordinances, resolutions); and (3) establish policy (goals and objectives, resource allocations). Expenditure by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Contributions Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Mayor and Council Total 148 1999-00 Actual $208,574 86,937 2,312 50,156 57,532 $405,511 $2.56 2000-01 Budget $224,991 77,100 0 52,075 70,808 $424,974 $2.65 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 7 7 2000-01 Revised $236,199 92,700 5500 66,477 74,576 $475,472 $2.97 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 7 0 7 2001-02 Budget $291,692 82,000 0 73,609 75,700 $523,001 $3.23 2002-03 Budget $303,521 82,000 0 76,241 76,700 $538,462 $3.29 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 7 0 7 Goal: To represent the citizens of Tempe and formulate and enact policy as the legislative and policy-making body of the municipal government. Objective: To formulate policy in response to current and anticipated needs within political, administrative and fiscal constraints. Measures Council & Council Committee Meetings Agenda Items Balanced Budget 1999-00 Actual 2000-01 Budget 2000-01 Revised 2001-02 Budget 2002-03 Budget 114 130 137 140 140 1,614 1,350 1,614 1,700 1,700 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Goal: To provide effective professional leadership in the implementation of City policy and coordination and administration of the City organization; and to provide community leadership in the formulation of public policy to meet community needs. Objective: 1) To supervise City administration; and 2) to oversee citizen boards and commissions. 1999-00 Actual Measures Council appointees reviewed Citizen boards and commissions Goal: 2000-01 Budget 2000-01 Revised 2001-02 Budget 2002-03 Budget 4 4 4 4 4 29 29 29 29 29 To implement an annual survey of citizen satisfaction with City services and resource allocation priorities. Objective: To enhance citizen input into the budget process. Measures Citizen survey 1999-00 Actual No 2000-01 Budget Yes 2000-01 Revised Yes 2001-02 Budget Yes 2002-03 Budget Yes 149 City Manager City Manager Assistant City Manager - Internal Audit Neighborhood Program Government Relations Mayor/Council Offices Assistant City Manager Working with the City’s governing body, the community, and City staff, the mission of the City Manager’s Office is to professionally implement all City Council policy decisions, efficiently direct the City’s operations and activities in accordance with sound management principles, and create an organizational culture which results in the delivery of excellent municipal services to the citizens of Tempe. Also, three divisions report directly to the City Manager: 1) Internal Audit, 2) Neighborhood Program, and 3) Government Relations. Internal Audit conducts performance and operational audits of City departments and programs as required by state and federal law and at the request of departments or city management. The Neighborhood Program assists in organizing neighborhood associations and acts as a clearing house for neighborhood concerns. Government Relations represents the City's interests at the federal, state, regional, and local levels. 150 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Internal Services Contributions Expenditure Total Per Capita 1999-00 Actual $1,302,069 153,342 (164,011) 155,247 $1,446,647 $9.12 2000-01 Budget $1,670,516 135,970 (162,867) 178,750 $1,822,369 $11.37 2000-01 Revised $2,035,780 194,691 (119,386) 193,521 $2,304,606 $14.37 2001-02 Budget $1,810,034 189,862 (184,429) 183,421 $1,998,888 $12.33 2002-03 Budget $1,960,378 191,457 (193,721) 183,421 $2,141,535 $13.07 Expenditures by Department City Manager Internal Audit Neighborhood Program Government Relations Expenditure Total 1999-00 Actual $771,419 194,407 166,179 314,642 $1,446,647 2000-01 Budget $975,339 217,921 230,577 398,532 $1,822,369 2000-01 Revised $1,396,263 235,865 224,465 448,013 $2,304,606 2001-02 Budget $977,760 290,855 261,563 468,710 $1,998,888 2002-03 Budget $1,050,818 316,434 282,362 491,921 $2,141,535 Authorized Personnel City Manager Internal Audit Neighborhood Program Government Relations Total 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 13 1.49 3 3 3 22 1.49 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 13 1.49 3 3 3 0 22 1.49 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 13 1.49 3 3 3 0 22 1.49 Goal: To provide effective management and leadership to the operating departments to ensure the achievement of City goals in an efficient and responsible manner. Objective: 1) To plan and organize City Council meetings so that appropriate decisions are made in a timely manner; and 2) formulate and gain Council approval of strategic issues which provide the framework for departmental goals and objectives. Measures City Council meetings staffed Strategic issues 1999-00 Actual 2000-01 Budget 2000-01 Revised 2001-02 Budget 2002-03 Budget 38 32 38 32 38 34 38 34 38 34 151 Internal Audit Internal Audit is responsible for enhancing the quality of City government, products and services, and providing independent, timely and relevant information concerning the City's programs, activities, and functions. This is accomplished by responding to requests to conduct objective evaluations of departments, divisions, and systems or units thereof. Internal Audit's work is vital in maintaining the general public's trust and confidence that City resources are used effectively and efficiently. 1999-00 Actual $161,600 5,231 27,575 $194,407 $1.23 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Internal Audit Total 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 3 3 2000-01 Budget $183,223 4,917 29,781 $217,921 $1.36 2000-01 Revised $205,714 6,030 24,121 $235,865 $1.47 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 3 3 2001-02 Budget $258,428 5,617 26,810 $290,855 $1.79 2002-03 Budget $281,422 7,212 27,800 $316,434 $1.93 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 3 3 Goal: To provide an internal consulting service to City Administration and the operating departments that assists in evaluating the operations of the various departments and strives to ensure that products and services are provided in an efficient and effective manner. Objective: To perform independent evaluation and quality improvement initiatives/studies of City departments, divisions, and systems or units thereof. 1999-00 Actual 2000-01 Budget 2000-01 Revised 2001-02 Budget 2002-03 Budget 6 6 6 6 6 Citywide audit plan 1 1 1 1 1 Performance and operational audits 1 2 2 1 2 Internal control review audits 1 5 1 3 3 Contract compliance audits 0 0 0 2 1 Self-assessment projects 2 2 0 1 1 Measures Management advisory services 152 Neighborhood Program The Neighborhood Program, under the direction of the City Manager's Office, was created by City Council Resolution in 1987. The City of Tempe’s Neighborhood Program is designed to help preserve the integrity of Tempe’s residential areas and to promote a sense of community. It provides technical and informational services to 67 neighborhood associations, 90 homeowner associations and 5 affiliate groups. The Neighborhood Program’s key role is to maintain clear communication lines between neighborhood groups and City government, focusing on identifying, resolving and preventing neighborhood problems. Specific activities include: (1) providing a “services center” for neighborhood associations in terms of creation, clerical support, problem-solving, and monitoring projects; (2) disseminating information through quarterly newsletters, board/commission agendas, meetings with and presentations to associations; (3) coordinating/monitoring activities of the Neighborhood Service Team to assess and resolve neighborhood issues; (4) coordinating the annual Neighborhood Improvement Program Grant that allocates $225,000 to neighborhood and homeowner associations for capital projects of community wide benefit; (5) coordinating a citywide Neighborhood Leadership Academy; (6) serving as an informational link among associations, City staff and elected officials; and (7) providing staff support to the Neighborhood Advisory Commission. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita 1999-00 Actual 2000-01 Budget $120,611 31,564 14,004 $166,179 $1.05 $193,834 19,138 17,605 $230,577 $1.44 Authorized Personnel Neighborhood Program Total 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 3 3 2000-01 Revised 2001-02 Budget $183,927 28,800 11,738 $224,465 $1.40 $226,203 22,300 13,060 $261,563 $1.61 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 3 3 2002-03 Budget $246,514 22,300 13,548 $282,362 $1.72 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 3 3 153 Goal: To preserve and improve existing neighborhoods in the City of Tempe by encouraging citizen participation in the problem-solving/planning activities with City staff and elected officials. Objective: 1) To enhance neighborhoods through maintenance of private properties with City-driven strategies; 2) encourage maintenance of private properties through self-help programs; 3) facilitate neighborhood problem-solving strategies with appropriate City departments (e.g., coordinating the Neighborhood Grant Program); 4) strengthen a sense of community by establishing partnerships with schools, businesses and civic organizations; and 5) keep neighborhoods involved and informed about City issues and programs. 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 1999-00 Budget Revised Budget Budget Measures Actual Participating households 33,173 34,000 35,072 36,000 37,000 2.5% 5.7% 2.6% 2.8% Percent change Grant applications received 39 36 40 42 45 Households awarded grants 7,500 7,500 6,610 7,750 8,000 Grant funds awarded $175,000 $175,000 $175,000 $225,000 $225,000 Matching funds received $177,000 $120,000 $140,000 $150,000 $150,000 Mailing sent by office* 52,396 56,355 58,000 60,000 * New measure 154 Government Relations Government Relations, under the direction of the City Manager's office, is responsible for the following activities: (1) coordination of all state and federal legislative activities; (2) oversight of all Maricopa Association of Governments programs and other intergovernmental activities; (3) review and coordination of various transportation and air quality issues, in conjunction with the Transportation Division; (4) staff assistance on special projects to the City Manager, Deputy City Managers and Mayor and City Council; and (5) serve as a liaison to the Tempe Sports Authority. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Internal Services Contributions Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Government Relations Total Goal: 1999-00 Actual $145,450 12,936 6,009 150,247 $314,642 $1.98 2000-01 Budget $204,752 8,212 6,818 178,750 $398,532 $2.49 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 3 3 2000-01 Revised $290,565 28,153 16,774 193,521 $448,013 $2.79 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 3 3 2001-02 Budget $250,220 16,370 18,699 183,421 $468,710 $2.89 2002-03 Budget $272,719 16,370 19,411 183,421 $491,921 $3.00 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 3 3 To maintain effective communication with the City's state and federal legislative delegation. Objective: To preserve the City's existing revenue base and local zoning authority through regular meetings with appropriate parties. Advocate for Federal and State appropriations for energy, water and transportation projects. Measures Joint City Council/Legislative meetings Briefings with federal legislative delegation 1999-00 Actual 2 2 2000-01 Budget 2000-01 Revised 2001-02 Budget 2002-03 Budget 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 155 Economic Development Economic Development Administration Rio Salado Communication Economic Development is responsible for a wide range of activities that focus on promoting Tempe as a favorable place for business location and expansion. Its other responsibilities include management of the Rio Salado Town Lake project and coordinating development in the Rio Salado region. Economic Development performs the following activities: (1) work with prospective businesses; (2) coordinate regional and local entities in attracting quality companies; (3) broaden the Tempe tax base; (4) encourage educational, cultural and recreational opportunities that make for a well-balanced city and contribute to the quality of life; and (5) foster the development of the Rio Salado area. 2001-03 Highlights: The biennial budget includes funding to continue the strategic alliance initiatives managed by Economic Development (such as the economic alliance with Regensburg, Germany, and Tempe's membership in the Arizona Technology Incubator and other economic development associations). The Rio Salado Fund budget was increased to fund additional policing and groundskeeping services in the Rio Salado Town Lake area (city-owned areas outside the Community Facilities District boundaries). 156 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Contributions Expenditure Total Per Capita 1999-00 Actual $732,082 269,543 145,925 (327,198) 202,880 $1,023,232 $6.45 2000-01 Budget $780,701 743,671 0 (337,417) 217,325 $1,404,280 $8.76 2000-01 Revised $733,939 742,538 0 (254,648) 217,325 $1,439,154 $8.98 2001-02 Budget $811,749 770,824 0 (248,872) 204,796 $1,538,497 $9.49 2002-03 Budget $869,441 781,140 23,250 (242,083) 208,346 $1,640,094 $10.01 Expenditures by Division Economic Development Rio Salado Total 1999-00 Actual $454,862 568,370 $1,023,232 2000-01 Budget $496,768 907,512 $1,404,280 2000-01 Revised $513,968 925,186 $1,439,154 2001-02 Budget $557,452 1,056,480 $1,538,497 2002-03 Budget $577,921 1,127,763 $1,640,094 Authorized Personnel Economic Development Rio Salado Total 2000-01 Revised 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE Time FTE FTE 3 3 9 .49 9 .49 12 .49 12 .49 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 3 9 .49 12 .49 Goal: 1) To foster good communication between existing businesses and local government; and 2) increase job opportunities for residents. Objective: 1) To retain existing businesses in Tempe; 2) hold quarterly business round-table meetings with Mayor and City Council; and 3) recruit new businesses to Tempe. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Measures Calls on existing Tempe businesses Quarterly business round-table meetings with Mayor and City Council Opportunities to retain Tempe businesses 58 50 50 50 50 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 Goal: To diversify the Tempe economy. Objective: To continue to "trigger" development in Tempe, including the Rio Salado project area. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Measures New research and development operations 1 1 1 1 1 New office users 6 6 6 6 6 New sales tax generator 0 1 1 1 1 Jobs generated by new companies 3,000 2,500 1,500 2,500 2,500 New businesses brought to Tempe 8 10 10 10 10 Successful business retentions and expansions 6 5 5 5 5 Goal: To increase use of Tempe Town Lake and the surrounding Rio Salado parks. Objective: To increase revenues from annual and daily boat permits, boating classes, and park reservations/permits. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 Actual Budget Revised Budget Measures 2002-03 Budget Boat permit revenues* Boating class revenues* Rio Salado park permit revenues* $40,192 - $28,212 $28,500 $29,000 $1,560 $9,380 - $7,060 $11,002 $7,250 $12,000 $7,250 $12,000 * New measure 157 Community Relations Community Relations Community Relations handles all public information and media relations for the City and manages the City's cable television operation. It is responsible for keeping the community informed about programs and activities within the City as well as working on Tempe’s image locally, regionally, and nationally. Services provided by this office include media relations, graphic design, public relations, special event coordination, audio-visual, and government access cable channel coordination. 2001-03 Highlights: In Year 1, additional funding was provided for: the replacement and upgrade of equipment for the Council Chambers Voting & Recording System; additional programming for Tempe Cable 11; and the upgrade of the entire media system from aging analog equipment to digital. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Contributions Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Community Relations Total 158 1999-00 Actual 2000-01 Budget 2000-01 Revised 2001-02 Budget 2002-03 Budget $539,153 426,129 130,200 0 110,924 $1,206,409 $7.61 $592,009 495,132 82,000 0 119,443 $1,288,584 $8.04 $571,270 464,558 82,000 0 111,955 $1,229,783 $7.67 $593,978 431,350 82,000 205,000 124,019 $1,436,347 $8.86 $633,945 436,250 82,000 0 128,456 $1,280,651 $7.82 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 8 1.34 8 1.34 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 8 1.34 8 1.34 Full Time 8 8 2002-03 Budget Perm Temp FTE FTE 1.34 1.34 Goal: To keep Tempe residents, the general public, City employees and the media informed about City issues, programs, community events and organizational changes; and position the City positively locally, regionally and nationally. Objective: 1) To provide information to the community through newsletters, brochures, press releases and advertising; 2) design and produce high quality informational publications, promotional items and visual graphics for all City departments that reflect the image of Tempe; and 3) provide the City with high quality audio/visual, media production and Tempe cable 11 programming services. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Measures Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget 12 12 12 12 12 Tempe Today water bill newsletter 50 50 50 50 50 Newsbreak city employee newsletter 30 30 30 30 30 Newspaper advertisements 144 150 144 144 144 Press releases 25 25 25 25 25 Major issues management 80 80 85 85 85 Informational publications 30 30 30 40 40 Internet/Intranet publications 12 12 12 15 15 Major publication ads 800 800 650 700 1,000 Fiesta Bowl media packets 12 12 12 12 12 Water bill insert flyers 8 10 10 12 8 Newsletters for other divisions 3 3 3 3 3 City, Transit & Fire Performance Reports 50 50 50 50 50 Gifts: baskets, bowls, promotional items 5 5 5 10 10 Special Projects 8 8 8 10 10 Major event graphic support 52 50 49 50 50 Audio/visual equipment & staging 85 60 61 60 60 Still photography assignments 159 200 186 200 200 Video productions 159 Tempe Learning Center Tempe Learning Center The Tempe Learning Center (TLC), started in 1998, is responsible for employee training and development of all City employees. Guided by the Tempe Learning Center Board, TLC provides learning opportunities related to management, supervision, customer service, computers and specific job skills. Through seminars, computer-based training, and educational partnerships with local colleges, TLC is preparing Tempe workers for the future. 2001-03 Highlights: Year 1 is the first full year that provides funding for the following: the creation of the TLC Director position; the purchase of a citywide training administration system; the establishment of educational partnerships; and the development of a 3.5 day supervisory training program, to include employees striving to become leaders/supervisors within the City. Additionally, the budget and oversight of tuition reimbursement for City employees moved to TLC from Human Resources in FY 2000-01. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Tempe Learning Center Total 160 1999-00 Actual $62,887 104,015 13,573 8,019 $188,484 $1.19 2000-01 Budget $113,474 106,114 0 7,718 $227,306 $1.42 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 3 3 2000-01 Revised $509,253 106,114 0 19,757 $635,124 $3.96 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 3 3 2001-02 Budget $535,098 117,720 0 21,891 $674,709 $4.16 2002-03 Budget $608,372 125,985 0 22,674 $757,031 $4.62 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 3 3 Goal: 1) To facilitate continuous learning throughout the City of Tempe; and 2) to provide opportunities for our employees to develop their skills, knowledge and ability to perform their current and future responsibilities in the most effective and efficient manner possible. Objective: 1) Deliver Super Track Leadership Academy in response to employee needs assessments; 2) deliver M.S.T. 2001 to all supervisors and potential supervisors; 3) establish new educational partnership programs to include technical and trade partnerships; 4) provide customized Spanish courses to meet departmental/division needs; 5) with HR, continue co-hosting Tempe Essentials, a new employee orientation with 95% of new employees participating; and 6) present on TLC at all new employee orientations. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Measures Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Class participants in TLC-sponsored programs Supervisors participating in the Supervisory Track Leadership Academy New employees attending Tempe Essentials Percent of new employees attending Supervisors attending MST 2001** Customized Spanish courses participants** New employee orientation presentations** 986* 52 182 54% - 700 Program on hold 150 95% 45 - 702 700 700 25 151 70% 220 133 20 52 150 95% 180 167 24 75 150 95% 210 24 Goal: To create a culture that is responsive to change and continuous improvement, encourages innovation, fosters teamwork, and provides measurable results. TLC is designed to provide a clearinghouse for all learning-related activities in the City of Tempe, including supervisory and leadership development, safety, computer, and other job-related programs. Objective: 1) Increase the number of internal training courses; 2) establish new educational partnership programs to include technical and trade partnerships; 3) revise SuperTrack to emphasize leadership skills; 4) increase the number of city training opportunities that will also earn college credit for employees participating in the training; 5) implement on-line courses on city specific topics; 6) initiate special projects to enhance learning opportunities for city employees; 7) deliver M.S.T. 2001 to all supervisors and potential supervisors; and 8) develop long-term training strategic plan. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Measures Internal training courses & workshops/seminars 16 16 9 10 15 Educational partnership efforts established Increase number of opportunities to receive college credit for training** Initiate special projects: Education/Safety/ Benefits Fair & MST 2001** 3 3 3 9 11 - - - 11 15 - - 520 780 80 Supervisors attending MST 2001** - - 220 180 0 Develop 3-year training strategic plan** - - 1 1 1 * Training – Civil Treatment for Managers and Civil Treatment for Employees ** New measure 161 Strategic Planning Strategic Planning Strategic Planning, started in fiscal year 2000-01, is responsible for (1) overseeing and leading the City's Strategic Planning function by assisting City departments in their long-range planning efforts, providing a central repository of information, and facilitating practical, action-oriented guides based on an examination of internal and external factors, which direct goal-setting and resource allocation to achieve meaningful results over time, (2) serving as the City's "Think Tank" for future planning efforts by examining future trends in and the needs and expectations of customers, stakeholders and policy makers in defining departmental missions, goals, and performance measures. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Strategic Planning Total 162 1999-00 Actual 2000-01 Budget 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 1 1 2000-01 Revised $132,621 15,300 11,724 $159,645 $1.00 2001-02 Budget $196,216 12,665 13,060 $221,941 $1.37 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2 2 2002-03 Budget $210,144 12,670 13,548 $236,362 $1.44 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2 2 This page intentionally left blank. City Clerk City Clerk Records Management and Microfilming Elections The City Clerk, appointed by the Mayor and City Council pursuant to the Tempe City Charter, serves as the legal custodian of the City’s official records, Tempe City Code, minutes, ordinances, resolutions, contracts/agreements, deeds, leases, insurance certificates, bonds, annexation documents, notarized affidavits of publications, meetings and agenda postings; serves as the Chief Elections Officer of the City; administers Council Meetings; affixes the City Seal on all official documents; and attests to all official acts of the Mayor posting meetings notices, advertising public hearings and calls for bids, attending bid openings, preparing departments by providing microfilming services; (3) administer City primary, general ads special elections; (4) serve as secretary to Tempe Firefighter/Police Public Safety Personnel Retirement boards; and (5) assist the Mayor in the administration of appointing members to serve on various City boards and commissions as established by Council. Expenditure by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel City Clerk Total 164 1999-00 Actual $278,459 265,210 14,188 50,363 $608,220 $3.83 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 5 .58 5 .58 2000-01 Budget $297,892 95,113 0 54,592 $447,597 $2.79 2000-01 Revised $285,610 95,113 0 30,508 $411,231 $2.56 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 5 .58 5 .58 2001-02 Budget $316,104 368,150 0 33,646 $717,900 $4.43 2002-03 Budget $338,347 98,100 0 34,788 $471,235 $2.88 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 5 .58 5 .58 Goal: To continue providing an effective microfilming program through the development of a computerized indexing system. Objective: To maintain a sufficient level of microfilming for various departments in accordance with the State of Arizona Department of Library and Archives. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Measures Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Rolls microfilmed 55 204 59 60 65 Percent change 270% (71%) 1.7% 8.3% Goal: To monitor and maintain all council and citywide contracts and agreements, process all ordinances and resolutions, and advertise and post all bids. Objective: 1) To effectively maintain and monitor all contracts/agreements for the city and ensure that an original signed and executed copy is on file in the clerk’s office; 2) effectively process all ordinances and resolutions including advertising, signatures, recording with the county recorder, distributing to all code users and keeping current files; and 3) advertise and post all bids in accordance with state statutes. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Measures Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Contracts and agreements processed 217 390 245 250 260 Ordinances and resolutions processed 285 178 312 350 375 Bids advertised and posted 108 72 123 130 140 Goal: To administer citywide elections. Objective: To administer Mayor/Council election in the spring of 2002. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 Measures Actual Budget Revised Early ballots processed (Primary & General) 14,364 Polling places set up (Primary & General) 38 Voter participation (Primary & General) 17,556 Sample ballots prepared & mailed (Primary & General) 137,000 - 2001-02 Budget 2002-03 Budget 21,546 57 26,334 - 220,000 - 165 City Court Presiding Judge City Judges Hearing Officers Court Administration Criminal Division Civil Division City Court consists of three divisions including (1) Administration, (2) Criminal, and (3) Civil. It is a municipal limited jurisdiction court and deals with criminal misdemeanor and primarily civil traffic cases. The court includes all judicial, administrative, and staff functions necessary to accomplish the court’s mission. This includes initial appearances, arraignments, pre-trial conferences, orders to show cause, subpoenas, arrest warrants, jury and non-jury trials, hearings, misdemeanor search warrants, orders of protection, injunctions against harassment, and financial services to collect fines, fees, surcharges and restitution. 2001-03 Highlights: In Year 2 of the biennium, a full-time Court Specialist was authorized for the Selective Enforcement Unit to address an increase in civil traffic workload. 1999-00 Actual $1,657,658 399,507 0 484,891 $2,542,056 $16.03 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel City Court Total 166 2000-01 Budget $1,994,745 458,787 900 530,559 $2,984,991 $18.62 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 34 4.2 34 4.2 2000-01 Revised $1,832,857 458,787 900 488,634 $2,781,178 $17.35 2001-02 Budget $2,161,337 463,737 0 542,362 $3,167,436 $19.54 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 34 4.2 34 4.2 2002-03 Budget $2,346,045 462,778 0 562,123 $3,370,946 $20.58 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 34 4.2 34 4.2 Goal: To improve efficiency and effectiveness in the City Court system’s adjudication process. Objective: 1) To ensure that an arrest warrant will be issued within 48 hours for all defendants who fail to appear for a criminal arraignment; and 2) ensure that a driver's license default will be issued within 48 hours for all defendants who fail to appear for a civil arraignment. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Measures Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Failures to Appear Criminal Arraignments 6,306 5,574 5,473 5,800 6,300 Percent Change (12%) (1%) 6% 9% Failures to Appear Civil Arraignments 11,645 18,100 16,520 16,700 17,400 Percent Change 55% (9%) 1% 4% Arrest warrants issued within 48 hours 6,306 5,574 5,473 5,800 6,300 Percent issued 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Defaults issued within 48 hours 11,645 18,100 16,520 16,700 17,400 Percent issued 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 167 Human Resources Human Resources M anager D e p u ty H u m a n Resources M anager E m p loyee Benefits & S e r v i c e s A d m inistration C lassification/ Compensation Recruitment The Human Resources Department is responsible for attracting and retaining a qualified and diverse work force, improving organizational productivity and effectiveness, and effectively communicating with employees regarding their rights, responsibilities, opportunities and benefits. The divisions within Human Resources include Administration, Employment, and Employee Benefits. Services provided by this department include (1) classification and compensation, (2) recruitment and selection, (3) employee benefits, (4) personnel and payroll records, and (5) employee relations. 2001-03 Highlights: In Year 1, funding was provided for an additional full-time H.R. Technician I as part of the Employee Benefits & Services team, which was offset by a vacant part-time position. Non-recurring budget was made available for a contract analyst to assist the Classification/Compensation Team in the comprehensive review and analysis of, and recommendations for improvements to, the current compensation system. Additional funding was also provided for the upgrade of the HR applicant tracking software, plus temporary increases for the expected rise in the number of exams for certain applicants. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel 168 1999-00 Actual $1,876,854 2000-01 Budget $1,925,968 2000-01 Revised $1,756,180 2001-02 Budget $2,997,082 2002-03 Budget $3,515,861 354,413 288,855 288,855 624,288 577,242 17,037 0 0 0 0 (272,408) (269,807) (308,387) (565,858) (658,722) $1,975,896 $1,945,016 $1,736,648 $3,055,512 $3,434,381 $12.46 $12.13 $10.83 $18.85 $20.97 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE Human Resources 18 1.0 19 19 Total 18 1.0 19 19 Goal: To attract and retain a healthy, qualified workforce. Objective: To maintain turnover rate at 10% of total workforce. 1999-00 2000-01 Actual Budget Measures 2000-01 Revised Total citywide full-time equivalent positions Employee turnover rate 1,875.63 9.6% 1,845.02 13.9% 1,874.43 9.0% 2001-02 Budget 1,939.73 10.0% 2002-03 Budget 1,947.73 10.0% Goal: To improve organizational productivity, effectiveness and efficiency. Objective: 1) To minimize increases in cost and Human Resources positions; and 2) minimize the number of days to complete recruitments. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Measures Actual Budget Revised Projected Projected Total cost per citywide FTE Percent change Citywide FTE's served per Human Resources staff Percent change Average number of days to complete an external, competitive recruitment and selection process Average number of days to complete an internal, competitive recruitment and selection process $812 $1,025 $772 $981 $1,025 - 4.5% (4.9%) 27.1% 4.5% 91 99 96 97 99 - 1.9% 5.2% 1.0% 1.9% 35 35 35 40 40 23 22 21 26 26 Comparative Benchmark 169 City Attorney City Attorney Senior City Attorney Criminal Division Civil Division The City Attorney, appointed by the Mayor and City Council under the City Charter, is legal advisor and attorney for the City. Activities include presentation and defense of the City’s legal interests and rights and prosecution for misdemeanor complaints. The City Attorney also is responsible for attending City Council meetings and serving as legal counsel during such meetings. Services are as follows: (1) support the legislative and administrative processes (ordinances, opinions, litigation, contracts, legal research, liens); (2) present and defend the City’s legal interests and rights before all courts, legislative and administrative tribunals; and (3) prosecute complaints (misdemeanor traffic and criminal, municipal and superior courts). 2001-03 Highlights: The biennial budget includes funding for: a Paralegal (1 FT) to reduce attorney active caseload from 45 to 30 tort cases; a Legal Assistant (1 FT) to address increased workload associated with (20-50) daily arraignments; and an increase in legal fees associated with unforeseen litigation. Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services 1999-00 Actual $1,680,979 331,696 (543) 147,144 2000-01 Budget $1,849,141 415,479 0 164,399 2000-01 Revised $1,922,679 441,721 0 144,776 2001-02 Budget $2,233,204 402,971 3,450 177,026 2002-03 Budget $2,402,834 407,219 0 184,031 Expenditure Total Per Capita $2,159,277 $13.61 $2,429,019 $15.15 $2,509,176 $15.65 $2,816,651 $17.38 $2,994,084 $18.28 Expenditures by Type Authorized Personnel City Attorney City Attorney - Water Total 170 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 22 0.5 0.62 3 25 0.5 0.62 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 24 0.5 0.62 3 27 0.5 0.62 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 24 0.5 0.62 3 27 0.5 0.62 Goal: To effectively and efficiently represent the City as a party in legal proceedings. Objective: To defend and resolve litigation in the City’s best interest while managing caseload fluctuations. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 Actual Budget Revised Budget Measures Lawsuits: Pending civil lawsuits 41 60 65 65 Forfeiture actions 23 25 18 18 Tax hearings 9 16 10 10 Lawsuits filed by/against City 18 25 17 17 Percent change in caseload 38% 21% 0% 2002-03 Budget 65 18 10 17 0% Goal: To effectively serve as legal counsel for the City and practice preventative law. Objective: 1) To provide legal expertise to cover all major legal issues of the City; issue quality legal research on written and verbal legal opinions; and 2) obtain 100% client rating. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Measures Ordinances, resolutions and contracts reviewed/drafted 502 568 557 600 635 Written and verbal legal opinions 1,020 1,070 1,820 2,000 2,020 Percent of clients rating services as very good or good 100% 100% 100% Goal: To prosecute misdemeanors effectively and efficiently with an emphasis on serious crimes, and provide support and assistance to victims. Objective: 1) To obtain early resolution of criminal cases consistent with doing justice and speedy resolution of cases at arraignment by effectively managing cases per attorney; 2) increase emphasis on DUI cases; 3) decrease number of pretrials as exemplified by number of trials; and 4) increase resources for implementing victim’s rights and ensure compliance with and information on victim’s rights, as well as seeking restitution and emphasizing prosecution of crimes involving bodily injury. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Measures Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Criminal, criminal traffic and DUI cases 13,171 11,507 10,450 11,500 11,500 Per attorney 2,195 1,918 1,493 1,643 1,643 DUI cases (included above) 1,539 1,548 1,353 1,500 1,500 Criminal traffic trials 124 88 70 80 80 Criminal trials (other than traffic) 124 100 131 140 140 Victim contacts 14,683 18,895 17,590 19,000 19,000 Percent of cases going to trial 1.6% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 171 Financial Services Financial Services Administration Risk Management Central Services Tax and License Accounts Payable Claims Purchasing Business Licensing General Ledger Safety Reprographics Audit Accounting Budget Revenue Collections Payroll The Financial Services Department is comprised of the divisions of Accounting, Budget, Risk Management, Central Services and Tax & License. The department’s operational functions include all finance, accounting, budget, purchasing, reprographics, and business licensing responsibilities. 2001-03 Highlights: In the first year of the biennium, funding was provided for the following positions: a full-time Financial Services (Purchasing) Clerk I to address the increased workload issues; a full-time Financial Applications Analyst to assist with the maintenance and implementation of new financial system technologies; a new full-time Reprographics Operator to run a new, complex mailing machine; and a temporary half-time Mail Clerk to weigh, meter and stack outgoing mail for daily postal pick-up. Further, two Tax Auditors were also added, one in each year of the biennium. 172 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita 1999-00 Actual $3,184,591 1,508,248 5,270 (361,176) $4,336,933 $27.34 2000-01 Budget $3,422,521 1,481,463 0 (361,880) $4,542,104 $28.33 2000-01 Revised $3,266,003 1,668,740 0 (432,561) $4,502,182 $28.08 2001-02 Budget $3,797,107 1,685,650 27,795 (283,065) $5,227,487 $32.26 2002-03 Budget $4,142,104 1,748,396 2,275 (318,984) $5,573,791 $34.03 Expenditures by Division Financial Services Administration Accounting Budget Risk Management Central Services Tax and License Total 1999-00 Actual $270,148 919,048 206,731 689,471 1,025,137 1,226,398 $4,336,933 2000-01 Budget $346,279 858,925 245,948 770,132 1,007,026 1,313,794 $4,542,104 2000-01 Revised $385,755 877,381 175,223 828,254 985,737 1,249,832 $4,502,182 2001-02 Budget $322,133 1,143,509 243,913 903,368 1,162,656 1,451,908 $5,227,487 2002-03 Budget $331,436 1,168,212 274,685 977,230 1,196,171 1,626,057 $5,573,791 Authorized Personnel Financial Services-Admin. Accounting Budget Risk Management Central Services Tax and License Total 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 5 13 0.63 4 4 0.5 12 0.62 18 56 0.5 1.25 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 4 14 0.63 4 4 0.5 14 0.62 18 58 0.5 1.25 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 4 14 0.63 4 4 0.5 14 0.62 19 59 0.5 1.25 Functions related to Financial Services include Administration, Accounting, Budget, Risk Management, Central Services, and Tax & License and provide the following services: Administration is responsible for the overall management of the department; Accounting services include payroll, accounts payable, special assessments, accounts receivable, and financial reporting; Budget responsibilities include preparation of budget documents, a Comprehensive Financial Plan, revenue forecasting, capital improvements program, budget monitoring, forecasting, benchmarking, and special financial studies; Risk Management functions include liability claims resolution, worker’s compensation claims, and the employee safety program; Central Services functions include purchasing, contract negotiations for goods and services, duplicating services, and mail delivery; and Tax and License receives all City sales tax and licensing revenue and is responsible for issuing sales tax licenses and auditing license holders. Goal: 1) To effectively perform accounts payable, payroll and other accounting functions for City departments; and 2) maintain adequate internal controls, adhere to generally accepted accounting principles, and ensure the safety of the City's investments. Objective: 1) To process accounts payable checks in a cost-effective manner; and 2) maintain the Government Finance Officers Association Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Measures Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Accounting GFOA Certificate of Achievement Compliance with State and Federal Reporting Requirements (941, W-2, 1099, etc.) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Investment Policy Compliance Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Unqualified Audit Opinion Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Maintain Effective System of Internal Controls Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 173 Goal: To ensure the long-term financial success of the City through sound financial management practices. Objective: To adhere to a financial management strategy that produces financial results that compare favorably with our peer cities as measured by generally accepted financial indicators. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Measures Administration and Budget Fund balance coverage Long-term debt per capita 29% $713 25% $719 30% $737 25% $751 25% $775 Goal: To minimize the City's exposure to liability and worker's compensation claims through a proactive approach to risk management, loss prevention and employee safety education. Objective: To minimize the City's liability and worker's compensation claims paid as measured by claims per capita and claims per employee. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Measures Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Risk Management General and property liability claims $394,053 $530,000 $689,926 $625,000 $650,000 Worker's compensation claims Cost of general and property liability claims per capita Cost of general and property liability claims per 100 employees Cost of worker's compensation claims per 100 employees Goal: $860,599 $575,000 $1,118,553 $825,000 $875,000 $2.48 $3.31 $4.30 $3.86 $3.97 $22,219 $28,726 $36,784 $32,221 $33,372 $48,526 $31,165 $59,636 $42,532 $44,924 To procure low cost, quality goods and services for City departments, while ensuring that purchases are made in a timely and ethical manner. Objective: 1) To procure at least 25% of lower cost items through annual contracts; and 2) maintain compliance with the American Bar Association's Model Procurement Code. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Measures Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Central Services Conformity to American Bar Association Model Procurement Code Conform Conform Conform Conform Conform Lower cost purchases made through annual contracts 41% 40% 57% 40% 40% Bid award recommendations accepted by City Council 100% 100% 100% 95% 95% Maintain at least 80% customer department satisfaction* 80% 80% Maintain an automated bidder registration program and Procurement Office webpage* Maintained Maintained Maintain and monitor a city procurement card program Maintained Maintained Maintained Maintained Maintained Comparative Benchmark * New Measure 174 Goal: To implement the city’s tax ordinances by ensuring that all businesses and individuals subject to the tax ordinances pay taxes as prescribed. Objective: 1) To maximize the productivity of the Tax and License staff as measured by taxable sales and accounts per employee; and 2) increase collections and assessments resulting from the division’s audit activities, while reducing delinquency rates. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Measures Tax and License Taxable sales ($) 5,269,802,000 5,445,000,000 5,445,000,000 5,690,025,000 5,946,076,000 Sales tax license holders (accounts) 12,000 12,300 12,862 12,900 12,950 Taxable sales per capita ($) 32,772 33,526 33,508 34,908 36,367 Taxable sales per Tax and License employee ($) 309,988,000 302,500,000 320,294,000 316,113,000 312,951,000 Accounts per Tax and License employee 706 683 757 717 682 Collections per Tax Auditor ($) 309,311 250,000 433,333 99,714 69,246 Collections per Revenue Collector ($) 824,458 992,500 700,000 550,000 575,000 Collections per License Inspector ($) 481,936 691,000 330,000 300,000 270,000 Audit assessments ($) 779,015 779,000 1,039,000 623,000 519,000 Percent of delinquent accounts to total active accounts 12.3% 12.2% 16.8% 14.0% 13.0% 175 Information Technology Information Technology M anager A s s i s t a n t I n f o r m a tio n Technology M anager A s s i s t a n t I n f o r m a tio n Technology M anager A p p lication Services Customer Support/ Technical Services Telecommunications O p s & Planning P u b lic A c c e s s Systems D a ta C e n t e r & N etwork O p s D a tabase A d m inistration Project E n g ineering C rim inal Justice Project M gmnt Systems & Network Admin The Information Technology Department is responsible for fostering a partnership with City Departments and optimizing the productivity of the office environment by empowering our employees with state-of-the-art tools and leveraging the City’s investment in information technology. ITD provides services that include: shared resources, systems, software, and information processing. 2001-03 Highlights: The biennial budget includes funding for: three positions (Help Desk, PC Services Consultant, Administrative Assistant) to be converted from temporary to full-time status; a Senior Programmer Analyst (1 FT) to support information technology needs in the Public Works Department; and a video/ audio conferencing project. Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total 1999-00 Actual 4,590,837 5,099,943 849,857 (10,599,969) ($59,313) Authorized Personnel Administration 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 7 Expenditures by Type 176 2000-01 Budget 5,156,302 5,255,534 877,188 (11,289,024) $0 2000-01 Revised 5,228,670 5,245,701 976,388 (11,450,759) $0 2001-02 Budget 6,250,155 5,805,483 883,690 (12,939,328) $0 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 7 2002-03 Budget 6,660,978 6,001,288 755,810 (13,418,076) $0 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 7 Application Services 31 32 32 Customer Support 14 16 16 Technical Services 15 15 15 Telecommunications 10 0.49 12 12 Total 77 0.49 82 82 Goal: To provide low cost, high quality computing and telecommunications services to City departments. Objective: 1) To operate in a cost-effective manner as measured by cost per computer workstation; and 2) maximize staff productivity as measured by the ratio of computer-related staff to computer workstations and telecommunications staff to telephones. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Measures Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget 1,988 1,642 2,057 2,087 2,094 Personal computer inventory (17.4%) 3.5% 1.5% 0.3% Percent change 2,313 2,346 3,205 3,430 3,670 Telephone inventory 1.4% 38.6% 7.0% 7.0% Percent change Cost per computer and terminal workstation $3,926 $5,172 $4,217 $4,806 $5,052 Comparative Benchmark 177 Development Services Development Services Manager Administration Planning and Code Compliance Housing Services Community Design and Development Building Safety and Permits Current Planning CDBG & HOME Programs Redevelopment (City Funded) Counter Services and Permits Code Compliance Section 8 Housing Services Neighborhood Planning Plan Check Services Family Self Sufficiency Affordable Housing Planning Inspection Services Affordable Housing Administration Urban Design and 3-DI Historic Preservation The Development Services Department is responsible for enhancing the quality of Tempe’s living environment and its economic base. The major divisions include Planning & Code Compliance, Housing Services (Section 8, CDBG and HOME), Community Design & Development and Building Safety and Permits. Services provided are as follows: (1) current planning-Administrative support for Design Review, Board of Adjustment, Planning Commission, and City Council; (2) receive and investigate complaints of all alleged city code violations, and initiate action to abate violations; (3) recommend codes and ordinances, rules and regulations applicable to construction and property conservation; (4) check building plans and specifications of all proposed construction; (5) conduct onsite building inspections; (6) develop neighborhood plans; (7) provide affordable housing planning; (8) provide low interest housing rehabilitation loans for the elderly, persons with disabilities and lowincome individuals and families; (9) provide rental assistance payments for the elderly, persons with disabilities and low-income individuals and families; (10) administer redevelopment and historic preservation programs; and (11) maintain statistical and demographic information for the City. 178 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Contributions Contingencies Expenditure Total Per Capita Expenditures by Division Development Services - Admin. Planning & Code Compliance Housing Services CDBG & HOME Grants Section 8 Housing Grants Community Design & Dev. Building Safety & Permits Total 1999-00 Actual $4,850,336 6,726,616 307,849 806,157 351,584 0 $13,042,542 $82.22 2000-01 Budget $5,478,192 7,317,946 25,600 809,657 430,041 200,825 $14,262,261 $88.95 2000-01 Revised $5,501,845 7,454,109 2,550 828,600 449,071 242,917 $14,479,092 $90.30 2001-02 Budget $6,925,432 7,291,633 58,705 943,439 536,038 150,218 $15,905,465 $98.14 2002-03 Budget $7,420,219 7,241,640 40,000 1,015,859 555,935 187,504 $16,461,157 $100.50 1999-00 Actual $156,447 2,300,814 2000-01 Budget $153,062 2,498,745 2000-01 Revised $229,956 2,322,380 2001-02 Budget $173,302 2,618,688 2002-03 Budget $186,903 2,786,585 2,469,048 4,545,206 1,065,695 2,505,332 $13,042,542 2,421,084 5,199,264 1,141,218 2,848,887 $14,262,261 2,967,650 4,935,715 1,184,238 2,839,153 $14,479,092 2,637,608 4,996,216 1,893,433 3,586,218 $15,905,465 2,687,608 5,018,299 1,939,924 3,841,838 $16,461,157 2000-01 Revised Authorized Personnel Administration Planning & Code Compliance Full Time 1 35 Perm FTE Temp FTE 2.86 2001-02 Budget Full Time 2 Perm Temp FTE FTE 30 1.86 2002-03 Budget Full Time 2 30 Housing Services – CDBG & HOME 4 5 5 Housing Services – Section 8 8 9 9 Community Design & Development 8 17 17 Building Safety & Permits 27 7.00 42 1 Total 83 9.86 105 1 1.86 Perm Temp FTE FTE 1.86 42 1 105 1 1.86 179 Administration and Planning & Code Compliance Division The Planning and Code Compliance Division is responsible for current planning, special projects, regulation of signs and code compliance. Services provided by this division are as follows; (1) Current Planning that is responsible for administrative support for Design Review, Board of Adjustment, Planning Commission, and City Council; (2) Special Projects is responsible for Special Projects, Public Relations & Presentations; (3) Sign Permits and inspections; and (4) Code Compliance which is responsible for inspecting residential, commercial and industrial properties for compliance with zoning, city code, sign and landscape standards and obtain compliance when violations are observed. 2001-03 Highlights: In the Planning and Code Compliance Division, funding was approved to convert 2.0 FTE temporary Code Compliance Inspector I/II positions to full-time status. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Contributions Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Development Services-Admin. Current Planning Code Compliance Total 180 1999-00 Actual $1,940,197 151,593 5,482 320,010 39,979 $2,457,261 $15.49 2000-01 Budget $2,114,372 187,245 25,600 280,590 44,000 $2,651,807 $16.54 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 1 21 1.86 14 1.00 36 2.86 2000-01 Revised $2,100,111 147,802 1,100 259,323 44,000 $2,552,336 $15.92 2001-02 Budget $2,220,596 161,025 2,000 298,266 110,103 $2,791,990 $17.23 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2 16 1.86 14 32 1.86 2002-03 Budget $2,369,214 163,092 2,000 309,182 130,000 $2,973,488 $18.15 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2 16 1.86 14 32 1.86 Goal: To ensure the resources necessary to continue to provide the high level of quality services our citizens deserve and expect. Objective: 1) To monitor and minimize O&M costs by accurately comparing number of staff and benchmarks; and 2) target a score of 4.5 on the Customer Service Score Card. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Measures Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Planning Total O&M costs Planner FTE positions Planning and zoning cases processed Percent change Planning and zoning caseload per FTE O&M per planning and zoning case Customer service score card $1,559,871 $1,682,503 $1,574,158 $1,642,833 $1,731,269 8.0 8.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 1,200 1,200 1,100 1,100 1,100 - - (8%) - - 150 150 122 122 122 $1,300 $1,402 $1,431 $1,493 $1,574 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Goal: To obtain compliance with City codes that relate to nuisances, property enhancements, rental housing and zoning ordinance requirements. Objective: 1) To respond to complaints and proactively pursue code violations within one day of receiving the complaint or observing the violation; and 2) resolve code issues within 20 days or less. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Measures Code Enforcement Total O&M costs $740,943 $816,242 $748,222 $975,855 $1,055,316 Total number of Code Inspectors 7 8 7 9 9 Code enforcement cases received 4,284 5,200 4,422 5,500 5,500 Code enforcement cases closed 4,166 5,200 4,615 5,500 5,500 O&M per code enforcement case $173 $157 $169 $177 $192 Cases closed per inspector per month 49 54 55 51 51 Cases per inspector per month 51 54 53 51 51 181 Housing Services Division (Section 8, CDBG & HOME) The Housing Services Division provides the following services: (1) rehabilitation of structures with low-interest loans; (2) Section 8 rental assistance for elderly, persons with disabilities and low-income individuals and families; (3) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Occupancy Made Easier (HOME) program administration; (4) Family Self-Sufficiency Programs; (5) Fair Housing activities; and (6) Social Services funding through CDBG and HOME programs. Also included in this division is general funds for matching dollars for the HOME Programs and first-time homebuyer’s program. General funds are also used for low interest rehabilitation loans for qualified applicants in the 81-120% income range. 2001-03 Highlights: Approved supplemental funding (CIP) of 1.0 City-funded Redevelopment Specialist position for administration and casework associated with the city-funded affordable housing programs and CDBG and HOME funded rehabilitation loan programs. In addition, approved 1.0 federally- funded Housing Specialist position to aid the administration of the Section 8 Housing Program. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Contributions Contingencies Expenditure Total Per Capita 1999-00 Actual $677,402 5,868,656 300,575 1,874 165,747 0 $7,014,254 $44.22 Authorized Personnel Community Development Block Grant City Funded Development (General Fund) Section 8 Housing Total 182 2000-01 Budget $838,699 6,313,805 0 0 267,020 200,825 $7,620,349 $47.53 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2000-01 Revised $836,627 6,465,463 0 72,308 286,050 242,917 $7,903,365 $49.29 2001-02 Budget $825,079 6,331,270 0 31,007 296,250 150,218 $7,633,824 $47.10 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2002-03 Budget $897,802 6,292,161 0 32,190 296,250 187,504 $7,705,907 $47.05 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 4 4 4 8 12 1 9 14 1 9 14 Goal: To preserve the City's neighborhoods and standard housing stock by providing housing assistance to low income people in Tempe, at standards required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Objective: To increase the number of houses rehabilitated using federal Community Development Block Grant and HOME program funding, while maximizing staff productivity and controlling administrative costs. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Measures Single family houses rehabilitated: 60 Community Development Block Grant 50 50 50 60 20 HOME (Home Occupancy Made Easier) Program Funds 40 40 20 20 15.0 Households assisted per FTE staff -CDBG 16.7 16.7 15.0 15.0 O&M expenditures per household assisted - CDBG $49,381 $48,422 $59,353 $43,960 $44,793 30 First-time Homebuyer Program (CAMP) General Fund* 30 15 Households Assisted per FTE* 15 Goal: To provide decent, safe and sanitary housing for the City's low and moderate income citizens. Objective: To provide rental subsidies and family self-sufficiency guidance to low income people living in private rental housing within Tempe. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Measures Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Households receiving rental subsidies 925 925 925 987 1,022 Housing certifications/inspections provided 1,300 1,300 1,300 Certifications 350 400 Inspections 1,000 1,000 Households assisted per FTE staff - Section 8 77.1 77.1 77.1 109.7 113.6 O&M expenditures per household assisted - Section 8 $4,914 $5,621 $5,336 $5,062 $4,910 * New measure 183 Community Design and Development Division The Community Design and Development Division is responsible for neighborhood planning, redevelopment, affordable housing planning, urban design & 3D imaging, historic preservation, statistics & demographics and major development project management for the City. 2001-03 Highlights: In the Community Design and Development Division funding was approved to convert 1.0 FTE temporary Planner I/II position to regular status; create 2.0 Planning Tech. I/II positions; and create 2.0 Principal Planner positions to lead the redevelopment and neighborhood planning programs. In addition, $89,000 was approved to fund the Division’s ongoing neighborhood block talk program and neighborhood planning meetings. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Contributions Expenditure Total Per Capita 1999-00 Actual $420,398 448,499 1,114 49,826 145,858 $1,065,695 $6.72 Authorized Personnel Redevelopment & Administration Neighborhood Planning Urban Design Total Goal: 2000-01 Budget $489,674 482,236 0 50,287 119,021 $1,141,218 $7.12 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 4 2 2 8 2000-01 Revised $539,887 458,516 1,450 65,364 119,021 $1,184,238 $7.39 2001-02 Budget $1,087,666 529,514 54,205 92,363 129,685 $1,893,433 $11.68 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 6 7 4 17 2002-03 Budget $1,163,328 513,211 38,000 95,700 129,685 $1,939,924 $11.84 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 6 7 4 17 To ensure the resources necessary to continue to provide the high level of planning, design and development services our citizens deserve and expect. Objective: To monitor and minimize operating and maintenance (O&M) costs associated with the delivery of the Division’s services. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Measures Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget O&M costs $1,065,695 $1,141,218 $1,184,238 $1,893,433 $1,939,924 Planner FTE position 7 6 6 15 15 110 110 Neighborhood Planning Meetings held* *New Measure 184 Building Safety and Permits Division The Building Safety & Permits Division is responsible for enforcing City code pertaining to building, plumbing, electrical and mechanical installations, use, occupancy and location requirements. Services provided by this division are as follows: (1) recommended codes and ordinances, rules and regulations applicable to construction and property conservation; (2) check plans, specifications and calculations of all proposed construction, including alterations and additions for compliance with building code, ADA, and planning requirements prior to issuance of building permits; (3) conduct on-site inspections of new construction, alterations, additions, mobile home installations for compliance with all applicable code requirements; (4) receive and investigate complaints of all alleged building violations, and initiate action to abate violations; and (5) issue building, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, engineering, and fire permits related to private development. 2001-03 Highlights: In the Building Safety & Permits Division, funding was authorized in the biennial budget to include: 1) 4 temporary Building Inspector positions converted to full-time positions; 1 FTE benefited permanent Building Inspector position and $40,000 of contracted building inspection services to manage the inspection workload; 2) 4 temporary DS Specialists I/II positions converted to full-time positions and 2 temporary Administrative Assistant I positions converted to full-time for the Development Services Center front counter workload; 3) $130,000 each year for contract plan review services; 4) 1 full-time ADA Plan Check Engineer to provide for accessibility plan checks; 5) increased funding for building safety ISO training by $40,000; and 6) 1 temporary Planning Tech I/II-Plan Check position converted to full-time. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Building Safety Total 1999-00 Actual $1,812,339 257,868 678 434,447 $2,505,332 $15.79 2000-01 Budget $2,035,447 334,660 0 478,780 $2,848,887 $17.77 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 27 7 27 7 2000-01 Revised $2,025,220 382,328 0 431,605 $2,839,153 $17.71 2001-02 Budget $2,792,091 269,824 2,500 521,803 $3,586,218 $22.13 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 42 1 42 1 2002-03 Budget $2,989,875 273,176 0 578,787 $3,841,838 $23.46 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 42 1 42 1 185 Goal: To verify through formal plan check and permit processes that plans, specs, and engineering calculations meet minimum requirements for adopted building codes, ADA, and planning & zoning ordinances. Objective: To provide thorough, accurate, objective plan check services for all applicants within the following standard timeframes: new commercial building 15 days; new residential construction 8 days. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Measures Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Plan Check $1,045,186 $1,089,007 $1,129,345 $1,179,385 $1,220,266 Total O&M 9.0 9.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Total number of Plan Checkers 2,078 2,000 1,963 2,000 2,000 Building plans submitted $503 $545 $575 $590 $610 O&M per plan check 191 167 158 167 167 Plans checked per month (weighted) 1,717 1,500 1,417 1,650 1,700 Number of Building Permits Issued $609 $726 $797 $715 $718 O&M per Building Permit Average plan review time (days): 15 15 15 15 15 New commercial building 8 8 8 8 8 New residential construction Goal: To perform on-site inspections of commercial and residential buildings, and to inspect damaged buildings for compliance. Objective: To consistently perform at least 33 inspections per inspector per day on a sustained basis without reducing the level of service or quality of inspections. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Measures Building Inspection $1,092,620 $1,133,935 $1,052,438 $1,482,366 $1,596,175 Total O&M 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 Total number of Building Inspectors 69,200 94,200 62,000 70,000 70,000 Number of inspections performed $16 $12 $17 $21 $23 O&M per inspection 32.0 38.8 34.3 33.0 33.0 Inspections per inspector per day Comparative Benchmark 186 Police Chief of Police Internal Affairs Public Information Patrol North Division Patrol South Division Support Services Division Investigations Division Administration Southeast Bureau Professional Development Special Investigations Crime Prevention Southwest Bureau Management, Budget & Research Criminal Investigations Communications Records Traffic Northeast Bureau Volunteers Detention Center Northwest Bureau Downtown Bureau The Police Department consists of Office of the Chief, Patrol, Support Services, and Investigations. The department’s responsibilities include effective and efficient police protection through investigations of criminal offenses, reinforcement of state laws and City ordinances, response to citizen requests for services, and maintenance of support services. 188 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total 1999-00 Actual 2000-01 Budget 2000-01 Revised 2001-02 Budget 2002-03 Budget $27,874,184 $31,514,371 $30,614,866 $34,493,576 $36,689,821 2,317,844 2,678,567 2,678,473 2,779,176 2,854,911 313,395 31,307 42,977 122,794 0 5,743,342 5,898,204 5,270,683 6,455,930 6,486,425 $36,248,765 $40,122,449 $38,606,999 $43,851,476 $46,031,157 2000-01 Budget 2000-01 Revised 2001-02 Budget 2002-03 Budget Expenditures by Division 1999-00 Actual Office of the Chief $3,014,742 $4,277,689 $3,560,820 $3,268,330 $3,408,696 Patrol 16,522,872 17,365,335 16,183,058 17,930,523 18,668,347 Support Services Investigations Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Office of the Chief Patrol Support Services Investigations Total Sworn Non-Sworn Total 6,404,800 6,703,764 7,301,023 8,845,394 9,292,946 10,306,351 11,775,661 11,562,098 13,807,229 14,661,168 $36,248,765 $228.52 $40,122,449 $250.24 $38,606,999 $240.79 $43,851,476 $270.58 $46,031,157 $281.03 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 12 201 1.00 3.29 130 0 .70 151 1.26 494 1.00 6.25 328 166 494 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 12 0 199 1.0 3.29 134 0 .70 161 0 1.26 506 1.00 6.25 337 169 506 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 12 0 199 1.0 3.29 135 0 .70 161 0 1.26 507 1.00 6.25 337 170 507 189 Office of the Chief The Police Chief is responsible for the administration and general supervision of all police operations. This office also is charged with the coordination of all investigations and procedures. Services provided by this division are as follows: (1) provide leadership, management and administration for the Police Department; (2) conduct planning and research studies; (3) administer departmental operating and capital improvement budgets; (4) administer, review, and revise departmental policies and procedures; (5) coordinate the selection and retention of employees; and (6) store and retrieve departmental criminal justice information. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Office of the Chief Total 190 1999-00 Actual $1,128,002 2000-01 Budget $1,694,971 2000-01 Revised $1,245,283 2001-02 Budget $1,010,771 2002-03 Budget $1,059,000 1,064,326 1,281,890 1,320,823 1,313,902 1,382,176 45,784 0 0 0 0 776,630 1,300,828 994,714 943,657 967,520 $3,014,742 $4,277,689 $3,560,820 $3,268,330 3,408,696 $19.01 $26.68 $22.21 $20.17 $20.81 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 12 12 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 12 0 12 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 12 0 12 Goal: To uphold and enforce the laws of the State and City through professional law enforcement, and maintain the department’s awareness of how the public perceives the department. Objective: 1) To maintain or improve clearance rate of Part 1 crimes; 2) maintain at a minimum of 90% the level of citizens’ satisfaction with police services as measured by the annual citizen survey; and 3) efficiently manage resources to meet the needs of citizens with 2.0 sworn full-time equivalents (FTE) per capita. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Measures Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Part 1 Crimes-Property 13,825 14,719 14,706 14,706 14,706 Clearance Rate 15.3% 13.7% 18.7% 18.7% 18.7% Percent change (10.5%) (22.2%) 0.0% 0.0% Part 1 Crimes-Persons 955 906 955 955 955 Clearance Rate 36.1% 37.0% 52.6% 52.6% 52.6% Percent change 2.5% 45.7% 0.0% 0.0% Part I Crime Per 1,000 Capita 93 97 98 97 96 Citizen satisfaction 88 90 90 90 90 O&M Cost Per Capita $228.52 $250.24 $240.79 $270.58 $281.03 Sworn FTE’s per Capita (1,000) 1.99 2.05 2.05 2.08 2.06 Percent change 3.0% 3.0% 1.6% (1.1%) Non-Sworn FTE’s per Capita (1,000) 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 Comparative Benchmark 191 Patrol The Police Patrol unit consists of officers who work in one man patrol cars and respond to citizen requests for service, either traffic, personal or business-related matters. Services provided by this division are as follows: (1) to respond to requests for service; (2) to answer all incoming calls and provide 24 hour dispatch service; (3) to conduct vehicle patrol to prevent and deter crime; (4) to provide police reserves for special or unscheduled events that require additional manpower; (5) to provide radio communications between the police base station and all patrol field units; (6) to provide jail and booking service and transport all prisoners to the City Court; (7) provide in-service training programs; and (8) provide a Crime Prevention Program and effective access to the news media. 2001-03 Highlights: In the biennial budget supplemental funding was authorized for two Police Officers; one for crime prevention and another for Arizona Mills mall patrol. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Patrol Total 192 1999-00 Actual $14,320,691 373,520 93,687 1,734,974 $16,522,872 $104.16 2000-01 Budget $15,519,864 375,536 15,917 1,454,018 $17,365,335 $108.30 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 201 1.0 3.29 201 1.0 3.29 2000-01 Revised $13,741,999 257,599 8,246 2,175,214 $16,183,058 $100.93 2001-02 Budget $14,908,497 259,478 0 2,762,548 $17,930,523 $110.64 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 199 1.0 3.29 199 1.0 3.29 2002-03 Budget $15,465,534 263,518 0 2,939,295 $18,668,347 $113.98 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 199 1.0 3.29 199 1.0 3.29 Goal: To effectively answer "911" requests for Police, Fire, and emergency medical calls, and to provide proactive neighborhood programs. Objective: 1) To respond to all citizen calls for police services; respond to accident emergency calls within an average 5:30 minutes; 2) and maintain or increase neighborhoods participating in the Crime Watch Program. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Measures Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget "911" calls answered Percent change Citizen calls for police service Percent change Average response time to emergency calls (minutes) Operating expenses per citizen calls Neighborhoods with Crime Watch Program 119,889 124,600 130,995 136,142 141,492 - 3.9% 9.3% 3.9% 3.9% 131,888 125,000 144,905 147,000 141,492 - (5.2%) 9.3% 2.2% 2.2% 5:46 5:48 5:30 5:30 5:30 $125.28 $138.92 $112.31 $121.98 $124.48 300 320 300 300 300 Comparative Benchmark 193 Support Services The Support Services Division is comprised of Personnel Services, Communications, Records, Operations Support, Public Information, and Volunteers in Policing. Support Services is responsible for providing comprehensive support services to the entire Police Department. Services provided by this division are as follows: (1) to answer all incoming calls and provide 24-hour dispatch service; (2) to provide radio communications between the police station and all patrol field units; (3) to provide full service police records management services; (4) to respond to media requests for information; (5) to recruit, test, and hire sworn police officers and civilian personnel; (6) to provide in-service training programs; (7) to investigate internal complaints and liaison with the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force; (8) to provide jail and booking service and transport all prisoners to the City Court; (9) to update and implement organizational policy and procedure; (10) to process and maintain all impounded property; and (11) to provide crime scene photography and evidence collection services. 2001-03 Highlights: In the biennial budget, supplemental funding was authorized for three non-recurring positions to be funded as recurring. These positions are for policies and procedures analysis, polygraph examining, and training support functions. Additionally, a Range Officer (1 FT) was authorized to facilitate police officer firearm training. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Support Services Total 194 1999-00 Actual $5,247,142 390,903 108,459 658,296 $6,404,800 $40.38 2000-01 Budget $5,734,266 330,896 8,200 630,402 $6,703,764 $41.81 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 130 0 .70 130 .70 2000-01 Revised $6,223,315 372,184 9,090 696,434 $7,301,023 $45.54 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 134 0 .70 134 .70 2001-02 Budget $7,515,259 417,797 0 912,338 $8,845,394 $54.58 2002-03 Budget $8,058,992 407,207 0 826,747 $9,292,946 $56.74 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 135 0 .70 135 .70 Investigations The Investigations unit is comprised of Criminal Investigations, Special Investigations, and Traffic Investigations. The officers investigate felony, misdemeanor, and juvenile cases, and also testify in all levels of courts, if necessary. Services provided by this division are as follows: (1) investigate and report incidents of crime; (2) investigate and report motor vehicle accidents; (3) investigate and clear Part 1 crimes against persons and property; (4) investigate and prevent traffic accidents; (5) develop selective enforcement programs against special or increasing crime problems; (6) store and retrieve departmental criminal justice information; and (7) provide Field ID with the latest print and film service. 2001-03 Highlights: In the biennial budget supplemental funding was authorized for: a Forensic Computer Investigator (1 FT) to address the need for investigation of cybercrime; a Selective Enforcement Unit (4 FT) to respond to citizens requests for neighborhood traffic enforcement, which will become operational in FY 2002; and an Explosive Ordinance Disposal Detective (1 FT) to help handle the increased calls for service and related EOD responsibilities. Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita 1999-00 Actual $7,178,349 489,095 65,465 2,573,442 $10,306,351 $64.97 Authorized Personnel Investigations Total 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 151 1.26 151 1.26 Expenditures by Type 2000-01 Budget $8,565,270 690,245 7,190 2,512,956 $11,775,661 $73.44 2000-01 Revised $9,404,269 727,867 25,641 1,404,321 $11,562,098 $72.11 2001-02 Budget $11,059,049 787,999 122,794 1,837,387 $13,807,229 $85.20 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 161 0 1.26 161 1.26 2002-03 Budget $12,106,295 802,010 0 1,752,863 $14,661,168 $89.51 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 161 0 1.26 161 1.26 195 Goal: To investigate and clear cases assigned to the Criminal Investigations Division. Objective: To effectively manage property caseload per investigator. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 Actual Budget Revised Measures Property cases assigned 1,857 2,745 1,662 Cases per investigator 155 211 128 Percent change 36.0% (17.5%) Goal: 2002-03 Budget 1,662 128 0.0% To investigate and clear cases assigned to the Criminal Investigations Division. Objective: To effectively manage persons caseload per investigator. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 Actual Budget Revised Measures Persons cases assigned 2,917 2,250 2,937 Cases per investigator 122 106 113 Percent change (13.1%) (8.2%) 196 2001-02 Budget 1,662 128 0.0% 2001-02 Budget 2,937 113 0.0% 2002-03 Budget 2,937 113 0.0% Fire Fire Chief Administration Fire Prevention/ Public Safety Ed Emergency Services Medical Services Training/ Professional Dev Special Ops/ Em Mgmt Support Services Personnel/Safety/ Customer Service Fire Inspection Fire Suppression Continuous Quality Impvmnt Recruit Training Emergency Management Apparatus Maintenance Phys Training/ Wellness Public Education Emergency Medical Svcs Infection Control Officer Development Hazardous Material Facility Maintenance Safety Volunteer Budget/ Finance Managed Healthcare Min Company Standards Technical Rescue Supply Professional Conduct Fire Investigation Project Planning PM & EMT Cert & Ed Incident Analysis CAD Liaison Disp Comm Technical Services Recruitment Employment New Construction Transport Contract Mgt Driver/Apparatus Ops Training Special Events Citizen CPR First Aid Instr Trng Facility Management Media/Public Relations Promotion The Fire Department consists of Administration and Fire Prevention, Emergency and Medical Services, Training and Professional Development, Special Operations, Support Services, and Personnel Safety Divisions. The Department’s operational areas include administrative services, fire suppression, emergency management, emergency medical services, hazardous materials control, technical rescue, communications, equipment and facilities maintenance, training, fire prevention and inspection, and public safety education. 198 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Contributions Expenditure Total Per Capita Expenditures by Division Administration and Fire Prevention Emergency and Medical Services Training and Professional Development Special Operations Support Services and Personnel Safety Total Authorized Personnel Administration and Fire Prevention Emergency and Medical Services Training and Professional Development Special Operations Support Services and Personnel Safety Total 1999-00 Actual $10,499,766 1,003,688 212,587 899,721 12,414 $12,628,176 $79.61 2000-01 Budget $11,186,080 802,845 549,864 740,091 12,600 $13,291,480 $82.90 2000-01 Revised $10,965,804 934,860 558,498 706,744 13,801 $13,179,707 $82.20 2001-02 Budget $12,039,325 991,005 642,125 1,168,958 13,000 $14,854,413 $91.66 2002-03 Budget $12,727,179 1,103,907 675,190 1,170,731 13,000 $15,690,007 $95.79 1999-00 Actual 2000-01 Budget 2000-01 Revised 2001-02 Budget 2002-03 Budget $1,988,062 $2,011,058 $2,007,567 $2,559,712 $2,721,087 9,165,405 9,651,562 9,464,695 10,322,716 10,897,469 279,028 289,977 326,248 315,834 330,813 148,982 145,185 153,446 155,734 227,091 1,046,699 1,193,698 1,227,751 1,500,417 1,513,547 $12,628,176 $13,291,480 $13,179,707 $14,854,413 $15,690,007 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 19 19 129 129 3 0 1 3 0 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 19 0 129 0 1 3 0 1 6 .50 6 .50 6 .50 158 .50 158 .50 158 .50 199 Administration and Fire Prevention Administration is responsible for general policy and direction of the department, as delineated in the Six Year Strategic Plan and Operational Guide, by providing management and leadership for the operating divisions within the Fire Department. Development and administration of the budget, recruitment, member safety and wellness program management are also basic responsibilities of Administration. The basic responsibility of the Fire Prevention Division is the prevention of fires through inspection and code enforcement, public safety education, and the investigation of fires. Services include: (1) inspection of commercial properties, hospitals, nursing homes, child care facilities, and vacant building and land parcels; (2) response to citizen fire hazard complaints; (3) approval of plans for and inspections of new construction; (4) determination of cause and origin of fires; (5) investigation of false alarms; and (6) public safety education programs. 2001-03 Highlights: The biennial budget includes additional funding for federally mandated training and increased appropriations associated with the recruitment and testing of applicants. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Administration Fire Prevention Total 1999-00 Actual $1,238,701 117,215 1,463 630,683 $1,988,062 $12.53 2000-01 Budget $1,366,352 112,753 24,000 507,953 $2,011,058 $12.54 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 8 11 19 2000-01 Revised $1,380,029 155,047 31,176 441,315 $2,007,567 $12.52 2001-02 Budget $1,524,220 193,785 0 841,707 $2,559,712 $15.79 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 8 11 19 2002-03 Budget $1,627,914 213,137 0 880,036 $2,721,087 $16.61 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 8 11 19 Goal: To provide high quality cost efficient fire services. Objective: To efficiently manage resources to meet the needs of citizens with 7.7 sworn full-time equivalents (FTE) per capita and .15 fire stations per square mile. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Measures Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget $80,434 $84,659 $83,416 $94,015 $99,304 Department cost per fire employee 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.8 7.7 Firefighters per capita (10,000) 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Non-Firefighters per capita (10,000) 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.55 Companies per capita (10,000) .32/.13 .37/.15 .37/.15 .37/.15 .36/.15 Fire Stations per capita (10,000)/square mile Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating 2 2 2 2 2 Operating Expenditures per $100,000 of $1,091 $1,148 $1,139 $1,284 $1,356 property protected 5% 4% 13% 6% Percent Change Comparative Benchmark 200 Emergency and Medical Services The basic responsibility of Emergency Services is to deliver rapid effective service when fire, medical and other hazardous emergencies occur. These services are extended through the use of seven engine companies and two ladder trucks located at six fire stations throughout the City. Services provided by this division are as follows: (1) respond to and extinguish fires, prevent fires in cases of fuel spills and electrical malfunctions, and deliver effective medical and rescue services; (2) deliver emergency medical training and paramedic level medical services for injuries, illnesses, and accidents; (3) respond to and control hazardous materials emergencies; (4) conduct company fire prevention inspections; and (5) provide technical rescue services. 2001-03 Highlights: The biennial budget includes funding for emergency related equipment such as thermal imaging cameras, nitronox field units, heart monitors, and hydraulic rescue tools. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Emergency Services Medical Services Total 1999-00 Actual $8,621,555 505,489 38,421 (60) $9,165,405 $57.78 2000-01 Budget $9,166,790 343,118 107,134 34,520 $9,651,562 $60.20 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 126 2000-01 Revised $8,937,029 419,074 108,592 0 $9,464,695 $59.03 2001-02 Budget $9,785,691 407,000 130,025 0 $10,322,716 $63.69 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 126 2002-03 Budget $10,325,287 447,357 124,825 0 $10,897,469 $66.53 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 126 3 3 3 129 129 129 201 Goal: To provide efficient response to fire, medical, hazardous materials, and rescue emergencies. Objective: 1) To reduce safe emergency responses by an average of five seconds; and 2) maintain a 99% or better citizen satisfaction with fire and paramedic services. Measures Responses to fire alarms Responses to emergency medical incidents Responses to special operations incidents Responses to other emergency services Average emergency response time in minutes (from call receipt to arrival)* % of emergency responses taking 5.0 minutes or less ** Calls per capita (1,000) Percent change Citizen satisfaction Comparative Benchmark *Calls do not include processing time ** New measure 202 1999-00 Actual 2000-01 Budget 2000-01 Revised 2001-02 Budget 2002-03 Budget 2,126 10,611 72 1,205 2,251 11,458 84 1,511 2,300 12,600 85 1,750 2,370 13,700 90 1,780 2,440 14,900 95 1,810 4:16* 4:17* 5:12 5:00 5:00 88 96% 95 8% 96% 75% 104 17% 99% 75% 111 6% 99% 75% 117 6% 99% Training/Professional Development Training/Professional Development includes all categories of departmental training including recruits, officer development, driver training, and minimum company standards. Incident analysis is another method used to improve the quality of our service by reviewing emergency incidents and applying lessons learned. All promotional and assignments tests are administered through this section. Section provides oversight and maintenance of Department personnel certifications. 2001-03 Highlights: The biennial budget includes additional funding for technical training and seminars. 1999-00 Actual $226,711 52,317 0 $279,028 $1.76 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Training/Professional Development Total 2000-01 Budget $207,907 48,340 33,730 $289,977 $1.81 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2000-01 Revised $238,261 54,257 33,730 $326,248 $2.03 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2001-02 Budget $249,208 66,626 0 $315,834 $1.95 2002-03 Budget $260,662 70,151 0 $330,813 $2.02 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 3 3 3 3 3 3 Goal: To provide training and evaluation standards for all phases of emergency services. Objective: 1) To evaluate all Emergency Services Division personnel quarterly for compliance with Tempe Fire Department standards relating to fireground, EMS and special operations procedures; and 2) maintain current percentages of completion. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Measures Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Percentage of companies completing minimum company 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% standards evaluations Percentage of individuals who successfully attain compliance 97% 98% 98% 98% 98% with minimum company standards Percentage of individuals who successfully attain self 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% contained breathing apparatus proficiency compliance 203 Special Operations Special Operations involves oversight of development, training, and certification of all special type emergency procedures including hazardous materials and technical rescue (high angle, confined space, swift water, etc.). The Fire Department is charged with management of the City’s emergency preparedness plan for disaster type issues. This includes development and maintenance of the plan, conducting disaster drills, and coordination of disaster preparedness with the County. Also under the auspices of this section is dispatch liaison with the City of Phoenix Fire Dispatch Center. This includes helping to draft and implement policy and coordination of the technical aspect relevant to Tempe. 2001-03 Highlights: The biennial budget includes funding for technical rescue equipment and hazardous material entry suits. Personal Services Supplies and Services Contributions Capital Outlay Expenditure Total Per Capita 1999-00 Actual $111,980 24,588 12,414 0 $148,982 $0.94 Authorized Personnel Special Operations Total 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 1 1 Expenditures by Type 2000-01 Revised $96,645 23,000 13,801 20,000 $153,446 $0.96 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 1 1 2001-02 Budget $103,062 27,572 13,000 12,100 $155,734 $0.96 To provide efficient response to emergencies that involve hazardous materials. Objective: To effectively manage the number of first responders. First responders Hazardous materials technicians First responders per technician 1999-00 Actual 106 20 5.3 2000-01 Budget 106 20 5.3 2000-01 Revised 106 20 5.3 2002-03 Budget $112,419 61,007 13,000 40,665 $227,091 $1.39 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 1 1 Goal: Measures 204 2000-01 Budget $91,085 21,500 12,600 20,000 $145,185 $0.91 2001-02 Budget 102 24 4.3 2002-03 Budget 102 24 4.3 Support Services/Personnel Safety Primary responsibilities of Support Services and Personnel Safety include equipment maintenance and repair, apparatus construction management, maintaining the Department’s communications systems, and writing equipment bid specifications. In addition, the division orders and distributes fire-fighting supplies to the City’s six fire stations. 2001-03 Highlights: The biennial budget includes funding to retrofit preconnect hoses on three older pumper trucks. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Support Services Personnel Safety Total 1999-00 Actual $300,818 304,079 172,704 269,098 $1,046,699 $6.60 2000-01 Budget $353,947 277,133 365,000 197,618 $1,193,698 $7.44 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2 0.5 4 6 0.5 2000-01 Revised $313,837 283,485 365,000 265,429 $1,227,751 $7.66 2001-02 Budget $377,144 296,022 500,000 327,251 $1,500,417 $9.26 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2 0.5 4 6 0.5 2002-03 Budget $400,897 312,255 509,700 290,695 $1,513,547 $9.24 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2 0.5 4 6 0.5 Goal: To conduct progressive maintenance, inspections, service work, and major and minor repairs of all fire apparatus. Objective: 1) To insure 100% reliability and safety of equipment serviced by Fire Maintenance; and 2) target 100% maintenance completion within the preventive maintenance schedule. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Measures Vehicles maintained 20 21 20 20 21 Preventive maintenance inspections 216 228 240 240 252 Percent completed within PM schedule 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 205 Community Services Community Services Manager Administration Parks and Recreation Library Cultural Services Social Services The Community Services Department consists of Administration, Parks & Recreation, Library, Cultural Services, and Social Services Divisions. The Department’s responsibilities include developing, scheduling and supervising City recreation programs; a full range of public library services; historical/cultural enrichment to Tempe citizens; and social service programs. 206 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services 1999-00 Actual $10,099,661 2,823,614 Capital Outlay 2000-01 Budget $11,635,036 3,119,669 2000-01 Revised $11,430,500 3,351,073 2001-02 Budget $13,376,535 3,338,707 2002-03 Budget $14,088,191 3,246,395 181,490 52,000 193,777 132,000 39,500 1,723,260 68,595 1,680,057 76,333 1,951,037 76,333 2,504,743 116,333 2,628,818 116,333 $14,896,620 $16,563,095 $17,002,720 $19,468,318 $20,119,237 $93.91 $103.30 $106.04 $120.13 $122.83 Expenditures by Division Administration 1999-00 Actual $680,808 2000-01 Budget $644,860 2000-01 Revised $640,782 2001-02 Budget $605,015 2002-03 Budget $638,883 Parks and Recreation Library 4,975,964 3,715,591 5,282,530 4,139,242 5,671,790 4,432,173 6,431,861 4,583,222 6,418,291 4,752,210 Cultural Services 1,219,674 1,355,701 1,299,609 1,823,332 1,834,398 4,304,583 $14,896,620 5,140,762 $16,563,095 4,958,366 $17,002,720 6,024,888 $19,468,318 6,475,455 $20,119,237 Internal Services Contributions Expenditure Total Per Capita Social Services Total Authorized Personnel Community Services Admin. and Parks & Recreation Library Cultural Services Social Services Total 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 38 37 17 37 129 6.25 8.25 1.00 8.90 21.65 60.77 9.84 6.53 73.10 150.24 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 43 37 17 41 138 6.25 8.25 1.50 17.65 33.65 65.87 9.84 7.02 62.10 144.83 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 43 37 17 42 139 6.25 8.25 1.50 18.65 34.65 65.87 9.84 7.02 62.10 144.83 207 Administration and Parks & Recreation Community Services Administration is responsible for overall management of the City’s recreation, library, cultural, and social services resources. In this role, Administration manages services provided at municipal parks, golf courses, stadium facilities, swimming pools, the Tempe Public Library, the Tempe Historical Museum, the Pyle Adult Recreation Center, the Vihel Cultural Center, and at community events occurring throughout the city. Services provided by Parks and Recreation are as follows: (1) facilities coordination and scheduling; (2) general recreation; (3) special recreation for retired citizens; (4) instructional programs; (5) community special events; (6) aquatics maintenance and programming; (7) baseball and softball programs; (8) oversight of golf course operations; and (9) park planning and design. 2001-03 Highlights: Year one of the biennial budget includes additional funding for: 2 FT and 1 FTE in the Instructional Boating Program to allow the program to be continued and expanded to meet the current demand for boating instruction on Tempe Town Lake; 2 full-time Sports Recreation Program Coordinators to replace four part-time positions, established as twenty-four month apprenticeship or internship opportunities; 1 FTE to expand existing retiree programming at the Pyle Adult Recreation Center and to begin senior programming at the West Side Multigenerational Center, which includes a part-time permanent Program Coordinator and a part-time temp; 1 full-time Therapeutic Recreation Coordinator and 1.93 FTE for Adapted (Therapeutic) Recreation. 208 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Contributions Expenditure Total Per Capita 1999-00 Actual $3,471,921 1,296,579 123,303 696,374 68,595 $5,656,772 $35.66 2000-01 Budget $3,909,947 1,354,347 0 586,763 76,333 $5,927,390 $36.97 Authorized Personnel Administration Parks and Recreation Total 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 3 0.52 35 6.25 60.25 38 6.25 60.77 2000-01 Revised $4,087,612 1,455,811 141,077 551,739 76,333 $6,312,572 $39.37 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 3 0.52 40 6.25 65.35 43 6.25 65.87 2001-02 Budget $4,577,685 1,496,913 43,050 802,895 116,333 $7,036,876 $43.42 2002-03 Budget $4,583,326 1,457,905 35,000 864,610 116,333 $7,057,174 $43.09 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 3 0.52 40 6.25 65.35 43 6.25 65.87 Goal: 1) To provide quality recreation services to the community, to coordinate the effective use of community facilities; and 2) provide a wide variety of leisure opportunities. Objective: 1) To provide recreational opportunities at a cost that compares favorably with other cities as measured by cost per capita; and 2) maintain 95% citizen satisfaction with parks and recreation facilities. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Measures O&M cost per capita Parks & Recreation revenue Cost Recovery Percentage of citizens who have used a City park or recreation program in the past 12 months Percentage of citizens who rate parks and recreation facilities as satisfactory $31.37 $32.95 $35.37 $39.69 $39.19 $1,963,289 $1,772,600 $2,015,872 $2,050,709 $2,053,259 39% 33% 35% 32% 32% 78% 78% 78% 80% 80% 95% 97% 95% 95% 95% Comparative Benchmark 209 Library The Tempe Public Library serves the needs of the citizens of Tempe by providing books, audio-visual materials, and computer-based information resources to inform, instruct, and entertain people of all ages, levels of ability, and educational backgrounds. Services provided by this division are as follows: (1) checkout of print and audio materials; (2) reference and referral services; (3) story hours, reading programs, book discussion groups, seminars, class visits and other book-oriented group programs; (4) inter-library loans; (5) computer and Internet instructional classes; and (6) public access to the Internet and other computing resources. 2001-03 Highlights: Year 1 provides funding for the replacement of highly used children's books and audio-visual materials that have been damaged or lost; while Year 2 provides funding for the replacement of highly used adult books and audio-visual materials that have been damaged or lost. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Library Total 210 1999-00 Actual $2,312,294 905,809 17,937 479,551 $3,715,591 $23.42 2000-01 Budget $2,581,777 985,461 52,000 520,004 $4,139,242 $25.82 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 37 8.25 9.84 37 8.25 9.84 2000-01 Revised $2,490,861 1,116,535 52,700 772,077 $4,432,173 $27.64 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 37 8.25 9.84 37 8.25 9.84 2001-02 Budget $2,761,726 963,360 0 858,136 $4,583,222 $28.28 2002-03 Budget $2,942,409 919,936 0 889,865 $4,752,210 $29.01 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 37 8.25 9.84 37 8.25 9.84 Goal: To provide access to excellent library resources and services that will assist community residents of all ages obtain information that meets their educational, professional, and recreational needs. Objective: To increase community usage of the library’s collection and electronic research resources. Measures Library visitors (door count) Registered borrowers Percent change Circulation Percent change Patrons Using Internet* Percent Change* Operating cost per volume circulated Library FTE per 1,000 population Circulation per capita 1999-00 Actual 2000-01 Budget 2000-01 Actual 2001-02 Budget 2002-03 Budget 884,223 164,346 1,107,473 95,502 $3.36 0.29 7.0 972,000 170,000 3.4% 1,250,000 12.9% $3.31 0.28 7.8 893,065 165,000 (2.9%) 1,101,510 (11.9%) 119,377 25% $4.02 0.28 6.9 901,995 166,650 1.0% 1,112,525 1.0% 125,125 5% $4.12 0.28 6.9 911,014 167,483 0.5% 1,123,650 1.0% 128,878 3% $4.23 0.28 6.9 Comparative Benchmark * New measure 211 Cultural Services The Cultural Services Division includes three main program areas; Tempe Historical Museum, the Community Arts Program and the Fine Arts Programs. Services provided include management of the Peterson House and the Vihel Center for the Arts, the Tempe Performing Arts Center, exhibits, community arts and cultural classes, and public arts grants. 2001-03 Highlights: In Year 1, additional funding was provided for the expansion of various Community Arts Programs, including Ceramics and the Adventure in the Arts Summer Youth Camp. Funding was also added for various capital outlay needs in the facilities. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Cultural Services Performing Arts Total 212 1999-00 Actual $868,908 125,739 33,611 191,416 $1,219,674 $7.69 2000-01 Budget $991,790 190,336 0 173,575 $1,355,701 $8.46 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 14 1 6.53 3 17 1 6.53 2000-01 Revised $953,478 190,236 0 155,895 $1,299,609 $8.11 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 14 1.5 7.02 3 17 1.5 7.02 2001-02 Budget $1,343,626 211,463 88,950 179,293 $1,823,332 $11.25 2002-03 Budget $1,433,990 209,963 4,500 185,945 $1,834,398 $11.20 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 14 1.5 7.02 3 17 1.5 7.02 Goal: To collect, record, and preserve tangible aspects of Tempe's past; and present and interpret Tempe's history to the general public. Objective: 1) To improve documentation of objects in the permanent artifact collections of the Tempe Historical Museum; and 2) increase public visitation at the Historical Museum and Peterson House Museum. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Budget Revised Budget Budget Actual Measures Objects catalogued Visitors to Historical Museum and Peterson House 2,700 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 13,855 17,000 12,186 13,000 15,000 Goal: To provide quality arts programming to the community, facilitate the effective use of arts facilities, and provide a diverse array of arts opportunities. Objective: 1) To support arts programming through grants funding of arts organizations and schools; and 2) offer a wide array of quality arts programming and classes. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Measures Program enrollment 5,233 5,388 5,308 5,400 5,500 Arts Classes revenues $104,286 $83,969 $124,181 $124,000 $124,000 Grants provided to Art Organizations $135,853 $128,070 $128,070 $127,465 $130,000 and Schools Participants reached through grants 227,719 225,000 227,651 220,000 220,000 213 Social Services The Social Services Division provides a wide array of services for Tempe youth and families. Activities and services are offered to all age groups in order to promote positive and healthy lifestyles. Services for youth include pre-school programs at the Escalante and West Side Multigenerational Centers, Kid Zone before and after school enrichment program, Teen Zone which encourages youth involvement in positive activities and services, and the Youth Employment Program which promotes strong work values and assists youth in exploring career opportunities. Residents of all ages may participate in State Licensed Counseling and/or Crisis Intervention Services. The Diversion/Probation Program provides a constructive program of case management, assessment, counseling and community service to individuals referred from Tempe City Court. 2001-03 Highlights: In fiscal year 2001-02, funding was provided to accommodate 13 staff members who were converted from part-time temporary to permanent benefitted status. A new Care 7 Crisis Response Counselor was added to continue the partnership between Police, Fire, and Community Services by means of the Care 7 team whose services would not continue at the conclusion of grant funding. Year 1 was also the first year that the new West Side Multigenerational Center received a full year’s operating budget. Year 2 includes additional funding for a full-time Coordinator of Homeless Services position, who will provide focus by coordinating public and private efforts, faith community, downtown efforts and volunteers. Expenditures by Type Personal Services 1999-00 Actual $3,446,538 2000-01 Budget $4,151,522 2000-01 Revised $3,898,549 2001-02 Budget $4,693,498 2002-03 Budget $5,128,466 495,487 589,525 588,491 666,971 658,591 6,639 0 0 0 0 355,919 399,715 471,326 664,419 688,398 $4,304,583 $5,140,762 $4,958,366 $6,024,888 $6,475,455 $27.14 $32.06 $30.92 $37.18 $39.53 Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Social Services/Administration Social Services/ KID ZONE Total 214 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 30 7 37 4.9 4.0 8.9 15.67 57.43 73.10 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 34 7 41 3.65 14.00 17.65 14.67 47.43 62.10 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 35 7 42 4.65 14.00 18.65 14.67 47.43 62.10 Goal: To promote strong work values and assist youth in exploring career opportunities. Objective: 1) To provide job placement services to 800 Tempe youth, citizens and businesses annually; and 2) to provide job seeking skills and career education to 1,500 Tempe youth annually. 1999-00 Actual 2000-01 Budget 400 450 Total job orders received 375 Youth in career education 2,000 Measures Job seeking applicants 2000-01 Revised 2001-02 Budget 2002-03 Budget 450 425 425 375 375 375 375 2,000 2,643 2,000 2,000 Goal: To promote healthy family atmospheres by providing education classes for youth and adults. Objective: To maintain a 95% level of satisfaction with the quality of community education among participants. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Measures Kid Zone Participants* 3,191 3,286 3,300 3,350 Community Center Education contacts* 8,515 - 10,231 15,000 15,500 Community Center Recreation contacts* 19,647 - 31,891 34,000 36,000 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% Level of Satisfaction Goal: 1) To redirect adult first-time offenders into positive community activities by providing counseling and educational programs; 2) to provide case management services for offenders assigned to probation by the court to participate in counseling, domestic violence and drug and alcohol treatment programs’ and 3) to provide screening services for offenders referred by the court to assess level of education and/or treatment and make appropriate referrals. Objective: 1) To attain a success rate of 75% for adult diversion clients; 2) attain a success rate of 60% for probation clients; and 3) attain a success rate of 80% for screening services clients. Measures New ADP New PROB New Screenings Percent Completion: Adult diversion clients Probation clients Screening services 1999-00 Actual 1,374 322 1,079 80% 66% 89% 2000-01 Budget 1,150 200 900 2000-01 Revised 1,254 407 1,003 2001-02 Budget 1,150 200 900 90% 75% 80% 80% 66% 89% 75% 60% 80% 2002-03 Budget 1,150 200 900 75% 60% 80% * New measure 215 Public Works Public Works Manager Administration Engineering Administration Field Services Administration Equipment Management Transportation Construction Sanitation & Streets Fleet Maintenance Transportation Operations Design Facility Management Auto Parts Traffic Engineering Land Services Parks & Golf Course M tnce Fuel Transportation Planning Geographic Information Infrastructure The Public Works Department consists of Administration and Engineering, Field Services. Equipment Management, and Transportation. The Engineering Division provides CIP project estimating, utility management, real estate services, property addressing right-of-way permitting, and project design and coordination. Field Services consists of Streets and Sanitation, Parks and Golf Course Maintenance, and Facility Maintenance. Field Services is responsible for maintaining 46 public parks, performing building maintenance and custodial services, street maintenance and solid waste collection. Equipment Management is responsible for vehicle and equipment repair, preventive maintenance, and fleet road service. Transportation is comprised of Transportation Operations, traffic engineering, transit and transportation planning. Transportation is responsible for traffic engineering design and studies, traffic calming, transit services, long range transportation planning, pavement marking and striping, traffic signal maintenance and construction, and street lighting. 216 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Contributions 1999-00 Actual $18,029,923 24,245,227 3,908,274 (931,524) 5,570 2000-01 Budget $19,727,295 29,165,319 2,840,395 (721,158) 48,133 2000-01 Revised $18,711,254 29,352,225 2,034,450 58,964 4,615 2001-02 Budget $21,208,677 33,067,477 2,941,420 (1,424,270) 36,198 2002-03 Budget $22,861,093 34,924,154 2,576,770 (1,224,442) 36,261 Expenditure Total Per Capita $45,257,470 $285.31 $51,059,984 $318.45 $50,161,508 $312.85 $55,829,502 $344.49 $59,173,836 $361.27 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Expenditures by Division Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Administration and Engineering $1,299,206 $1,282,442 $1,170,610 $1,306,564 $1,365,860 Field Services: Administration & Sanitation 10,890,560 10,619,855 10,310,855 10,805,807 11,103,039 Streets Maintenance 2,115,557 2,244,478 1,887,798 1,649,845 1,810,172 Facility Management 3,976,843 4,201,744 4,041,374 4,636,134 4,876,173 Parks and Golf Course Maintenance 7,563,341 8,136,312 7,763,278 8,794,869 9,223,589 Equipment Management 0 0 0 0 0 Transportation 19,411,963 24,575,153 24,987,593 28,636,283 30,795,003 Total $45,257,470 $51,059,984 $50,161,508 $55,829,502 $59,173,836 Authorized Personnel Administration and Engineering Field Services Equipment Management Transportation Total 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 43 250 36 55 384 1.5 0.5 2.0 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 0.49 46 8.69 252 .50 36 63 397 9.68 1.5 0.5 2.0 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 0.49 46 8.69 253 .50 36 66 401 9.68 0.49 1.5 8.69 .50 0.5 2.0 9.68 217 Public Works–Administration and Engineering The Public Works Director has overall responsibility for providing the leadership, management and administrative support necessary for the Public Works Department. Services provided are as follows: (1) administer the Public Works budget and acquisition of capital outlay; (2) approve all Public Works personnel actions; (3) submit recommendations on Public Works and related activities to the City Council; (4) monitor public improvement projects; (5) plans review, technical standards, design services, and engineering studies; (6) coordinate and administer the Capital Improvements Program (estimates, scheduling, specifications, improvement districts, surveying and staking); (7) control public rights-of-way: construction permits, construction inspection, Water, Sewer and Storm Drain Extension Ordinance, Grading and Drainage Ordinance, Flood Plain Ordinance and as-built records/information; and (8) provide real estate services (acquisitions, annexations, abandonments, encroachments and appraisals). The Engineering Division has the primary responsibility of providing engineering, surveying, inspection, testing and contractual services for all improvements constructed within the public rightof-way. 2001-03 Highlights: One full-time Engineering Associate has been authorized to address an increase in the level of inspection requirements associated with capital projects, as well as, one full-time Civil Engineer to address an increase in the number of water/wastewater projects in the City’s six-year Capital Improvements Program. Funding has also been approved for a robotic total station and support technology. 1999-00 Actual $2,540,163 365,824 5,774 (1,612,555) $1,299,206 $8.19 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Administration Engineering Total 218 2000-01 Budget $2,620,339 413,219 0 (1,751,116) $1,282,442 $8.00 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 4 .49 39 43 .49 2000-01 Revised $2,581,642 413,144 0 (1,824,176) $1,170,610 $7.30 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 4 0 .49 42 46 .49 2001-02 Budget $2,928,371 517,310 41,600 (2,180,717) $1,306,564 $8.06 2002-03 Budget $3,110,259 541,534 0 (2,285,933) $1,365,860 $8.34 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 4 0 .49 42 46 .49 Goal: To efficiently provide for improved community quality of life by strategic planning, budgeting, design, and construction of capital improvement projects which address recreational, municipal facilities, public utilities, transportation, and public safety needs. Objective: To commit 90% of funding for budgeted projects within 18 months. Measures 1999-00 Actual 2000-01 Budget 2000-01 Revised 2001-02 Budget 2002-03 Budget CIP dollars budgeted $83.9M $61.3M $60.7M $71.8M $130.2M Projects budgeted 121 87 87 108 103 Consultants managed 146 100 140 150 150 63 90 45 60 65 Value of projects designed privately $43M $45M $32M $39M $75M Projects committed within 18 months 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% Projects designed privately Goal: To insure that the construction of private developments and related utility work is coordinated with the City’s infrastructure, transportation plan and quality standards, and is in compliance with applicable codes and ordinances. Objective: 1) To issue 275 private development and 200 new private development permits; and 2) spend 6,240 staff hours inspecting the work for all utility and private development construction activity. Private development permits issued 1999-00 Actual 369 Utility permits issued 1,430 - 1,943 2,000 2,000 149 200 125 150 150 4,600 4,600 5,720 6,240 6,240 Measures New private developments Staff hours for inspection 2000-01 Budget 600 2000-01 Revised 234 2001-02 Budget 275 2002-03 Budget 275 Goal: To plan for the maintenance, upgrade or replacement of the City’s infrastructure (water, sewer, storm drain, irrigation, pavement, and concrete) in order to maximize its life and maintain its level of service. Objective: To maintain a database of the facility type, condition, and history which is used to prioritize projects that will minimize disruption of service, extend the useful life, and maintain quality service to the public. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Measures Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget (In millions) Pavement maintained (square yards) 11.87 11.87 11.87 11.87 11.87 Concrete curbs maintained (linear feet) 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 Sidewalk maintained (square yards) 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 $3.67 $2.10 $3.13 $2.92 $3.38 Funds required for preventive maintenance 219 Field Services/Administration and Sanitation Sanitation is responsible for the collection and disposal of solid waste generated from all residential and selected commercial facilities within the City of Tempe. The solid waste is taken to the Waste Management Sky Harbor Transfer Station. Services provided by this division are as follows: (1) provide plastic solid waste containers to all residential customers, collect residential solid waste and transport to the transfer station; (2) curbside collection of commingled residential recyclables; (3) provide metal bulk solid waste containers to commercial customers, collect commercial solid waste and transport to transfer station; (4) collect cardboard and paper from commercial accounts for recycling; (5) collect all uncontained solid waste from residential customers and transport to transfer station; (6) collect all uncontained green waste from residential customers and transport to the Salt River Landfill for recycling; and (7) repair and maintain 90 and 300 gallon plastic solid waste containers, roll off containers and various sizes of solid waste metal containers. 2001-03 Highlights: Funding has been authorized for refuse truck signage to equip all refuse collection vehicles with sign brackets and interchangeable signs for the promotion and advertisement of City programs. 1999-00 Actual $3,418,188 2000-01 Budget $3,593,467 2000-01 Revised $3,572,512 2001-02 Budget $3,730,086 2002-03 Budget $3,980,807 Supplies and Services 3,053,772 3,156,219 2,972,532 3,189,458 3,221,633 Capital Outlay 2,196,825 1,392,600 1,407,000 1,290,890 1,177,150 Internal Services 2,217,160 2,471,436 2,354,196 2,589,175 2,717,188 4,615 6,133 4,615 6,198 6,261 $10,890,560 $10,619,855 $10,310,855 $10,805,807 $11,103,039 $68.66 $66.23 $64.31 $66.68 $67.79 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Contributions Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Field Services Administration 220 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 7 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 7 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 7 Sanitation 64 .50 64 .500 64 .50 Total 71 .50 71 .50 71 .50 Goal: To properly collect and dispose of all contained and uncontained solid waste and green waste generated by residential customers. Objective: 1) To provide excellent service to 34,098 residential customers; 2) divert 24% of residential waste stream, and 3) maintain citizen satisfaction with trash collection (97%) and recycling (94%). 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Measures Residential households serviced 34,340 34,612 34,612 34,187 34,098 Residential contained $2,522,347 $2,313,250 $2,313,250 $2,674,522 $2,475,178 Residential uncontained/green waste $2,033,307 $1,987,335 $1,987,335 $1,689,127 $2,126,448 Recycling $1,636,468 $1,500,808 $1,500,808 $1,200,628 $1,605,865 Total O&M: Tons of refuse collected: Residential contained 37,040 37,891 37,891 38,638 39,384 Residential uncontained/green waste 16,378 16,754 16,754 16,829 16,905 Recycling 14,277 14,605 14,605 14,150 13,700 $68.10 $61.06 $61.06 $69.22 $76.32 Residential uncontained $124.15 $118.62 $118.62 $100.37 $125.78 Recycling $114.62 $102.76 $102.76 $84.85 $117.21 21% 21% 21% 23% 24% Citizen satisfaction with trash collection - 97% 97% 97% 97% Citizen satisfaction with recycling - 94% 94% 94% 94% 234 236 236 238 240 Collection cost per ton: Residential contained Residential diversion rate (recycling) Residential Contained Refuse tons per capita (1,000) Goal: To properly collect and dispose of all solid waste generated by commercial customers and multi-family housing units within the City. Objective: 1) To continue to provide quality and timely collection service to approximately 2,166 commercial accounts; and 2) minimize collection cost per ton to $51.51. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Measures Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Commercial accounts serviced per 1,950 1,975 1,975 2,100 2,166 month Percent change - 1.3% 0.0% $4,352,263 $4,522,594 $4,522,594 Tons of refuse collected 75,921 77,819 77,819 96,000 97,370 Collection cost per ton $57.33 $58.12 $58.12 $41.35 $51.51 Total O&M–Commercial 6.3% 3.1% $3,969,600 $5,015,557 Comparative Benchmark 221 Field Services/Street Maintenance The Street Maintenance function provides for construction, reconstruction and maintenance of streets, sidewalks, bikeways, alleys, easements and storm drainage facilities within the City. Primary emphasis is on maintenance of existing facilities. Activities also include street and sidewalk sweeping. Services provided are as follows: (1) maintain all streets and alleyways; (2) clean and sweep debris and litter from all paved City streets, alleys and bikeways; (3) provide emergency storm and flood protection; (4) install temporary widening to reduce potential hazard to public; and (5) clean-up downtown area daily from Ash to College Avenue and Rio Salado to University. 2001-03 Highlights: Funding has been authorized for emergency standby overtime to establish an overtime budget designated for after hour emergency call-outs (road closures, debris removal), and for the continuation of the City’s tree trimming contract to ensure prompt removal of obstructions in the rights-of-way. 1999-00 Actual $1,284,442 2000-01 Budget $1,331,946 2000-01 Revised $813,312 2001-02 Budget $874,917 2002-03 Budget $966,549 Supplies and Services 310,905 341,188 272,099 349,011 365,280 Capital Outlay 235,703 218,750 461,200 50,100 83,400 Internal Services 284,507 352,594 341,187 375,817 394,943 $2,115,557 $2,244,478 $1,887,798 $1,649,845 $1,810,172 $13.34 $14.00 $11.77 $10.18 $11.05 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita 2000-01 Revised Authorized Personnel Street Maintenance Total 222 Full Time Perm FTE Temp FTE 2001-02 Budget Full Time Perm FTE 25 25 0 25 25 Temp FTE 2002-03 Budget Full Time Perm FTE 25 0 25 Temp FTE Goal: To perform preventive maintenance on existing streets and alleys (paved and unpaved) to ensure that they are acceptable and safe for public use. Objective: 1) To provide crack routing and sealing operations on all streets; and 2) keep all streets and paved alleys free of potholes and to ensure that utility cuts are leveled out. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Measures Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Street Maintenance (Construction) Total O&M: Crack filling $313,779 $419,215 $252,882 $297,901 $330,928 Utility cut repairs $134,477 $179,663 $106,989 $126,035 $140,008 Asphalt milling $313,779 $419,215 $252,882 $297,901 $330,928 Dust control/special projects $134,477 $179,663 $106,989 $126,035 $140,008 Miles of cracks filled 300 325 325 337 348 Street utility cuts repaired (square feet) 25,000 25,700 25,700 20,000 25,700 Asphalt milling (linear feet) 400,000 500,000 500,000 517,000 535,000 Dust control in alleys (miles) 50 50 50 50 120 Cost per mile of cracks filled $1,046 $1,290 $778 $884 $951 Cost per utility cut repaired (square feet) $5.38 $6.99 $4.16 $6.30 $5.45 Cost per square foot of asphalt milled $0.78 $0.84 $0.51 $0.58 $0.62 Cost per square foot of dust control (alleys) $2,690 $3,593 $2,140 $2,521 $1,167 Goal: To provide safe and well-maintained streets for the citizens of Tempe. Objective: To hold maintenance costs to under $7.00 per curb mile swept. 1999-00 Actual Field Maintenance (Right-of-Way) Total O&M $523,398 Curb miles of street swept 50,024 Cost per curb mile swept $10.46 Total O&M per lane mile $724 Comparative Benchmark Measures 2000-01 Budget 2000-01 Revised 2001-02 Budget 2002-03 Budget $405,380 50,324 $8.06 $967 $252,882 50,324 $5.03 $786 $297,901 50,324 $5.92 $726 $330,928 50,324 $6.56 $1,028 223 Field Services/Facility Management The Facility Management Services Section provides maintenance and repair service to all City owned buildings and area lighting for City parks and parking lots. The maintenance and repair activities provided are: carpentry, painting, plumbing, electrical, heating, cooling, ventilation, locks, security, building automation systems, and energy management. The Custodial Services Section provides interior cleaning of City owned buildings and park restrooms. The basic services provided are: trash removal, mopping, waxing, and vacuuming. 2001-03 Highlights: Funding has been authorized for one full-time Custodian and two full-time Facility Maintenance Technicians I/II to handle an increase in square footage maintained throughout the City. 1999-00 Actual $2,186,468 2,118,773 5,215 (333,613) $3,976,843 $25.07 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita 2000-01 Budget $2,486,557 2,068,686 8,000 (361,499) $4,201,744 $26.21 2000-01 Revised Authorized Personnel Facility Services Custodial Services Total 224 Full Time 19 38 57 Perm FTE Temp FTE .50 .50 .49 .49 2000-01 Revised $2,320,693 2,074,425 8,000 (361,744) $4,041,374 $25.21 2001-02 Budget Full Time 20 39 59 Perm FTE 0 .50 .50 Temp FTE .49 .49 2001-02 Budget $2,747,107 2,193,617 0 (304,590) $4,636,134 $28.61 2002-03 Budget $2,936,627 2,302,087 0 (362,541) $4,876,173 $29.77 2002-03 Budget Full Time 21 39 60 Perm FTE 0 .50 .50 Temp FTE .49 .49 Goal: To provide efficient maintenance and custodial services to all City facilities while maintaining a safe, clean and productive work environment. Objective: 1) To provide preventive maintenance on all City facilities as required by manufacturer or industry standards; and 2) provide manpower coverage between 50,000 to 55,000 square foot per 10 hour shift for routine maintenance functions. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Measures Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Facility Maintenance Total O&M $2,796,471 $2,866,391 $2,818,686 $3,186,706 $3,345,573 Full-time Equivalents (FTE’s) 18 18 19 20 21 Buildings maintained 70 72 72 72 72 Square feet maintained 1,057,060 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,225,525 1,225,525 Percent change 4% 0% 11% 0% O&M per square foot maintained $2.65 $2.61 $2.56 $2.60 $2.73 Square feet maintained per FTE 58,726 61,111 57,895 61,276 58,358 Goal: To provide efficient maintenance and custodial services to all City facilities while maintaining a safe, clean and productive work environment. Objective: To hold custodial costs per square foot per year between $1.50 and $2.00; and maintain square footage per custodian between 18,000 to 18,500 per 8 hour shift for routine cleaning. Measures Custodial Services Total O&M Full-time Equivalents Total square feet Total square feet cleaned Percent change Number of buildings cleaned O&M per square foot cleaned Square feet cleaned per FTE 1999-00 Actual 2000-01 Budget 2000-01 Revised 2001-02 Budget 2002-03 Budget $1,204,960 36.99 1,057,060 680,000 55 $1.77 18,383 $1,335,354 37.99 1,100,000 690,000 2% 55 $1.94 18,163 $1,214,688 38.99 1,100,000 883,957 28% 62 $1.37 22,671 $1,449,428 39.99 1,225,525 883,957 0% 62 $1.64 22,104 $1,530,600 39.99 1,225,525 883,957 0% 62 $1.73 22,104 225 Field Services/Parks and Golf Course Maintenance The Parks and Golf Course Maintenance section of Field Services assists in the planning and development of parkland and facilities. Services provided by this section are as follows: (1) maintain recreational facilities to meet the public needs; (2) maintenance for all parks, special facilities and golf courses; (3) maintenance of the Diablo Stadium Sports Complex; (4) necessary services for a professional baseball team, other sporting activities and special events held at the stadium complex; (5) maintain rights-of-way and facility grounds in an attractive and pleasing state; and (6) maintain the Rio Salado linear parks. 2001-03 Highlights: Additional funding has been authorized to overseed tees and greens, fairways and roughs, and to double the amount of seed applied to these areas. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Parks Maintenance Pest Control Baseball Facility Golf Courses Landscape Maintenance Rio Salado Double Butte Cemetery Total 226 1999-00 Actual $3,705,108 3,153,154 80,134 624,945 $7,563,341 $47.49 2000-01 Budget $4,257,068 3,240,171 105,750 533,323 $8,136,312 $50.74 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 51 5.12 5 10 0.56 22 2.42 3 0 4 ..50 0.10 2 97 .50 8.20 2000-01 Revised $4,100,561 3,164,010 153,000 345,707 $7,763,278 $48.42 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 51 0 5.12 5 10 0.56 22 2.42 3 0 4 .50 0.10 2 97 .50 8.20 2001-02 Budget $4,638,466 3,343,501 64,800 748,102 $8,794,869 $54.27 2002-03 Budget $4,966,308 3,423,144 182,800 651,337 $9,223,589 $56.31 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 51 0 5.12 5 10 0.56 22 2.42 3 0 4 .50 0.10 2 97 .50 8.20 Goal: To maintain rights-of-way in an attractive and pleasing manner. Objective: 1) To manage the landscape contract for the care and maintenance of the City’s rights-of-way, medians and facility grounds and perform manual watering in designated areas; and 2) maintain 85% citizen satisfaction with maintenance program. Measures Landscape maintained (square feet) Percent change Landscape maintained (acres) Citizen satisfaction 1999-00 Actual 9,214,068 2000-01 Budget 9,800,000 2000-01 Revised 9,800,000 2001-02 Budget 10,208,333 2002-03 Budget 10,416,666 - 6% 0% 4% 2% 211 225 225 234 240 85% 85% 85% 88% 88% Goal: To provide recreational facilities for leisure opportunities that are accessible, attractive, enjoyable and safe. Objective: 1) To provide facilities to meet the public’s recreational needs and maintain high standards for all recreational use; and 2) target 95% citizen satisfaction levels with community parks. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Measures Total acres maintained 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,089 Per employee: Stadium 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.55 Parks/Special Facilities 16.73 16.73 16.73 16.73 19.13 Golf courses 10.37 10.37 10.37 10.37 10.37 51 51 51 51 51 89,753 95,000 90,207 90,000 90,000 - 6% (5%) 0% 0% 117,763 130,000 108,036 113,000 113,000 - 10% (17%) 5% 0% 130 130 125 140 150 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% Parks/Special Facilities maintained Golf course rounds of play: Ken McDonald (18 hole rounds) Percent change Rolling Hills (9 hole rounds) Percent change Diablo stadium special events Citizen satisfaction 227 Equipment Management The Equipment Management Division of the Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining the municipal vehicular and construction equipment fleet in as high a degree of mechanical readiness as economically possible. Services provided by this division include: (1) vehicular fleet maintenance; (2) preventative maintenance; (3) unscheduled repair and road service; (4) quality control; (5) fuel site maintenance and fuel inventory control; (6) parts inventory control; and (7) equipment specifications preparation. 1999-00 Actual $1,927,930 2000-01 Budget $2,061,618 2000-01 Revised $1,905,366 2001-02 Budget $2,144,268 2002-03 Budget $2,279,975 Supplies and Services 1,579,430 1,764,493 1,821,850 1,874,072 1,893,024 Capital Outlay 1,059,677 1,034,995 0 1,325,880 973,100 (4,567,037) (4,861,106) (3,727,216) (5,344,220) (5,146,099) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Internal Services Expenditure Total Authorized Personnel 228 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE Equipment Management 36 0.5 36 0.5 36 0.5 Total 36 0.5 36 0.5 36 0.5 Goal: To maintain the City’s fleet at a low cost. Objective: 1) To contain the growth in maintenance and repair, fuel and capital costs as measured by cost per mile; and 2) adhere to a vehicle replacement policy that results in vehicles without excessive mileage and related higher repair and maintenance costs. Measures Cost per mile (maintenance and repair, fuel and capital cost): Police patrol sedans Light duty trucks Refuse trucks Vehicle age in miles: Police patrol sedans Light duty trucks Refuse trucks Preventive maintenance compliance rate Replacement guidelines for: Police patrol sedans (miles) Light duty trucks (miles) Refuse trucks (miles) Goal: 1999-00 Actual 2000-01 Budget 2000-01 Revised 2001-02 Budget 2002-03 Budget 0.27 0.22 1.16 0.48 0.32 2.47 0.39 0.25 1.66 0.42 0.27 1.90 0.45 0.29 2.00 47,500 48,600 56,200 100% 48,300 43,400 82,700 100% 46,844 50,340 48,111 100% 42,200 50,000 55,000 100% 42,200 50,000 55,000 100% 100,000 85,000 140,000 100,000 85,000 140,000 100,000 85,000 140,000 100,000 85,000 140,000 100,000 85,000 140,000 To utilize equipment and personnel resources in an efficient manner. Objective: 1) To maximize to the extent practicable utilization of fleet and mechanic time; and 2) target 68% mechanic productivity as measured by mechanic utilization rate (percent of work hours spent on direct repair and maintenance of vehicles). 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Measures Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Annual vehicle utilization (miles): Police patrol sedans 1,033,770 1,102,775 1,279,044 1,342,996 1,342,996 Light duty trucks 890,188 705,482 905,061 875,000 875,000 Refuse trucks 610,415 616,210 664,256 665,000 665,000 Miles per mechanic hour: Police patrol sedans 279 388 266 400 400 Light duty trucks 476 499 430 475 500 Refuse trucks 86 78 89 95 95 Mechanic utilization rate 60.0% 60.0% 62.2% 65.0% 68.0% Comparative Benchmark 229 Transportation The Transportation Division is responsible, through its three sections (Traffic Engineering, Traffic Operations and Transit), for all transportation activities throughout the City. Services provided by this division include: (1) review subdivision plats, site development plans and permits; (2) study and analyze accidents at hazardous locations and conduct traffic engineering studies; (3) provide traffic volume data to general public and other agencies, and provide technical and professional assistance to other divisions; (4) prepare traffic signal, lighting, striping, signing designs, and other plans; (5) provide sight restriction abatements; (6) install and maintain pavement markings, traffic signals, and parking meters; (7) participate in regional transportation/transit planning and programming; (8) plan, coordinate, benchmark and provide transit services; (9) plan and administer bicycle facilities and encouragement projects; and (10) staff the Transportation Commission which provides oversight over the 1996 dedicated transit tax. 2001-03 Highlights: Three full-time Financial Services Clerks I/II have been authorized to provide staffing for an interim passenger facility for transit ticket sales, security and public restrooms along College Avenue. Also approved are one full-time Planner and Principal Civil Engineer to manage planning and engineering functions of the light rail project, as well as one full-time Transit Operations Technician to establish a transit quality assurance program. One full-time Transportation Worker I/II will assist the City’s current sign maintenance team with the replacement of traffic signs and the installation of new signs and posts, while the full-time Underground Utilities Coordinator will address an increase in the number of blue stake requests. An infrastructure maintenance management system will provide funding to expand the automated tracking program for streetlight and sign field inventory. 230 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Contributions Expenditure Total Per Capita 1999-00 Actual $2,967,625 13,663,107 324,941 2,455,335 955 $19,411,963 $122.38 2000-01 Budget $3,377,301 18,131,343 78,300 2,946,209 42,000 $24,575,153 $153.27 Authorized Personnel Transportation Transit Total 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 35 20 0.5 55 0.5 2000-01 Revised $3,417,167 18,634,165 5,250 2,931,011 0 $24,987,593 $155.84 2001-02 2002-03 Budget Budget $4,145,462 $4,620,668 21,599,008 23,175,952 4,400 0 2,693,663 2,958,383 30,000 30,000 $28,636,283 $30,7935,003 $176.69 $188.00 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 37 0 26 0.5 63 0.5 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 37 0 29 0.5 66 0.5 Goal: To improve and ensure the safety and efficiency of the city’s transportation system. Objective: 1) To paint 1.8M linear ft. of roadway striping and 625 crosswalks annually; 2) provide quality traffic signing along streets; 3) assure that traffic signals work as designed at all times by annually rewiring 12 intersections, upgrading 10 traffic control cabinets, performing preventative maintenance on all traffic control cabinets twice, and retrofitting signal heads to LED in 80 intersections; and 4) ensure a safe, reliable and energy efficient lighting system by upgrading 400 street lights annually and replacing all structurally deficient street light poles. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Measures Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Lane lines striped annually (linear feet) Crosswalks striped Develop infrastructure management system** Preventative maintenance of street signs Intersections upgraded (rewired) Traffic control cabinets upgraded** (*global replacement) Traffic control cabinets preventative maintenance Light Emitting Diode (LED) retrofits** Street light lamp upgrades Evaluate structural integrity of streetlights** Replace structurally deficient street poles** 1,753,186 1,800,000 1,755,442 1,800,000 1,800,000 716 625 650 625 625 - - 10% 55% 35% 35 6 12 2 10 6 12 6 12 - - 19 *100 20 108 182 255 360 360 105 350 - 360 - 56 400 - 80 400 181 200 80 400 0 100 Goal: To effectively manage and evaluate transit service provided through regional or City contracts funded by a dedicated Tempe transit tax. Objective: To efficiently and cost-effectively provide and monitor regional and local fixed route, circulator and dial-a-ride service, and increase bus boardings by 50%. Measures Total O&M (bus) Total O&M (dial-a-ride) Vehicle revenue miles (bus) Vehicle revenue miles (dial-a-ride) O&M per vehicle revenue mile (bus) O&M per vehicle revenue mile (dial-a-ride) Boardings per vehicle revenue mile (bus) Boardings per vehicle revenue mile (dial-a-ride) Annual boardings (dial-a-ride) 1999-00 Actual 2000-01 Budget 2000-01 Revised 2001-02 Budget 2002-03 Budget $11,601,236 $17,038,591 $15,808,686 $17,632,024 $19,395,471 $1,041,466 $1,293,348 $1,191,323 $1,288,983 $1,351,113 3,413,873 5,406,378 4,684,845 4,746,292 4,936,561 386,772 300,838 228,000 239,400 251,370 $3.40 $3.15 $3.37 $3.71 $3.93 $2.69 $4.30 $5.23 $5.38 $5.37 1.14 1.50 1.15 1.41 1.56 0.15 0.17 0.22 0.22 0.22 58,765 51,567 50,702 53,237 55,899 Comparative Benchmark ** New Measure 231 Goal: 1) To attract people to use the transit system; 2) operate a reliable bus system; and 3) operate a reliable dial-a-ride system. Objective: 1) To increase bus boardings over prior year by 25%; 2) meet the bus industry standard of 95% of trips on time (minimum); and 3) meet the dial-a-ride industry standard of 85% of trips on time (minimum). 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Measures Annual boardings (bus) 3,907,318 8,100,000 5,370,952 6,713,690 7,720,744 Percent Change 107% (33.7%) 25% 15% On-time performance (bus) 94% 95% 91% 95% 95% On-time performance-(dial-a-ride) 89% 90% 86% 85% 85% Goal: Objective: Measures To provide outstanding customer service to bus and dial-a-ride customers. To meet contract standards by limiting bus service complaints to 25 per 100,000 boardings (maximum) and dial-a-ride service complaints to 3 per 1,000 boardings (maximum). 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Complaints per 100,000 boardings (bus) Complaints per 100,000 boardings (dial-a-ride) 28 25 34 25 25 4 8 7 8 8 Goal: To provide a transportation system within Tempe and connecting to neighboring communities which is multi-modal and accessible for all residents. Objective: 1) To improve the bicycle and accessible pedestrian facilities available, and to encourage their use; and 2) increase attendance at bike events by 25%. Measures Bikeway miles added Attendance at bike events Percent change 232 1999-00 Actual 2 1,200 - 2000-01 Budget 5 1,500 76% 2000-01 Revised 2 1,800 89% 2001-02 Budget 5 2,500 150% 2002-03 Budget 5 3,500 192% Goal: To create a physical and social environment that supports mixing of transportation modes through calming efforts. Objective: 1) To increase citizens awareness, respect, and responsibility; 2) process all citizens requests for speed humps and achieve an average speed reduction of 10% in areas where speed humps are installed; 3) improve environment for bicyclists and pedestrians; and 4) reduce speed limits on arterial streets through education and public awareness efforts. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Measures Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Traffic calming/speed hump studies* - - 154 160 150 Traffic calming mitigation* - - 4 6 6 - - - 2 2 - - - - 2 - - 5 8 8 - - - 60% 65% - - - 55% 60% Arterial street pedestrian crossings designed* Arterial street pedestrian crossings constructed* Public outreach events held* Citizens aware of traffic calming/safety education* Public support of lower speed limits on arterial streets* * New Measure 233 Water Utilities Water Utilities Manager Business Services Environmental Services Operations Office of Water Resources In December 2000, the City Council approved the establishment of a Water Utilities Department. The new department is made up of elements of the Public Works Department (Water Management Division and Environmental Division), and the Customer Services Division of the former Management Services Department. The Office of the General Manager provides overall utility management, and includes administration of the city’s ownership rights in the regional wastewater system, and assigned information technology and legal staff. In addition to the Office of the Manager, the Water Utilities Department consists of four divisions: Business Services, Operations, Environmental Services, and Water Resources. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita 234 1999-00 Actual $7,604,929 9,193,890 377,789 3,714,387 $20,890,995 $131.70 2000-01 Budget $8,489,665 12,245,343 199,200 4,090,890 $25,025,098 $156.08 2000-01 Revised $7,953,413 11,651,837 434,852 4,189,063 $24,229,165 $151.11 2001-02 Budget $8,718,023 12,281,223 698,841 4,671,736 $26,369,823 $162.71 2002-03 Budget $9,220,018 12,498,068 419,700 4,902,906 $27,040,692 $163.41 2000-01 Budget $21,538,758 1,345,392 2,140,948 $25,025,098 2000-01 Revised $21,188,079 1,184,084 1,857,002 $24,229,165 2001-02 Budget $22,860,595 1,536,855 1,972,373 $26,369,823 2002-03 Budget $23,498,085 1,461,969 2,080,638 $27,040,692 Expenditures by Division Water Utilities Administration Customer Services Environmental Services Total 1999-00 Actual $17,589,144 1,407,061 1,894,790 $20,890,995 Authorized Personnel Water Utilities Administration Customer Services Environmental Services Total 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 105 .49 17 22 0.5 144 0.5 .49 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 105 .49 17 22 0.5 144 0.5 .49 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 105 .49 17 22 0.5 144 0.5 .49 Goal: To provide a safe and adequate domestic water supply to all citizens in Tempe, while at the same time minimizing cost. Objective: 1) To monitor increases in water treatment costs for the Johnny G. Martinez and South Tempe Plants; and 2) maintain an O&M per 1,000 gallons treated under seventy cents. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Measures Water Treatment Total O&M $9,325,508 $11,689,498 $11,460,806 $12,844,211 $13,152,497 Number of customer accounts 40,811 42,108 40,822 41,000 41,000 Total gallons treated (Million gallons- MG) 18,999 18,120 18,537 18,700 18,810 O&M per 1,000 gallons treated $.49 $.65 $.62 $.69 $.70 Percent Change 32.7% (4.6%) 11.3% 1.4% O&M per customer account $228.50 $277.61 $280.75 $313.27 $320.79 Percent Change 21.5% 1.1% 11.6% 2.4% Goal: To maintain the water distribution system to assure an adequate supply of drinking water to our customers, and reduce the cost of maintaining the water distribution system. Objective: 1) To maintain water distribution costs at FY 2000 level for FY 2001-02 and FY 2002-03; and 2) retain the same response time. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Measures Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Water Distribution Total O&M $2,658,470 $2,824,929 $2,528,283 $2,537,697 $2,690,303 Number of miles of waterline 755 760 760 781 785 O&M per mile of distribution system $3,521 $3,717 $3,327 $3,249 $3,427 Percent Change 5.6% (10.5%) (2.3%) 5.5% Service calls responded to within 30 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% minutes and repaired in 24 hours Goal: To reduce operating and maintenance costs of the wastewater collection system. Objective: To achieve wastewater collection costs that are less than $5,000. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 Actual Budget Revised Budget Measures Wastewater Collection Total O&M $2,837,459 $2,896,669 $2,729,259 $2,848,814 Miles of mains in collection system 545 549 549 551 O&M per mile $5,206 $5,276 $4,971 $5,170 Percent Change 1.3% (5.8%) 4.0% Comparative Benchmark 2002-03 Budget $3,017,053 553 $5,456 5.5% 235 Water Utilities–Customer Services The Customer Services Division of the Water Utilities Department is responsible primarily for billing and collecting charges for water, sewer, refuse, and irrigation services. In addition, cashiering and central telephone switchboard services are provided. 2001-03 Highlights: Funding has been approved for the following: 1) modifications to the service counter in the 525 Building; 2) the annual license fee for Banner Software; 3) annual licensing and maintenance fees for hand-held meter reading devices; 4) additional utility billing software to allow for more specialized printing and image transmission; 5) credit card validation software; 6) a laptop PC to enable employees in the field to access the Utility Billing System; 7) the acquisition of Unix Job Scheduler software to facilitate the batching of utility bill mailings; and 8) an interactive voice response to accommodate the increasing volume of telephone inquiries by customers. 236 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita 1999-00 Actual $878,735 287,261 90,656 150,409 $1,407,061 $ 8.87 2000-01 Budget $933,710 283,396 18,750 109,536 $1,345,392 $ 8.39 Authorized Personnel Customer Services Total 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 17 17 2000-01 Revised $791,868 307,363 42,850 42,003 $1,184,084 $7.38 2001-02 Budget $865,294 436,325 46,500 188,736 $1,536,855 $9.48 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 17 17 2002-03 Budget $879,746 346,050 31,500 204,673 $1,461,969 $8.93 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 17 17 Goal: To provide efficient and timely services to the City’s utility customers. Objective: 1) To maximize employee productivity as measured by accounts per employee and accounts per Customer Service Representative; and 2) ensure prompt and accurate customer service by keeping the call abandonment rate at no more than 5% and reading water meters accurately 99% of the time. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Measures Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Utility services accounts 40,811 42,108 40,822 41,000 41,100 Percent change 3.2% (3.1%) 0.4% 0.2% Utility services accounts per Customer Services employee 2,267 2,339 2,401 2,412 2,418 Percent of calls abandoned 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Percent of water meters read accurately 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% Goal: To be a low cost provider of utility billing customer services. Objective: To minimize the cost of providing the City’s utility billing function as measured by cost per account, and cost per employee. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Measures Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Cost per utility services account (annual) $27.60 $27.55 $27.96 $36.35 $34.80 Percent change (0.2%) 1.5% 30.0% (4.3%) Cost per Customer Services employee $62,570 $64,450 $67,131 $87,668 $84,145 237 Water Utilities–Environmental The Environmental Division is responsible for managing the City's comprehensive environmental program. Services provided by this division include: providing educational/awareness information on environmental issues; providing technical assistance to City departments regarding environmental issues and regulations; coordinating investigative, enforcement and public information aspects of environmental incidents including illegal dumping, fires involving hazardous materials, and hazardous material spills; and managing environmental issues related to the superfund site and other properties located in Tempe. 2001-03 Highlights: Funding has been approved for membership in the newly formed Environmental Strategic Alliance Organization. 1999-00 Actual $1,254,210 422,244 10,182 208,154 $1,894,790 $11.95 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Environmental Management Environmental Services Total 238 2000-01 Budget $1,295,190 606,766 22,300 216,692 $2,140,948 $13.35 2000-01 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 7 15 .50 22 .50 2000-01 Revised $1,264,622 390,986 22,300 179,094 $1,857,002 $11.58 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 7 15 .50 22 .50 2001-02 Budget $1,382,174 392,225 0 197,974 $1,972,373 $12.17 2002-03 Budget $1,468,523 406,855 0 205,260 $2,080,638 $12.70 2002-03 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 7 15 .50 22 .50 Goal: To reduce water pollution by industrial enterprises from discharges into the wastewater collection system. Objective: 1) To permit and monitor each significant industrial user of the wastewater collection system; and 2) reduce significant industrial non-compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and local regulations to 0%. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Measures Total inspections 192 200 187 190 195 Percent of industries inspected 2 times a year 67% 76% 66% 70% 70% 1 time a year 33% 24% 34% 30% 30% 4 times a year 67% 70% 66% 70% 70% 2 times a year 33% 30% 33% 30% 30% 4% 0% 3% 2% 1% Percent of industries sampled Percent of permitted industries in significant non-compliance To develop an ongoing Public Information program as required by the EPA in the 91st Avenue National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Objective: 1) To continue with the informational newsletter for industries operating in Tempe and prepare one for school age children; and 2) develop public information/pollution prevention outreach program for civic groups and local schools. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Measures Total newsletters 3 4 2 3 4 Total brochures 1 4 1 1 2 Goal: Goal: To establish a hazardous waste management program for City facilities and operations. Objective: To reduce by 25% the quantity of hazardous waste generated by City facilities. 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Measures Actual Budget Revised Budget Budget Amount of hazardous waste generated by City facilities (kilograms):* 3,904 2,928 2,196 Recycled hazardous waste* Destroyed hazardous waste* Reduction of hazardous waste generated - - 1,170 878 659 - - 2,734 - 2,050 25% 1,537 25% * New Measure 239 Schedules and Summaries This section includes the City’s budget resolution, property tax information, budgetary units, and budget concepts along with personnel schedules and miscellaneous statistical data. Schedules and Summaries Contents Page Budget Resolution ........................................................................................................................... 242 Property Tax Ordinance ................................................................................................................ 243 Budget Schedules Estimated Revenues and Expenditures Summary ...................................................................... 245 Tax Levy and Tax Rate Information .......................................................................................... 246 Revenues Other Than Property Taxes........................................................................................ 247 Other Financing Sources and Interfund Transfers Summary ..................................................... 249 Expenditures Within Each Fund Summary ................................................................................ 250 Budget Basis, Units, and Changes Accounting/Budgetary Basis ...................................................................................................... 251 Budgetary Units ......................................................................................................................... 251 Changes to the Budget ............................................................................................................... 252 Financial Structure and Organization Type of Budgeting ..................................................................................................................... 253 Level of Revenue and Expenditure Detail ................................................................................. 253 Relationship Between Budgeting and Accounting..................................................................... 253 Fund Structure ............................................................................................................................ 254 Annexation Progress....................................................................................................................... 255 Tempe Community Profile............................................................................................................. 256 Personnel Summary ....................................................................................................................... 260 Personnel Schedules ....................................................................................................................... 261 Glossary of Terms ........................................................................................................................... 294 Index ................................................................................................................................................ 301 OMB Staff ....................................................................................................................................... 305 241 Budget Resolution 242 Property Tax Ordinance 243 244 Schedule A Summary Schedule of Estimated Revenues and Expenditures/Expenses Adopted Budgeted Expenditures/ Expenses 2000-01 Fund General Fund Actual Expenditures/ Expenses 2000-01 Fund Balance/ Retained Earnings 7-1-2001 Direct Property Tax Revenues 2001-02 $6,956,983 $118,476,065 $113,840,091 $39,207,573 43,787,642 43,667,876 35,336,271 7,273,799 7,273,799 6,327,442 Capital Projects 67,408,152 61,163,320 4,061,978 Enterprise 52,631,776 49,457,867 59,930,802 $289,577,434 $275,402,952 $144,864,066 Special Revenue Debt Service Total Fund Estimated Revenues Other than Property Taxes 2001-02 General Fund $125,022,100 Special Revenue Debt Service TOTAL Interfund Transfers 2001-02 In (Out) $6,375,000 ($17,718,397) $18,870,021 Total Financial Budgeted Resources Expenditures/ Available Expenses 2001-02 2001-02 $159,843,259 $125,427,279 60,106,100 8,943,397 (13,161,597) 91,224,171 42,484,564 654,800 4,500,000 (3,300,000) 20,095,280 11,238,729 87,854,877 85,541,430 (6,548,488) 112,458,114 54,864,798 $40,728,482 ($40,728,482) $471,475,701 $319,556,800 Capital Projects Enterprise Proceeds From Other Financing Sources 2001-02 11,913,038 66,182,814 55,775,800 17,610,085 3,300,000 $241,558,800 $66,182,814 Expenditure Limitation Comparison 1. Budgeted Expenditures/Expenses 2000-01 2001-02 $289,577,434 $319,556,800 (127,985,292) (153,111,757) 161,592,142 166,445,043 $161,592,142 $166,445,043 2. Budgeted Expenditures/Expenses Adjusted for Reconciling Items 3. Less: Estimated Exclusions* 4. Total Estimated Expenditures/Expenses Subject to Expenditure Limitation 5. Expenditure Limitation * FY 2001-02 Estimate from the League of Arizona Cities and Towns. 245 Schedule B Summary of Tax Levy and Tax Rate Information Estimated 2001-02 Fiscal Year 2000-01 Fiscal Year 1. Maximum Allowable Primary Property Tax Levy (A.R.S. 42-17051(A)) $7,584,435 2. Amount Received from Primary Property Taxation in the 2000-01 Fiscal Year in Excess of the Sum of that Year's Maximum Allowable Primary Property Tax Levy (A.R.S. 42-17102(A)(18)) $0 3. Property Tax Levy Amounts A. Primary Property Taxes B. Secondary Property Taxes C. Total Property Tax Levy Amounts 6,799,277 6,956,983 10,979,413 11,913,038 $17,778,690 $18,870,021 4. Property Taxes Collected A. Primary Property Taxes 1. 2000-01 Levy 2. Prior Years' Levies 3. Total Primary Property Taxes 6,799,277 0 $6,799,277 B. Secondary Property Taxes 1. 2000-01 Levy 2. Prior Years' Levies 3. Total Secondary Property Taxes C. Total Property Taxes Collected 10,979,413 0 $10,979,413 $17,778,690 5. Property Tax Rates A. City Tax Rate 1. Primary Property Tax Rate 0.5409 0.5320 2. Secondary Property Tax Rate 0.8091 0.8180 $1.3500 $1.3500 3. Total City Tax Rate B. Special District Tax Rates Secondary Property Tax Rates-As of the date proposed budget was prepared, the city was operating -0- special assessments districts for which secondary property taxes are levied. For information pertaining to these special assessment districts and their tax rates, please contact the city. 246 Schedule C Summary by Fund of Revenues Other Than Property Taxes Estimated Actual Revenues Revenues 2000-01 2000-01 Source of Revenues Estimated Revenues 2001-02 General Fund Local taxes City Sales Tax $64,051,400 $63,566,000 $66,744,000 Hotel Bed Tax 1,713,000 1,713,000 1,782,000 Franchise Taxes 1,133,067 1,664,500 1,695,600 Business Licenses 458,800 457,800 480,700 Sales Tax Applications/Renewal 510,000 900,500 669,900 29,805,180 32,350,500 29,219,000 4,798,900 5,900,000 5,959,000 Charges for services 6,959,176 6,709,200 6,573,600 Fines and forfeits 4,683,022 4,179,200 4,321,400 Interest on investments 4,500,000 6,272,000 5,307,000 425,200 435,400 416,700 1,615,575 1,769,200 1,853,200 120,655,215 125,917,300 125,022,100 10,383,600 11,240,100 10,162,600 1,850,000 - - 12,233,600 11,240,100 10,162,600 925,500 925,500 932,300 (305,400) (305,400) (307,700) 620,100 620,100 624,600 Licenses and permits Intergovernmental revenues State-Shared County Voluntary contributions SRP In-lieu Tax Miscellaneous revenues Total General Fund Special Revenue Funds Highway Users Revenue Fund Intergovernmental Maintenance of Effort/Other Total Highway Users Revenue Fund Local Trans. Assistance Fund (LTAF) Intergovernmental Lottery Transfer to Transit Total LTAF Transit Fund Transit Tax 27,235,300 27,609,500 29,193,000 Lottery Transfer In 305,400 305,400 307,700 ASU-Flash Transit 279,000 308,400 345,000 Interest Earned - Trust Invest. 180,000 2,518,000 2,242,000 Miscellaneous Revenue 289,882 2,234,000 2,943,100 28,289,582 32,975,300 35,030,800 Total Transit Fund 247 Summary by Fund of Revenues Other Than Property Taxes Source of Revenues Estimated Revenues 2000-01 Actual Revenues 2000-01 Estimated Revenues 2001-02 Rio Salado Fund City Sales Tax 649,900 580,000 611,600 Miscellaneous Revenue 135,700 571,500 438,700 785,600 1,151,500 1,050,300 Performing Arts Fund Performing Arts Tax/Interest Income - 1,928,000 5,604,000 Total Performing Arts Fund - 1,928,000 5,604,000 Community Devel. Block Grant (CDBG) 2,421,085 2,967,700 2,637,600 Section 8 Housing 5,138,912 4,935,700 4,996,200 7,559,997 7,903,400 7,633,800 49,488,879 55,818,400 60,106,100 684,800 684,800 654,800 11,000 - - 695,800 684,800 654,800 Total Rio Salado Fund Total CDBG/Section 8 Total Special Revenue Funds Debt Service Fund SRP In-Lieu Tax Interest Earned-Trust Invest. Total Debt Service Fund Enterprise Funds Golf Fund Water/Wastewater Fund Sanitation Fund Total Enterprise Funds Carryover Funding TOTAL ALL FUNDS 248 2,297,000 2,108,500 2,187,800 41,628,567 43,517,600 43,127,700 9,422,500 10,349,700 10,460,300 53,348,067 55,975,800 55,775,800 11,286,602 - - $235,474,563 $238,396,300 $241,558,800 Schedule D Summary by Fund of Other Financing Sources and Interfund Transfers Fund Proceeds From Other Financing Sources 2001-02 Interfund Transfers 2001-02 In Out $6,375,000 $(17,718,397) 1,850,000 (4,800,000) - (1,268,200) 7,093,397 8,943,397 (7,093,397) (13,161,597) Total Debt Service Fund 4,500,000 (3,300,000) Capital Projects Funds 17,610,085 General Fund Special Revenue Funds HURF/LTAF Transit Rio Salado Total Special Revenue Funds - Debt Service Fund Stadium Funding 13,700,239 Bond/Note Proceeds 25,900,000 CIP-Other Funding 26,582,575 Total Capital Projects Funds 66,182,814 17,610,085 - 3,300,000 (5,998,488) Enterprise Funds Water/Wastewater Fund Sanitation Fund (550,000) Golf Fund Total Enterprise Funds Total All Funds - 3,300,000 (6,548,488) $66,182,814 $40,728,482 ($40,728,482) 249 Schedule E Summary by Department of Expenditures/Expenses Within Each Fund Expenditure/ Expense Adopted Adjustments Budgeted Approved Expenditures/ 2000-01 Expenses 2000-01 General Fund Mayor and Council City Manager City Clerk City Court Human Resources City Attorney Financial Services Development Services Police Fire Community Services Public Works-General Tempe Learning Center City Communications Econ. Development Strategic Planning Management Support Non-Departmental Contingencies Carryover Funding Total General Fund Special Revenue Funds Highway Users Revenue Fund Streets Carryover Funding Total HURF Transit CDBG Section 8 Housing Rio Salado Performing Arts Center Carryover Funding Total Special Rev. Fund Debt Service Fund Debt Service Total Debt Service Fund Capital Projects Funds All Capital Projects Total Capital Proj. Funds Enterprise Funds Water/Wastewater Golf Sanitation Carryover Funding Total Enterprise Funds Total All Funds 250 Revised Expenditures/ Expenses 2000-01 Budgeted Expenditures/ Expenses 2001-02 424,974 1,822,369 447,597 2,984,990 1,945,016 2,094,735 4,542,104 6,641,912 40,122,449 13,291,480 16,563,095 12,393,951 227,306 1,288,584 496,768 5,194,491 2,544,566 5,449,678 118,476,065 50,420 57,530 447,969 486,000 47,500 349,383 58,501 830,156 200,130 283,000 82,000 25,000 165,000 116,000 615,605 (2,444,799) (1,539,475) (170,080) 424,851 1,872,789 443,121 3,012,095 2,392,985 2,580,735 4,543,708 6,921,382 40,122,449 13,349,981 17,219,318 12,468,140 510,306 1,370,584 516,550 165,000 116,000 5,810,096 113,840,090 523,001 1,863,093 717,900 3,167,436 3,055,512 2,521,196 5,227,487 8,271,641 43,851,476 14,854,413 19,151,270 12,901,126 674,709 1,436,347 560,087 221,941 135,795 3,597,440 2,695,409 125,427,279 13,147,909 401,739 13,549,648 19,052,568 2,421,084 5,138,912 1,283,948 2,341,482 43,787,642 254,080 (180,000) 74,080 1,000,000 596,000 128,000 (1,500,000) 298,080 13,267,969 13,267,969 19,852,042 2,421,084 5,138,912 1,861,149 126,720 42,667,876 8,135,751 8,135,751 25,044,850 2,637,608 4,996,216 1,353,091 317,048 42,484,564 7,273,799 7,273,799 - 7,273,799 7,273,799 11,238,729 11,238,729 67,408,152 67,408,152 - 61,163,320 61,163,320 85,541,430 85,541,430 37,317,093 2,137,226 10,380,122 2,797,335 52,631,776 $289,577,434 73,000 50,000 (123,000) $128,000 37,016,192 2,165,354 10,276,321 49,457,867 $274,402,952 42,021,240 2,327,698 10,515,860 54,864,798 $319,556,800 Budget Basis, Units, and Changes The City of Tempe operating budget is legally adopted by Council resolution each fiscal year on a modified accrual basis, consistent with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) except that a) encumbrances are considered to be expenditures chargeable to appropriations, b) no depreciation is budgeted in enterprise funds, c) investments in supply inventories and assets restricted for selfinsurance purposes are not considered to be appropriable, d) revenues accruing to sinking funds are not appropriable, and e) contributions into sinking funds are not budgeted. Funds (Fund Accounting) The City's Operating Budget is organized by funds in conformity with GAAP with guidelines established by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). The accounts of the City are organized on the basis of funds, or account groups, each of which is considered a separate accounting entity. The operations of each fund are accounted for with a separate set of self-balancing accounts. With this account structure, the revenues and expenditures/ expenses are budgeted and approved prior to the beginning of each fiscal year by a resolution passed by the City Council. • Presentation of the operating budget is also structured by programs which delineate budget expenditures in terms of broad goals and objectives. Major programs include 1) General Services, 2) Development Services, 3) Public Safety, 4) Environmental Health, 5) Community Services, and 6) Transportation. Programs may transcend specific fund or departmental boundaries in that a program encompasses all associated activities, regardless of fund or department, directed toward the attainment of a general goal or objective. The relationship between programs and funds is presented in summary form in the Summaries Budget section as is their relation to the Departments and Divisions engaged in the pursuit of the respective goals and objectives. Departments Finally, the Performance Budget section of the operating budget illustrates the distribution of budget appropriations along the major organization units of City departments and their divisions. • The various funds are grouped by two types, governmental fund and proprietary fund types. Governmental funds are those through which most governmental functions of the City are financed and include the General Fund, Debt Service Fund, Special Revenue Funds, and Capital Project Funds. Proprietary funds are used to account for the City's organizations and activities which are similar to those often found in the private sector. The Enterprise Funds are the City's proprietary funds and include the Water/Wastewater, Sanitation, and Golf Funds. The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report includes the combined financial statements of all funds. • Programs 251 Changes to Budget Mid-Year Program/Personnel Adjustment Request Should the need arise for additional personnel or program enhancements during the fiscal year to meet some unforeseen need, a mid-year program/personnel request is submitted to Management and Budget for a needs assessment and fiscal impact review. If after evaluation the request is approved and involves either additional personnel or the abolition of a position(s), the request is forwarded to either the Council Personnel or Finance Committee with recommended action. • Budget Transfers The department should process a budget transfer request form anytime a shortfall is anticipated in a departmental subtotal budget. Budget transfers are no longer necessary to address a shortfall within summary account groups as long as sufficient monies are available in the subtotal departmental budget. The subtotal budget includes salaries and wages, fringe benefits, materials and supplies, fees and services, travel and other expenses, contributions, and capital outlay, and excludes internal services. • Only as a last resort are contingency monies used to fund a shortfall. Alternative courses of action should be sought before contingency monies will be considered. Purchase orders and requisitions will be held until the budget shortfall is addressed. Transfer of Appropriation At any time during the fiscal year the Manager may transfer part or all of any unencumbered appropriation balance among programs within a department, office, or agency. Upon written request by the Manager, the Council may by ordinance transfer part or all of any unencumbered appropriation balance from one department, office, or agency to another (Section 5.08, City of Tempe Charter). • Permission to Exceed Budget • 252 In the event of an emergency, the Council may seek permission from the State Board of Tax Appeals (previously State Tax Commission) to exceed the adopted budget (Section 5.09, City of Tempe Charter). Financial Structure and Organization Types of Budgeting Two separate budgets are adopted at the aggregate level for both the Operating and Capital Improvements Program and are then presented in program budget, performance and line item form. The program budget portrays total and per capita expenditures along six broad programs or functions, including General Services, Development Services, Public Safety, Environmental Health, Community Services, and Transportation. This budget information is presented in the Budget Summaries section of the Biennial Budget. The performance budget focuses on departmental and divisional goals and objectives. Benchmark and other workload data are collected in order to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of services. This information is published in the performance budget section of our Biennial Budget. Finally, the line-item budget lists dollar amounts budgeted for each cost center and expenditure category and is published separately. • • Level of Revenue and Expenditure Detail Revenues are presented at several levels within the revenue information section of the Biennial Budget. Revenues are given by fund type (General Governmental, Special Revenue, and Enterprise), by revenue category, and by source. Additionally, all key revenues are addressed in terms of a ten year history, underlying assumptions, and major influences with graphic illustration of the trends to facilitate review of the revenue patterns. Summary schedules of estimated revenues are also presented in the Schedules and Summaries section of the Biennial Budget. Expenditures are presented at several levels of detail including information by line-item, organizational unit performance, program, and fund. Line-item detail of expenditures is given in the Biennial Line-Item Budget. Performance, program, and fund level expenditure data are presented in the Biennial Budget. • Accounting This budget is adopted on a basis consistent with GAAP, except for certain items which are adjusted on the City's accounting system at fiscal year end. During the year, the City's accounting system is maintained on the same basis as the adopted budget. This enables departmental budgets to be easily monitored via accounting system reports on a monthly basis. The major differences between this adopted budget and GAAP for governmental funds are: a) encumbrances are recorded as the equivalent of expenditures (budget) as opposed to a reservation of fund balance (GAAP); b) certain revenues and expenditures, (e.g., compensated absences) not recognized for budgetary purposes are accrued (GAAP); c) supply inventory and self-insurance contributions are recognized as expenditures for budgetary purposes only. Enterprise Fund differences consist of the following: a) encumbrances are recorded as the equivalent of expenses (budget basis) as opposed to an expense of the following accounting period (GAAP); b) certain items, e. g., principal expense and capital outlay, are recorded as expenditures for budgetary purposes as opposed to adjustments of the appropriate balance sheet accounts (GAAP); and c) depreciation is recorded as an expense (GAAP) and not recognized for budgetary purposes. Relationship Between Budgeting and 253 Fund Structure • Capital Projects Funds: Capital Projects Funds are used to account for financial resources to be used for the acquisition or construction of major capital facilities (other than those financed by Proprietary Funds and Trust Funds). Debt Service Fund: Debt Service Funds are set up to receive dedicated revenues used to make principal and interest payments on City debt. They are used to account for the accumulation of resources and the payment of general obligation and special assessment debt principal, interest and related costs, except the debt service accounted for in the Special Revenue Funds and Enterprise Funds. General Fund: The General Fund is the general operating fund of the City. It is used to account for all activities of the City not accounted for in some other fund. Special Revenue Funds: Special Revenue Funds are established to account for legally restricted funding. Our Special Revenue Funds include the Performing Arts Fund, the Highway User Fund, the Local Transportation Assistance Fund, the Transit Fund, the Capital Development Funds, and the Housing Assistance Fund. • Proprietary Funds Enterprise Funds: Enterprise Funds are used to account for operations including debt service that are: (a) financed and operated in a manner similar to private businesses, where the intent of the government body is that the costs (expenses, including depreciation) of providing goods or services to the general public on a continuing basis are financed or recovered primarily through user charges; or (b) where the governing body has determined that periodic determination of revenues earned, expenses incurred, and/or 254 net income is appropriate for capital maintenance, public policy, management control, accountability, or other purposes. Our Enterprise Funds include the Water and Wastewater Fund, the Sanitation Fund, and the Golf Fund. Governmental Funds • Fiduciary Funds Trust and Agency: Trust and Agency Funds are used to account for assets held by the City in a trustee capacity or as an agent for individuals, private organizations, other governmental units and/or other funds. These include the Nonexpendable Pension Trust and Deferred Compensation Agency Fund. Annexation Progress 2000City City Limits 1999 Limits 1960 1893 - 1940 Salt River Channel McKellips Rd Salt River Channel Van Buren St S.P. R.R. Curry Rd S alt River RedCh Mountain Freeway annel Rio Salado Pkwy University Dr Apache Blvd Broadway Rd 1970 I-10 Southern Ave Salt 48th St Superstition Freeway 1950 River Channel Baseline Rd Guadalupe Rd Salt River Channel Western Canal I-10 Price Rd Warner Rd McClintock Dr Rural Rd Priest Dr Kyrene Rd Elliot Rd 1980 Ray Rd Salt River Year Area Year Area 1893 1.0 1940 1.8 Year 1893 1/2 1 mile 1940 Year Year Year 1975 Area Year 36 1.8 1975 36.0 2.6 1980 36.0 1.8 1950 2.6 1900 1.8 1955 4.5 4.5 1985 38.5 1910 1910 1.81.8 1960 1960 17.5 17.5 1990 1990 39.3 39.3 1920 1920 1.81.8 1965 1965 21.7 21.7 1995 1995 39.8 39.8 1930 1930 1.81.8 1970 1970 25.3 25.3 2000 2000 40.0 40 1900 0 1.0 Year 1894 1894 Scale Year 1.8 1.8 1950 1955 1980 1985 Channel 36 38.5 255 Tempe Community Profile Date of Incorporation - November 26, 1894 Date Charter Adopted - October 19, 1964 Form of Government - Council - Manager Tempe is home to Arizona State University, Fiesta Bowl, the Arizona Cardinals and the California Angels' spring training. As the amount of undeveloped land became increasingly scarce, the population growth of the late 70's and early 80's slowed somewhat. Nevertheless, development remains strong. Much of which is in the form of reinvestment, the continued growth reflects strong confidence in Tempe's economic vitality. Tempe has a younger age population than surrounding valley communities and a population whose educational attainment exceeds both valley and state norms with 71% of the population having at least some college and 37% with four or more years of college. Tempe is largely a middle income community with per capita and family median income exceeding county, state, and national norms. Diversity is evident in the wide range of businesses and industries, from small boutiques along revitalized Mill Avenue to manufacturing firms, light industry and corporate offices. The 2000 Citizen Satisfaction survey revealed that 97% of residents were satisfied with the quality of life in Tempe. 256 DEMOGRAPHICS Area– Square Miles (1) 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 Land Use (1999)(%)(4) 40.0 39.8 39.8 39.8 39.8 39.8 39.8 39.6 1992 1991 1990 1980 1970 1960 1950 1894 39.3 39.3 39.3 38.1 25.3 17.5 2.7 1.8 Residential 36.0% 36.0 4.8 15.8 12.1 26.4 4.9 Undev/Agriculture 4.8% Svc/Institutional 4.9% Population (2) 2000 1995 1990 1985 1980 1970 1960 1950 Residential Undeveloped/Agricultural Rights-of-Way Public/Quasi Public Industrial/Commercial Service/Institutional U.S. Census Interim Census U.S. Census Interim Census U.S. Census 158,625 153,821 142,165 132,942 106,743 63,550 24,897 7,906 Industrial/Comm 26.4% Rights-of-Way 15.8% Public/Quasi Public 12.1% Building Permits (3) Number 2000-01 1999-00 1998-99 1997-98 1996-97 1995-96 1994-95 1993-94 1992-93 1991-92 1,417 1,717 1,905 2,533 1,984 2,038 2,291 2,298 1,307 1,294 Value ($000) $262,266 317,143 304,600 492,419 406,821 248,476 275,409 265,148 87,841 147,168 Elections (5) Registered voters Primary General 65,530 65,976 Primary General 16,513 15,407 Primary General 25.20% 23.35% Voter Turnout % Voting 257 DEMOGRAPHICS, continued School Registration (6) Household Income (1995)(%) (9) Tempe Elementary District 12,710 Less than $15,000 19.0 Tempe Union High School District 13,300 $15,000 -$29,999 22.0 ASU University (Fall 2000) 44,126 $30,000-$39,999 15.0 $40,000-$59,999 22.0 $50,000+ 22.0 Education Attainment (%) (7) 4 years or more College 36.8 1-3 years College 34.2 High School degree 18.9 Less than High School degree 10.1 Racial Composition (%) (8) Median Household Income $36,049 Occupational Composition (%) (10) Technical, Sales, Admin. Support 34.4 Managerial and Professional 34.6 12.7 White 69.7 Service Hispanic 17.9 Operators, Fabricators, Laborers 5.0 Asian 4.7 Precision Prod., Craft & Repair 12.3 Black 3.5 Farming, Forestry and Fishing 1.0 Other 4.2 Industrial Composition (%) (10) Gender/Age Composition (%) (8) 18.6 Male 51.7 Wholesale/Retail Trade 21.3 Female 48.3 Manufacturing 15.9 Personal & Business Services 11.1 Under 5 years 5.7 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 7.6 Transportation & Communications 8.5 Construction 4.4 5-14 years 10.8 15-19 years 9.2 20-24 years 15.4 Public Administration 25-44 years 33.2 Agriculture, Mining, etc. 45-64 years 18.5 65+ years 258 Health, Education & Legal 7.2 11.3 1.3 ECONOMICS Property Tax Rate (11) Sanitation Primary Secondary Total City Sales Tax 0.53 0.82 $1.35 Solid Waste Collected (tons) 1.8% Parks/Golf Courses Developed Parks Parks Acres Maintained Bond Rating Fitch AAA Standard and Poor's AA+ Moody's Residential Accounts Serviced Commercial Accounts Serviced Aa1 Municipal Golf Courses: 34,612 1,950 147,000 46 1,074 2 Rounds of Play: Ken McDonald (18 holes) Rolling Hills (9 holes) 90,000 113,000 SERVICE STATISTICS Water/Wastewater Police (12) Sworn Personnel Non-Sworn Personnel Total Avg. Emergency Response Time (min.) Crime Index (CY 2000) Crime Rate (per 100,000) 337 169 506 Active Accounts Serviced Water Treated and Distributed 40,822 (billions of gallons) 18.5 Sanitary Sewers (miles) 549 5:30 15,246 9,353 Fire Sworn Personnel Non-Sworn Personnel Total Fire Stations Avg. Emergency Response Time (min.) Response to emergency medical incidents Total emergency response incidents 137 21 155 6 5:12 12,600 16,700 Source: (1) Area-Square Miles, City of Tempe-Development Services; (2) Population, Maricopa Association of Governments; (3) Building Permits, City of Tempe-Development Services; (4) Land Use, City of TempeDevelopment Services; (5) Elections, City of Tempe-City Clerk's Office; (6) School Registration, Tempe Elementary & High School District, ASU; (7) Education Attainment, 1990 U.S. Census; (8) Racial, Gender/Age Composition, 2000 U.S. Census; (9) Household Income, 1995 Special Census; (10) Occupational, Industrial Composition, 1990 U.S. Census; (11) Property Tax Rate, City Sales Tax, Bond Rating, City of Tempe-Financial Services; (12) Police, Fire, Sanitation, Parks/Golf Courses, Water/Wastewater, City of Tempe Biennial Budget-Performance Section. 259 Personnel Summary Department Mayor and Council 1999-00 Actual 2000-01 Budget 2001-02 Budget 2002-03 Budget Full- Perm Temp Full- Perm Temp Full- Perm Temp Full- Perm Temp FTE FTE FTE Time FTE FTE Time FTE FTE Time FTE FTE 7 7 13 Internal Audit 2 Community Relations 9 Neighborhood Program 2 Government Relations 3 City Clerk 5 0.58 5 0.58 5 0.58 5 0.58 City Court 33 4.20 34 4.20 34 4.20 34 4.20 City Attorney 23 0.50 1.11 24 0.50 0.62 27 0.50 0.62 27 0.50 0.62 184 0.50 3.39 185 0.50 2.24 58 0.50 1.25 59 0.50 1.25 Economic Development 2 1.34 11 Human Resources Tempe Learning Center 18 2 Information Technology Development Services 83 480 155 1.99 0.60 9 1.34 2.50 0.50 18 2 9.86 83 7.42 0.98 496 157 8 1.34 0.49 1.00 9.86 2.00 0.50 6.95 8 1.34 3 3 9 2 19 3 1.49 3 3 11 13 3 3 2 1.00 1.49 3 2 0.49 13 3 3 2 Rio Salado Strategic Planning Police Fire 0.60 13 7 City Manager Financial Services 1.99 7 0.49 0.50 9 2 19 3 82 105 1.00 1.86 506 158 1.00 0.50 6.25 0.49 0.50 82 105 1.00 1.86 507 158 1.00 0.50 6.25 Community Services 119 21.15 147.24 125 21.65 150.24 138 33.65 144.83 139 34.65 144.83 Water Utilities 144 0.50 0.49 144 0.50 0.49 Public Works Admin & Engineering 44 0.49 42 0.49 46 0.49 46 0.49 Environmental 22 0.50 22 0.50 Field Services 251 1.00 8.69 251 1.50 8.69 288 1.50 9.19 289 1.50 9.19 Transportation 49 0.50 54 0.50 63 0.50 66 0.50 Water Management 111 0.49 110 0.49 Total Public Works 477 2.00 9.67 479 2.50 9.67 397 2.00 9.68 401 2.00 9.68 Sub Total 1,628 28.75 188.27 1,657 29.25 188.18 1,727 39.65 173.08 1,734 40.65 173.08 Total Personnel 1,845.02 1,874.43 1,939.73 1,947.73 The number of full-time employees for FY 2001-02 totals 1,939.73 full-time equivalents (FTE), including 1,727 full-time, 39.65 permanent full-time equivalents, and 173.08 temporary full-time equivalent employees. This total translates to a 3.5% increase over the 1,874.43 full-time equivalents budgeted in FY 2000-01, and a 5.1% increase over the 1,845.02 full-time equivalent employees in FY 1999-00. The number of employees for FY 2002-03 totals 1,947.73 full-time equivalents, including 1,734 full-time, 40.65 permanent full-time equivalents, and 173.08 temporary full-time equivalents representing a 0.4% increase over FY 2001-02. Public Works and Police account for over 47% of the total work force in both fiscal years, representing 408.68 and 513.25 full-time equivalents in FY 2001-02, and 412.68 and 514.25 full-time equivalents in FY 2002-03, respectively. 260 Personnel Schedules Cost Center 1110 1210 1213 1214 Position Mayor & Council Mayor Council Member Total Full–Time Mayor & Council Total Full-Time City Manager Administration City Manager Chief Financial Officer Chief of Staff Assistant to City Manager Deputy City Manager Executive Assistant to the Mayor & City Council Mayor's Chief of Staff Executive Assistant Executive Assistant to the City Manager/Mayor II Mayoral/Council Aide II Mayoral/Council Aide I Mayoral Aide City Council Aide Management Assistant I Management Intern Administrative Intern* COE* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE * City Manager Department Total Full-Time City Manager Department Total Temp FTE* Internal Audit Internal Audit Director Internal Auditor Auditor ** Internal Audit Division Total Full-Time Internal Audit Division Total Perm FTE** Community Relations Communications Director Media Services Coordinator Communications Coordinator Public Information Officer Public Relations and Events Coordinator 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Range Actual Actual Budget Budget 99 98 1 6 7 7 1 6 7 7 1 6 7 7 1 6 7 7 119 201 201 200 117 39 39 37 30 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 30 28 26 26 26 15 0 0 1 2 4 0 1.5 0.49 13 1.99 13 1.99 0 0 1 3 2 1 1.0 0.49 13 1.49 13 1.49 1 2 1 0 0 1 1.0 0.49 13 1.49 13 1.49 1 2 1 0 0 1 1.0 0.49 13 1.49 13 1.49 200 36 1 1 0.6 2 0.6 1 2 0.0 3 0.0 1 2 0.0 3 0.0 1 2 0.0 3 0.0 200 37 36 35 31 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 261 Cost Center 1215 1216 1310 1410 262 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 Position Range Actual Actual Budget Media Services Producer I/II+ 29 2 2 2 Graphic Designer I/II+ 29 1 1 1 Graphic Designer 25 1 0 0 Administrative Assistant II 16 1 1 1 Media Services Assistant * 0.19 0.19 0.19 Media Services Intern* 0.66 0.66 0.66 COE* 0.49 0.49 0.49 Community Relations Division Total Full-Time 9 8 8 Community Relations Division Total Temp FTE* 1.34 1.34 1.34 2002-03 Budget 2 1 0 1 0.19 0.66 0.49 8 1.34 Neighborhood Program Neighborhood Program Administrator Management Assistant II Neighborhood Program Division Total Full-Time 200 35 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Government Relations Government Relations Director Aviation Coordinator Management Assistant I/II+ Government Relations Division Total Full-Time 200 40 35 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 107 28 26 14 8 1 1 1 1 1 0.58 1 1 1 1 1 0.58 1 1 1 1 1 0.58 1 1 1 1 1 0.58 5 0.58 5 0.58 5 0.58 5 0.58 5 0.58 5 0.58 5 0.58 5 0.58 CITY CLERK City Clerk Deputy City Clerk Executive Assistant Records Specialist Micrographics Operator I/II+ COE * Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE * City Clerk Department Total Full-Time City Clerk Department Total Temp FTE* CITY COURT Administration/Judicial Division Presiding City Judge City Judge Court Manager Deputy Court Manager Hearing Officer Executive Assistant Total Full-Time 114 54 54 45 45 26 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 9 9 9 9 Cost Center 1411 Position Criminal Division Range 2001-02 2002-03 Budget Budget Court Services Supervisor 27 2 2 2 2 Court Services Specialist I/II+ 16 8 8 8 8 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 Total Full-Time 10 10 10 10 Total Temp FTE* 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 COE* 1412 1999-00 2000-01 Actual Actual Civil Division Court Services Supervisor 27 3 3 3 3 Court Services Specialist I/II+ 16 11 12 12 12 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 Total Full-Time 14 15 15 15 Total Temp FTE* 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 City Court Department Total Full-Time 33 34 34 34 City Court Department Total Temp FTE* 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 114 1 1 1 1 60 1 1 1 1 300 4 4 4 4 City Prosecutor 54 0 0 1 1 Senior Prosecutor 50 1 1 1 1 Prosecutor I/II+ 40 5 6 5 5 Legal Executive Assistant 27 1 1 1 1 Paralegal II+ 28 0 0 1 1 Paralegal I+ 24 2 2 2 2 COE* CITY ATTORNEY 1710 Legal Services City Attorney Deputy City Attorney Assistant City Attorney (1 position 60% funded by General Fund/40% by Victim's Rights Grants) Legal Specialist 19 1 1 1 1 Senior Legal Assistant 18 0 1 1 1 Legal Assistant 16 3 2 3 3 Arraignment Specialist 16 0 0 1 1 Administrative Assistant I 10 1 2 1 1 Paralegal** 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Law Intern* 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 COE* 0.49 0 0 0 20.0 22.0 24.0 24.0 Total Perm FTE** 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Total Temp FTE* 1.11 0.62 0.62 0.62 Total Full-Time 263 Cost Center Position 3115 City Attorney/Water City Attorney I/II+ Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time City Attorney Department Total Full-Time City Attorney Department Total Perm FTE** City Attorney Department Total Temp FTE* 1810 1812 FINANCIAL SERVICES Administration Financial Services Director Asst. Financial Services Director Contract Administrator Executive Assistant Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time 1831 264 50 16 200 51 31 26 16 1999-00 Actual 2000-01 Actual 2001-02 Budget 2002-03 Budget 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 23.0 0.5 1.11 3 25.0 0.5 0.62 3 27.0 0.5 0.62 3 27.0 0.5 0.62 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 4 5 4 4 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 0.5 4 0.5 4 0.5 4 0.5 4 0.5 Budget Budget Manager Budget and Research Analyst I/II+ Total Full-Time 1821 Range Risk Management Risk Manager Safety Officer Claims Officer - Liability Industrial Hygienist Workers Compensation Rep** (Funded by Risk Management Fund 26) Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Accounting Accounting Manager Accounting Supervisor Financial Applications Analyst Cash Management Specialist Accountant Senior Financial Services Technician Financial Services Technician I/II+ Accounting Assistant* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 46 36 44 33 33 33 15 44 38 38 34 31 21 18 1 2 0 1 2 1 6 0.63 1 2 0 1 2 1 6 0.63 1 2 1 1 2 1 6 0.63 1 2 1 1 2 1 6 0.63 13.0 0.63 13.0 0.63 14.0 0.63 14.0 0.63 Cost Center Position 1832 Tax and Licensing Tax and License Administrator Tax Audit Supervisor License & Collections Superviser Tax Auditor I/II+ Contract Administrator Specialty Licenses Coordinator Executive Assistant License Inspector Revenue Collector Tax Audit Tech Financial Services Technician I/II+ Unclassified Temporary-Office* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 1841 Customer Services (1931) Customer Services Manager Customer Services Supervisor Financial Services Clerk I/II+ Water Service Representative Water Meter Reader Total Full-Time 1851 1852 Central Services/Purchasing Central Services Manager Procurement Officer Assistant Buyer Financial Services Technician I/II+ Administrative Assistant II Financial Services Technician I/II* Unclassified Temporary-Office* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Central Services/Duplicating & Supplies Reprograhics Supervisor Reprographics Operator Distribution Clerk Total Full-Time Financial Services Department Total Full-Time Financial Services Department Total Perm FTE** Financial Services Department Total Temp FTE* 1999-00 2000-01 Range Actual Actual 2001-02 Budget 2002-03 Budget 44 38 38 32 31 31 26 25 23 20 18 1 1 0 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 0.15 17 0.15 1 1 1 4 0 1 1 1 2 1 5 0.00 18 0.00 1 1 1 5 0 1 1 1 2 1 4 0.00 18 0.00 1 1 1 6 0 1 1 1 2 1 4 0.00 19 0.00 44 33 18 16 10 1 1 8 1 7 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 30 25 18 16 1 3 1 2 1 1 0.62 8 1.62 1 3 1 2 1 0 0.62 8 0.62 1 3 1 3 1 0 0.62 9 0.62 1 3 1 3 1 0 0.62 9 0.62 21 10 8 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 4 1 3 1 5 1 3 1 5 72 0.50 2.40 56 0.50 1.25 58 0.50 1.25 59 0.50 1.25 265 Cost Center Position 1870 Economic Development (1221) Range 2002-03 Budget 1 1 1 1 Economic Development Specialist 36 1 1 1 1 Administrative Assistant II 16 0 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 Economic Development - Rio Salado Rio Salado Manager 47 1 1 1 1 Senior Planner 38 2 2 1 1 Communications Coordinator 36 1 1 1 1 Management Assistant I/II+ 35 2 2 1 1 Executive Assistant 26 0 0 1 1 Customer Services Supervisor 24 1 1 1 1 Administrative Assistant II 16 1 0 0 0 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 8 7 6 6 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 11 10 9 9 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 200 0 1 1 1 31 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 2 111 1 1 1 1 Deputy Human Resources Manager 50 1 1 1 1 Employee Benefits Supervisor 40 0 1 1 1 Human Resources Supervisor 37 0 1 1 1 Human Resources Analyst I/II+ 33 3 6 6 6 Executive Assistant 26 1 1 1 1 Benefits Specialist 24 0 2 2 2 Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE * Rio Salado Park Administrative Assistant I 10 Total Full-Time Rio Salado Division Total Full-Time Rio Salado Division Total Temp FTE* 1890 2001-02 Budget 200 COE* 4413 2000-01 Actual Economic Development Director Economic Development Total Full-Time 4410 1999-00 Actual Strategic Planning Strategic Planning Director Contract Administrator Strategic Planning Division Total Full-Time HUMAN RESOURCES 1911 (1510) 266 Human Resources -Administration Human Resources Manager Cost Center Position Human Resources Technician I/II+ Range 18 1999-00 2000-01 Actual Actual 2 4 2001-02 Budget 5 2002-03 Budget 5 Administrative Assistant II 16 0 1 1 1 Administrative Assistant I 10 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 9 18 19 19 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 Wellness Coordinator** Office Assistant** (Authorized through FY 00/01) Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** 1912 (1511) Employment Human Resources Supervisor 37 1 0 0 0 Human Resources Analyst I/II+ 33 3 0 0 0 Human Resources Technician I/II+ 18 1 0 0 0 Administrative Assistant II 16 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 Total Full-Time 1913 (1512) Employee Services and Benefits Employee Benefits Supervisor 40 1 0 0 0 Benefits Specialist 24 2 0 0 0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 0 0 0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Human Resources Total Full-Time 18 18 19 19 Human Resources Total Perm FTE** 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 200 0 1 1 1 Training/Org Development Administrator 36 1 0 0 0 Training/Org Development Specialist 30 1 1 1 1 Training Assistant 19 0 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 Wellness Coordinator** Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** 1920 (1217) Tempe Learning Center Tempe Learning Center Director Tempe Learning Center Division Total Full-Time INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 1981 Information Technology/Administration (1881) Information Technology Manager 201 1 1 1 1 Deputy Information Tech Manager 200 1 2 2 2 42 1 0 0 0 Webmaster 267 Cost Center Position Range (1882) 40 42 40 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Program Consultant 37 2 2 2 2 Executive Assistamt 26 1 1 1 1 9 7 7 7 44 39 37 34 31 31 1 2 1 1 4 5 14 1 2 1 1 4 5 14 1 2 1 1 5 6 16 1 2 1 1 5 6 16 47 46 44 39 33 25 20 1 1 2 5 1 2 3 15 1 1 2 5 1 2 3 15 1 1 2 5 1 2 3 15 1 1 2 5 1 2 3 15 52 48 46 44 42 42 42 1 0 1 1 0 2 7 1 0 1 1 1 2 2 8 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 8 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 8 0 40 34 7 8 8 8 9 8 9 8 28 31 32 32 1 0 3 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 3 Information Technology/Customer Support Support Services Supervisor Customer Support Coordinator IT Training Coordinator Sr. PC Services Consultant Customer Support Specialist I/II+ PC Services Consultant I/II+ Total Full-Time 1983 Information Technology/Technical Services (1883) System Network Supervisor Data Center & Network Operations Supervisor Sr. Technical Support Analyst Technical Support Analyst Production Control Coordinator Data Center Support Specialist Data Center Operator I/II+ Total Full-Time 1984 Information Technology/Application Services (1884) Assistant Information Tech Manager Application Services Supervisor Database Administrator IT Project Coordinator Webmaster Database Analyst Business Analyst Senior Database Analyst (Funded by Water/Wastewater Fund) Senior Programmer Analyst Programmer Analyst I/II+ Total Full-Time 1985 Information Technology/Telecommunications (1885) Telecommunications Supervisor Telecommunications Operations Supervisor Telecommunications Network Engineer 268 2001-02 2002-03 Budget Budget Senior Management Assistant Business Analyst Senior Programmer Analyst Total Full-Time 1982 1999-00 2000-01 Actual Actual 46 39 39 Cost Center Position Sr Communication Network Technician Communication Network Supervisor Communication Network Technician 1999-00 2000-01 Range Actual Actual 31 0 1 31 1 0 28 4 3 Administrative Assistant II 16 0 0 1 1 Administrative Assistant I COE* 10 1 0.49 1 0.49 1 0 1 0 10 10 12 12 0.49 0.49 0.00 0.00 76 0.49 77 0.49 82 0.00 82 0.00 201 26 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 200 44 42 40 39 36 35 35 34 32 31 31 26 25 25 25 25 22 16 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 2 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 42 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 2 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 42 1 42 25 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Information Technology Total Full-Time Information Technology Total Temp FTE** DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 2710 Development Services - Administration Development Services Manager Executive Assistant Total Full-Time 2721 Building Safety and Permits (2721Deputy Dev Services Manager-BS Dir. 2724) Plan Check Manager Permits Center Manager Bldg. Inspection Superintendent Senior Plan Check Engineer Sr Building Inspector Plan Check Engineer ADA Plan Check Engineer Planner I/II+ Plans Examiner Building Code Complaint Investigator Building Inspector I/II+ Executive Assistant Senior Development Services Specialist Sign Code Inspector Planning Code Inspector I/II Planning Technician I/II Dev Services Specialist I/II + Administrative Assistant II Administrative Assistant I Building Inspector I/II+** Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** 2722 2001-02 2002-03 Budget Budget 1 1 0 0 4 4 Counter Services Development Services Administrator Senior Development Services Specialist 269 Cost Center 2723 1999-00 Actual 4 1 2000-01 Actual 4 1 2001-02 Budget 0 0 2002-03 Budget 0 0 Dev Services Specialist I/II* 1 1 0 0 Administrative Assistant I* 1 1 0 0 Total Full-Time 7 7 0 0 Total Temp FTE* 2 2 0 0 Position Dev Services Specialist I/II + Administrative Assistant II Range 22 16 Plan Check Plan Check Manager 44 1 1 0 0 Senior Plan Check Engineer 38 2 2 0 0 Plan Check Engineer 35 4 4 0 0 Planner I/II+ 32 0 1 0 0 Plans Examiner 31 2 2 0 0 9 10 0 0 Total Full-Time 2724 Inspection Bldg. Inspection Superintendent 40 1 1 0 0 Sr Building Inspector 32 1 1 0 0 Building Code Complaint Investigator 31 1 1 0 0 Building Inspector I/II+ 30 6 6 0 0 5 5 0 0 Total Full-Time 9 9 0 0 Total Temp FTE* 5 5 0 0 Building Inspector I/II+* 2731 Planning (2731- Deputy Dev Services Manager - Planning 200 1 1 1 1 2733) Principal Planner 44 0 0 3 3 Senior Planner 39 0 0 4 4 Planner I/II+ 34 0 0 6 6 Executive Assistant 26 1 1 0 0 Administrative Assistant II 16 COE* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 2732 (2751) 270 2 2 2 2 0.00 0.00 1.86 1.86 4 4 16 16 0.00 0.00 1.86 1.86 Code Compliance Principal Planner 44 2 2 0 0 Code Enforcement Manager 40 0 0 1 1 Senior Planner 38 5 5 0 0 Senior Code Inspector Specialist 32 0 0 1 1 Planner I/II+ 32 5 5 0 0 Cost Center Position Senior Code Inspector Range 27 2002-03 Budget 1 0 0 9 9 Code Inspector I/II + 25 2 2 0 0 Planning Technician I/II + 25 1 1 0 0 Administrative Assistant II 16 0 0 1 1 Administrative Assistant I 8 0 0 1 1 1.86 1.86 0.00 0.00 15 15 14 14 1.86 1.86 0.00 0.00 Total Temp FTE* Sign Enforcement Senior Code Inspector 27 1 1 0 0 Code Inspector I/II+ 25 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 200 0 1 1 1 Principal Planner 44 1 1 4 4 Senior Planner 39 3 3 5 5 Planner I/II+ 34 2 1 3 3 Planning Technician I/II+ 25 1 1 3 3 16 1 1 1 1 8 8 17 17 Total Full-Time (2742) 2001-02 Budget 1 25 Total Full-Time 2741 2000-01 Actual 0 Code Inspector I/II+ COE* 2733 1999-00 Actual 0 Community Design and Development Division Deputy Dev Services Manager - Redev. (2 positions funded by Federal Grant) (1 Position 50% funded by Federal Grant) Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time 2751 Code Enforcement Code Enforcement Manager 40 1 1 0 0 Senior Code Inspector Specialist 32 1 1 0 0 Senior Code Inspector 27 1 1 0 0 Code Inspector I/II+ 25 6 6 0 0 Administrative Assistant II 16 1 1 0 0 Administrative Assistant I 8 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 11 11 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Code Enforcement Officer II* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 2761- Redevelopment (CDBG) - Administration 2767 Deputy Dev Services Director 49 271 Cost Center Position Senior Planner Planner I/II+ Range 38 32 2774 1 0 0 3 2 0 0 200 1 1 0 0 Accountant 31 1 1 0 0 Family Self Sufficiency Specialist 26 1 1 0 0 Sr. Housing Specialist 22 1 1 0 0 Redevelopment Specialist 20 3 3 0 0 Housing Specialist 18 3 3 0 0 Administrative Assistant II 16 1 2 0 0 Senior Administrative Clerk 12 1 0 0 0 12 12 0 0 200 0 0 1 1 Housing Services Superviser 33 0 0 1 1 Accountant 31 0 0 1 1 Family Self Sufficiency Specialist 26 0 0 1 1 Housing Specialist (CDBG & HOME) 20 0 0 4 4 Housing Specialist (Section 8) 20 0 0 5 5 Administrative Assistant II 16 0 0 1 1 0 0 14 14 83 83 105 105 0 0 1 1 9.86 9.86 1.86 1.86 Housing & Redevelopment Services Dep Dev Svs Manager - Housing Srvs Total Full-Time 27612774 2001-02 2002-03 Budget Budget 0 0 1 Total Full-Time 2772- 1999-00 2000-01 Actual Actual 1 1 Housing Services Division Dep Dev Svs Manager - Housing Srvs Total Full-Time Development Services Total Full-Time Development Services Total Perm FTE** Development Services Total Temp FTE* POLICE 2210 Office of the Chief Police Chief 115 1 1 1 1 Assistant Police Chief 57A 1 1 0 0 Police Lieutenant 50 2 2 0 0 Police Administration Manager 42 1 1 1 1 36A 3 0 0 0 Management Assistant II 35 2 2 2 2 Crime Analyst I/II+ 31 3 3 3 3 Executive Assistant 26 1 1 1 1 Alarm Coordinator 18 0 1 1 1 Police Sergeant 272 Cost Center 2231 2232 2233 1999-00 Actual 1 1 0 1.17 16 1.17 2000-01 Actual 1 1 1 0.00 12 0.00 42 31 28 27 22 18 15 14 1 0 1 5 3 15 2 5 2 32 2.0 1 1 1 6 4 17 2 5 1 37 1.0 1 1 1 6 5 19 2 5 1 40 1.0 1 1 1 6 6 19 2 5 1 41 1.0 Communications Bureau Police Communications Manager Police Communications Shift Supvr. Police Communications Trainer Police Communications Dispatcher I/II+ Total Full-Time 42 29 24 19 1 5 1 32 39 1 5 1 36 43 1 5 1 36 43 1 5 1 36 43 Records Bureau Police Information Manager Senior Police Records Clerk Police Records Clerk II Administrative Assistant I Police Records Clerk I COE* 42 24 14 10 5 1 3 15 2 8 1 1 3 15 2 8 1 1 3 15 2 8 1 1 3 15 2 8 1 29 1 29 1 29 1 29 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 8 1 1 3 1 0 1 7 1 1 4 0 0 1 7 1 1 4 0 0 1 7 Position Administrative Assistant II Police Records Clerk II Administrative Assistant I Intern* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Detention Facility Police Detention & Support Manager Police Identification Supervisor Police Property Supervisor Detention Supervisor Police ID Technician Detention Officer Fingerprint Technician Police Property Technician Detention Officer** Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Range 16 14 10 Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 2236 Crime Prevention Police Sergeant Crime Free Multi-Housing Coordinator Police Officer Police Licensing Specialist Alarm Coordinator Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time 36 29 28 26 18 16 2001-02 Budget 1 1 1 0.00 12 0.00 2002-03 Budget 1 1 1 0.00 12 0.00 273 Cost Center Position 2241 Investigations/Criminal Investigations Assistant Police Chief Division Commander Police Commander Police Sergeant Police Identification Supervisor Police Officer Executive Assistant Police Community Service Officer Police Investigative Asst. Administrative Assistant I COE* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 2242 Investigations/Traffic Investigations Police Commander Police Sergeant Police Officer Administrative Assistant II Administrative Assistant I Traffic Enforcement Aide Range 1999-00 Actual 2000-01 Actual 2001-02 Budget 2002-03 Budget 57A 51A 50 36A 31 28 26 20 16 10 0 1 1 5 1 34 1 4 3 2 1.26 52 1.26 1 0 1 6 0 37 1 3 3 1 1.26 53 1.26 1 0 1 6 0 38 1 3 3 1 1.26 54 1.26 1 0 1 6 0 38 1 3 3 1 1.26 54 1.26 50 36A 28 16 10 10 1 4 18 1 0 7 1 5 22 1 0 7 1 5 26 1 3 7 1 5 26 1 3 7 31 36 43 43 50 36A 28 1 5 22 1 4 22 1 4 23 1 4 23 20 16 16 0 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 31 31 32 32 0 0 0 0 1 3 21 0 1 3 21 1 1 3 21 1 0 25 26 26 1 1 4 1 1 8 1 1 8 1 1 8 Total Full-Time 2243 SEU Police Commander Police Sergeant Police Officer (1 position is a Senior Intelligence Officer) Police Community Service Officer Police Investigative Assistant Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time 2248 Downtown Unit Police Commander Police Sergeant Police Officer Police Licensing Specialist 50 36A 28 26 Total Full-Time 2251 Administration Assistant Chief Police Commander Police Sergeant 274 52 50 36A Cost Center Position Police Polygraph Examiner I/II+ Volunteer Coordinator Range 33 31 Police Officer 28 2 3 4 4 Policy Procedures Officer 28 1 1 1 1 Training Coordinator 26 1 1 1 1 Administrative Assistant II 16 2 2 2 2 Administrative Assistant I 10 1 1 1 1 Total Full-Time 0.7 16 0.7 21 0.7 22 0.7 22 Total Temp FTE* 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 57 0 1 1 1 51A 2 0 0 0 50 0 1 1 1 36A 2 2 2 2 Police Officer 28 1 1 1 1 Administrative Assistant II 16 2 2 2 2 Administrative Assistant I 10 COE* 2271 Patrol-Administration Assistant Chief Division Commander Police Commander Police Sergeant Police Reserves* Service Aide* COE* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 2272 2 3 0 0 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 9 10 7 7 3.29 3.29 3.29 3.29 6 5 5 5 Patrol Police Commander Police Sergeant 50 36A 28 24 24 24 Police Officer 28 154 137 138 138 Police Community Service Officer 20 14 10 10 10 Administrative Assistant I 10 1 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 Total Full-Time 203 176 177 177 Total Perm FTE** 0.5 0 0 0 36A 1 1 1 1 13 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 Police Community Service Officer** 2273 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Actual Actual Budget Budget 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 City Security Team Police Sergeant (.5 funded by Rio Salado) Park Ranger (8 Rangers funded by Rio Salado) Total Full-Time 275 Cost Center 2274 2310 2330 2340 2350 Position Recruits Police Officer Total Full-Time Police Department Total Full-Time Police Department Total Perm FTE** Police Department Total Temp FTE* FIRE Administration Fire Chief Assistant Fire Chief Fire Battalion Chief Management Assistant II Executive Assistant Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time Fire Prevention Fire Marshal Fire Inspector I/II+ Fire Education Specialist Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time Fire Emergency Services Fire Captain Fire Engineer - Assgt. Fire Engineer Firefighter (57 Firefighter, Engineer or Captain positions are paramedic assignment.) Total Full-Time Training/Professional Development Fire Battalion Chief Fire Captain - Assgt. Administrative Assistant II 1999-00 Actual 2000-01 Actual 2001-02 Budget 2002-03 Budget 8 8 480 2.5 7.42 8 8 494 8 8 506 8 8 507 1.0 6.25 1.0 6.25 1.0 6.25 114 54A 46 35 26 16 1 1 3 1 1 1 8 1 1 3 1 1 1 8 1 1 3 1 1 1 8 1 1 3 1 1 1 8 46 31 18 16 1 7 2 1 11 1 7 2 1 11 1 7 2 1 11 1 7 2 1 11 34 30 28 25 27 1 32 66 30 0 33 63 30 0 33 63 30 0 33 63 126 126 126 126 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 0.5 2 1 1 0.5 2 1 1 0.5 2 1 1 0.5 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Range 28 46 37A 16 Total Full-Time 2363 Fire Apparatus Maintenance Senior Fire Mechanic Fire Mechanic Inventory Services Specialist ** Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** 276 31 26 13 Cost Center 2364 2370 2380 2410 2421 2422 (2483) Position Support Services - Administration Fire Battalion Chief Fire Services Inventory Technician Fire Support Services Technician Service Aide Service Aide* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Medical Services Fire Battalion Chief Fire Captain - Paramedic-Assgt. Medical Services Coordinator Total Full-Time Special Operations Fire Battalion Chief Total Full-Time Fire Department Total Full-Time Fire Department Total Perm FTE** Fire Department Total Temp FTE* COMMUNITY SERVICES Administration Community Services Manager Senior Management Assistant Volunteer Coordinator Executive Assistant Recreation Worker* Unclassified Temporary* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Recreation/Administration Dep Comm. Svs. Mgr. - Parks & Rec Management Assistant II Recreation Coordinator Community Services Registration Tech Administrative Assistant II Senior Administrative Clerk Administrative Assistant I** Unclassified Temporary* Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Total Temp FTE* Recreation/Community Events Community Services Supervisor Public Relations and Events Coordinator Range 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Actual Actual Budget Budget 46 24 13 1 1 0 0 0.98 2 0.98 1 1 1 1 0.00 4 0.00 1 1 1 1 0.00 4 0.00 1 1 1 1 0.00 4 0.00 46 41A 33 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 46 1 1 155 0.5 0.98 1 1 158 0.5 0.00 1 1 158 0.5 0.00 1 1 158 0.5 0.00 114 40 31 26 1 1 1 1 0.38 0.14 4 0.52 1 0 1 1 0.38 0.14 3 0.52 1 0 1 1 0.38 0.14 3 0.52 1 0 1 1 0.38 0.14 3 0.52 200 35 31 19 16 12 1 1 1 0 2 2 0.00 0.22 7 0.00 0.22 1 1 1 0 4 0 0.00 0.22 7 0.00 0.22 1 1 1 1 3 0 0.75 0.22 7 0.75 0.22 1 1 1 1 3 0 0.75 0.22 7 0.75 0.22 39 31 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 277 Cost Center 2423 2424 Position Recreation Coordinator Range 31 2002-03 Budget 1 0 0 1 1 Administrative Assistant II 16 1 1 0 0 Unclassified Temporary* 0.43 0.43 1.18 1.18 Total Full-Time 2.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Total Temp FTE* 0.43 0.43 1.18 1.18 Recreation/Special Populations Recreation Coordinator 31 1 1 1 1 Asst. Recreation Coordinator 23 1 1 1 1 Administrative Assistant II 16 1 1 1 1 Program Coordinator** 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 Unclassified Temporary* 2.37 2.37 2.87 2.87 Total Full-Time 3 3 3 3 Total Perm FTE** 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 Total Temp FTE* 2.37 2.37 3.37 3.37 Recreation/Rec. Instructional Community Services Supervisor 39 1 1 1 1 Recreation Coordinator 31 1 1 2 2 Assistant Recreation Coordinator 17 0 0 2 2 Recreation Leader III* 0.00 0.00 1.93 1.93 Unclassified Temporary* 3.72 3.72 4.72 4.72 Total Full-Time 2 2 5 5 3.72 3.72 6.65 6.65 2 2 2 2 Unclassified Temporary* 3.84 3.84 3.84 3.84 Total Full-Time 2 2 2 2 3.84 3.84 3.84 3.84 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 Unclassified Temporary* 4.89 4.89 2.89 2.89 Total Full-Time 3 3 5 5 4.89 4.89 2.89 2.89 Recreation/Youth Sports 31 Total Temp FTE* Recreation/Adult Sports Community Services Supervisor 39 Program Coordinator Recreation Coordinator Total Temp FTE* 278 2001-02 Budget 1 23 Recreation Coordinator 2426 2000-01 Actual 1 Assistant Recreation Coordinator Total Temp FTE* 2425 1999-00 Actual 0 31 Cost Center 2427 Position Recreation Resources Recreation Coordinator Assistant Recreation Coordinator Administrative Assistant I** Unclassified Temporary* Range 31 23 1 1 0.00 4.1 1 1 0.00 4.1 2 0 0.75 4.1 2 0 0.75 4.1 2 2 2 2 Total Perm FTE** 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 Total Temp FTE* 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 1 1 1 1 Unclassified Temporary* 2.41 2.41 2.41 2.41 Total Full-Time 1 1 1 1 2.41 2.41 2.41 2.41 Total Full-Time 2429 Recreation/Diablo Stadium Operation Recreation Coordinator 31 Total Temp FTE* 2431 2432 Recreation/Kiwanis Center Community Services Supervisor 39 1 1 1 1 Recreation Coordinator 31 1 1 1 1 Asst. Recreation Coordinator 23 3 3 3 3 Administrative Assistant II** 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 Recreation Leader I* 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 Recreation Worker* 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 Unclassified Temporary* 18.31 18.31 18.71 18.71 Total Full-Time 5 5 5 5 Total Perm FTE** 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 Total Temp FTE* 18.31 18.31 19.96 19.96 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1 1 1 1 0 16.56 4 0.00 16.56 1 1 1 1 0 16.56 4 0.00 16.56 1 1 1 1 0.75 17.33 4 0.75 17.33 1 1 1 1 0.75 17.33 4 0.75 17.33 Recreation/Kiwanis Concession Unclassified Temporary* Total Temp FTE* 2433 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Actual Actual Budget Budget Recreation/Aquatics Community Services Supervisor Recreation Coordinator Swimming Pool Maint Mechanic Swimming Pool Maint Technician Asst. Recreation Coordinator** Unclassified Temporary* Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Total Temp FTE* 39 31 23 20 279 Cost Center Position 2435 Recreation/Kiwanis Batting Cage Batting Cage Coordinator Batting Range Operator Unclassified Temp* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 2440 2451 280 Library Dep Comm Svcs Mgr - Library Administrative Librarian Library Supervisor Recreation Coordinator Librarian I/II+ Community Education Specialist Catalog Services Coordinator Circulation Services Coordinator Administrative Assistant II Library Aide II Library Aide I Library Clerk Librarian I/II+** Library Aide II** Library Clerk** Unclassified Temp - Office* Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Total Temp FTE* Social Services/Administration Dep Comm Svcs Mgr - Social Services Community Services Supervisor Social Services Supervisor Social Services Counselor I/II+ Community Youth Coordinator Community Education Coordinator Youth Employment Coordinator Social Services Coordinator Asst Recreation Coordinator Program Specialist Administrative Assistant II Social Services Coordinator** Customer Support Specialist I** Asst Recreation Coordinator** Range 1999-00 Actual 2000-01 Actual 2001-02 Budget 2002-03 Budget 27 9 1 1 1.41 2 1.41 1 1 1.41 2 1.41 1 1 1.41 2 1.41 1 1 1.41 2 1.41 200 39 39 31 30 27 17 17 16 15 11 5 1 1 4 0 13 1 1 1 1 6 3 5 2 1.75 4.5 9.84 37 8.25 9.84 1 1 4 0 13 1 1 1 1 6 3 5 2 1.75 4.5 9.84 37 8.25 9.84 1 1 4 1 13 0 1 1 1 6 3 5 2 1.75 4.5 9.84 37 8.25 9.84 1 1 4 1 13 0 1 1 1 6 3 5 2 1.75 4.5 9.84 37 8.25 9.84 200 39 39 35 31 31 31 31 23 17 16 1 1 3 9 2 0 1 2 1 0 5 2.25 0.0 0.75 1 2 3 9 2 0 1 3 1 2 6 1.5 0.75 0.75 1 2 3 10 2 0 1 3 2 2 8 1.5 0.75 0.0 1 2 3 10 2 1 1 3 2 2 8 2.5 0.75 0.0 Cost Center 2457 2481 2484 (2445) Position Secretary** Administrative Clerk ** Social Services Counselor** Administrative Clerk * Asst Comm Youth Coordinator* Program Supervisor* Program Leader* Unclassified Temp - Office* Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Total Temp FTE* Social Services/KID ZONE Community Services Supervisor Management Assistant II Social Services Coordinator Community Education Specialist Administrative Assistant II Social Services Coordinator** Customer Support Specialist I/II** Assistant Recreation Coordinator** Secretary** Inventory Services Specialist** Program Coordinator** Program Coordinator* Unclassified Temporary* Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Total Temp FTE* Cultural Services - Administration Dep Comm Svcs Mgr - Cultural Services Community Services Supervisor Recreation Coordinator Fine Arts Coordinator Administrative Assistant II Assistant Recreation Coordinator** Recreation Leader III* Recreation Leader IV* Unclassified Temporary* Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Total Temp FTE* Historical Museum Museum Administrator Museum Curator Museum Registrar Range 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Actual Actual Budget Budget 0.0 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.50 0.0 0.0 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 4.36 7.36 7.36 7.36 25 30 34 35 4.40 4.90 3.65 4.65 12.67 15.67 14.67 14.67 39 35 31 27 16 1 1 3 1 1 1.00 0.75 0.50 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.48 57.0 7 4.00 57.43 1 1 4 0 1 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.48 57.0 7 4.00 57.43 1 1 4 0 1 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 10.00 0.48 47.0 7 14.00 47.43 1 1 4 0 1 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 10.00 0.48 47.0 7 14.00 47.43 200 39 31 31 16 1 0 2 2 1 0.5 0.95 0.36 4.52 6 0.50 5.83 1 0 2 2 1 0.5 0.95 0.36 4.52 6 0.50 5.83 1 1 1 2 1 1.0 0.95 0.36 5.01 6 1.00 6.32 1 1 1 2 1 1.0 0.95 0.36 5.01 6 1.00 6.32 39 28 23 1 5 0 1 5 1 1 5 1 1 5 1 281 Cost Center 3610 Position Administrative Assistant II Museum Aide** Unclassified Temp - Office* Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Total Temp FTE* Performing Arts - Administration Cultural Facilities Administrator Fine Arts Coordinator Administrative Assistant I Total Full-Time Community Services Dept Total Full-Time Community Services Dept Total Perm FTE** Range 16 37 31 10 0 0 0 0 119 21.15 1 1 1 3 129 21.65 1 1 1 3 138 33.65 1 1 1 3 139 34.65 147.24 150.24 144.83 144.83 115 42 39 35 26 1 1 1 1 1 0.49 5 0.49 1 1 0 1 1 0.49 4 0.49 1 1 0 1 1 0.49 4 0.49 1 1 0 1 1 0.49 4 0.49 53 40 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 29 26 25 22 16 15 1 1 1 1 2 1 9 1 1 1 1 2 1 9 1 1 1 1 2 1 10 1 1 1 1 2 1 10 40 29 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 25 1 9 1 9 2 10 2 10 Community Services Dept Total Temp FTE* 3210 3221 3222 282 PUBLIC WORKS Administration Public Works Manager Administrative Services Coordinator Energy Management Coordinator Management Assistant II Executive Assistant COE* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Engineering/Administration Deputy PW Manager-Engineering Engineering Manager Senior Civil Engineer (Funded by Water/Wastewater Fund) Senior Engineering Associate+ Executive Assistant Engineering Associate+ Engineering Technician II+ Administrative Assistant II Engineering Technician I+ Total Full-Time Engineering/Construction Engineering Manager Senior Engineering Associate+ (One position funded by Transit) Engineering Associate+ Total Full-Time 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Actual Actual Budget Budget 1 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 7 8 8 8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 Cost Center 3223 Position Engineering/Design Principal Civil Engineer Engineering Manager Senior Civil Engineer+ (One position funded by Water/Wastewater and one position funded by Transit Fund) Civil Engineer + Engineering Systems Supervisor Municipal Property Specialist (One position funded by Transit) Utility Infrastructure Coordinator Senior Engineering Associate+ Senior Survey Technician Engineering Technician I/II+ Survey Technician I/II+ Total Full-Time Admin & Engineering Division Total Full-Time Admin & Engineering Division Total Temp FTE* 3224 3028 (3143) 3029 Environmental Management Environmental Engineer Environmental Program Supervisor Air Quality Specialist Management Assistant I/II+ Sr. Cross Connection Control Inspector (Funded by Water/Wastewater Fund) Environmental Program Technician Cross Connection Control Inspector (Funded by Water/Wastewater Fund) Total Full-Time Environmental Services Environmental Compliance Supervisor Environmental Investigator Environmental Technician II-Assignment Environmental Technician I/II+ Secretary Senior Administrative Clerk Administrative Clerk ** Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Household Products Recycling Center Environmental Program Specialist Environmental Technician I/II+ Total Full-Time Environmental Division Total Full-Time Environmental Division Total Perm FTE** Range 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Actual Actual Budget Budget 42 40 39 2 1 4 2 1 4 2 1 4 2 1 4 36 35 35 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 31 29 22 22 18 1 5 1 3 1 21 44 0.49 1 5 1 3 1 21 43 0.49 1 5 1 3 1 22 46 0.49 1 5 1 3 1 22 46 0.49 51 39 36 35 29 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 24 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 39 31 24 22 14 12 1 6 1 3 1 1 0.5 13 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 22 1 1 2 22 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 283 Cost Center 3231 3241 3250 3252 284 Position Field Services/Administration Field Services Director PW Support Svcs Coordinator Management Assistant I/II+ Administrative Assistant II Administrative Assistant I Total Full-Time Field Services/Facility Maintenance Administration Asst. Field Serv. Director-Facility Maintenance Facility Maintenance Supervisor Facility Energy Management Technician Facility Electrician Facility Technician I/II+ (1 position funded by Golf Fund) Total Full-Time Field Services/Custodial Services Custodial Supervisor Lead Custodian Custodian (1 position funded out of Rio Salado Fund) Custodian** Custodian* Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Total Temp FTE* Field Services/Parks Maintenance Asst. Field Services Director Park/Golf Course Maintenance Parks and Golf Course Supervisor Parks Facility Maint. Wkr. I/II+ Senior Equipment Operator Parks & Golf Course Mechanic Sprinkler Sys. Maint. Worker I/II+ Senior Groundskeeper Equipment Operator II Equipment Operator I Groundskeeper Groundskeeper* Unclassified Temporary* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Range 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Actual Actual Budget Budget 200 42 31 16 10 1 1 1 3 1 7 1 1 1 3 1 7 1 1 1 3 1 7 1 1 1 3 1 7 40 1 1 1 1 31 29 26 23 1 1 1 14 1 1 1 15 1 1 1 16 1 1 1 17 18 19 20 21 2 4 30 2 4 32 2 4 33 2 4 33 0.5 0.49 36 0.5 0.49 0.5 0.49 38 0.5 0.49 0.5 0.49 39 0.5 0.49 0.5 0.49 39 0.5 0.49 28 14 4 40 28 23 20 16 16 16 15 8 7 1 3 2 1 1 6 7 5 3 21 2.62 2.5 50 5.12 1 3 2 1 1 7 8 5 2 21 2.62 2.5 51 5.12 1 3 2 1 1 7 8 5 2 21 2.62 2.5 51 5.12 1 3 2 1 1 7 8 5 2 21 2.62 2.5 51 5.12 Cost Center 3253 3254 3255 3256 3257 3258 Position Field Services/Baseball Facility Parks and Golf Course Supervisor Senior Groundskeeper Equipment Operator I Groundskeeper Groundskeeper* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Range 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Actual Actual Budget Budget 28 16 8 7 1 1 1 7 0.56 10 0.56 1 0 2 7 0.56 10 0.56 1 0 2 7 0.56 10 0.56 1 0 2 7 0.56 10 0.56 16 7 1 1 0.5 0.1 2 0.5 0.1 1 1 0.5 0.1 2 0.5 0.1 1 1 0.5 0.1 2 0.5 0.1 1 1 0.5 0.1 2 0.5 0.1 Field Services/Landscape Maintenance Contract Parks and Golf Course Supervisor Groundskeeper Total Ful-Time 28 7 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Field Services/Pest Control Senior Pest Control Worker Pest Control Worker Total Full-Time 23 12 1 4 5 1 4 5 1 4 5 1 4 5 Field Services/Rio Salado - CFD Groundskeeper Total Full-Time 7 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Double Butte Cemetery Groundskeeper Total Full-Time 7 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Field Services/Rio Salado Senior Groundskeeper Groundskeeper Custodian** Groundskeeper* Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Total Temp FTE* 3261 (1861) Equipment Management/Administration Fleet Manager Equipment Maintenance Supt. Automotive Parts Supervisor Senior Auto Parts Specialist Auto Parts Specialist Administrative Assistant II Administrative Assistant I Auto Parts Messenger* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 3262 (1862) Equipment Management/Maintenance Equipment Maint. Supervisor Lead Equipment Mechanic 45 39 27 21 16 16 8 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 0.5 9 0.5 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 0.5 9 0.5 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 0.5 9 0.5 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 0.5 9 0.5 33 28 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 285 Cost Center 3712 3713 3714 3715 3716 3718 3813 3814 286 Position Equipment Mechanic Motorcycle Repair Technician Equipment Paint & Body Repair Worker Equipment Service Worker II Total Full-Time Field Services/Refuse Administration Asst. Field Services Director Streets & Sanitation Streets and Sanitation Supervisor Sanitation Inspector Total Full-Time Range 24 24 19 13 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 Actual Actual Budget 15 15 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 27 27 27 2002-03 Budget 15 1 1 4 27 40 28 22 1 1 3 5 1 1 3 5 1 1 3 5 1 1 3 5 Field Services/Refuse Residential Streets and Sanitation Supervisor Equipment Operator II Total Full-Time 28 15 1 19 20 1 19 20 1 19 20 1 19 20 Field Services/Refuse Commercial Streets and Sanitation Supervisor Equipment Operator II Total Full-Time 28 15 1 15 16 1 15 16 1 15 16 1 15 16 Field Services/Roll Off Tilt Frame Senior Equipment Operator Total Full-Time 20 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Field Services/Refuse Support Services Lead Sanitation Worker Equipment Operator II Sanitation Worker Total Full-Time 18 15 15 1 1 3 5 1 1 3 5 1 1 3 5 1 1 3 5 28 15 1 15 0 16 0 1 14 0.5 15 0.5 1 14 0.5 15 0.5 1 14 0.5 15 0.5 Field Services/Street Maintenance Streets and Sanitation Supervisor Senior Equipment Operator Equipment Operator II Total Full-Time 28 20 15 1 5 12 18 1 5 19 25 1 5 19 25 1 5 19 25 Field Services/Field Maintenance Streets and Sanitation Supervisor Senior Equipment Operator Equipment Operator II Total Full-Time 28 20 15 1 1 9 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Field Services/Uncontained Refuse Streets and Sanitation Supervisor Equipment Operator II Equipment Operator II** Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Cost Center 2511 2512 3821 Position Field Services/Rolling Hills Golf Parks & Golf Course Supervisor Parks & Golf Course Mechanic Sprinkler Systems Maint. Worker I/II+ Equipment Operator II Equipment Operator I Groundskeeper Groundskeeper* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 3823 3824 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Actual Actual Budget Budget 28 16 16 15 8 7 1 1 1 2 1 4 1.07 10 1.07 1 1 1 2 1 4 1.07 10 1.07 1 1 1 2 1 4 1.07 10 1.07 1 1 1 2 1 4 1.07 10 1.07 28 16 15 15 8 7 1 1 3 1 1 5 1.35 12 1.35 287 1.0 9.19 1 1 3 1 1 5 1.35 12 1.35 286 1.5 9.19 1 1 3 1 1 5 1.35 12 1.35 288 1.5 9.19 1 1 3 1 1 5 1.35 12 1.35 289 1.5 9.19 53 42 16 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Transportation/Studies & Design Traffic Engineering Supervisor Senior Civil Engineer Senior Traffic Engineering Technician + Total Full-Time 39 37 29 1 2 3 6 1 2 4 7 1 2 4 7 1 2 4 7 Transportation/Operations Traffic Operations Supervisor Sign Technician Traffic Operations Crew Leader Administrative Assistant II Transportation Worker I/II+ Total Full-Time 39 25 18 16 15 1 1 2 1 5 10 1 1 2 1 5 10 1 1 2 1 6 11 1 1 2 1 6 11 Transportation/Lights & Signals Transportation Engineering Planner Management Assistant I/II+ Lighting Systems Coordinator Total Full-Time 36 35 27 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Field Services/Ken McDonald Golf Parks & Golf Course Supervisor Parks & Golf Course Mechanic Equipment Operator II Sprinkler System Maint. Worker I/II+ Equipment Operator I Groundskeeper Groundskeeper* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Field Services Division Total Full-Time Field Services Division Total Perm FTE** Field Services Division Total Temp FTE* Transportation/Administration Deputy Public Works Manager - Transportation PW Support Svcs Coordinator Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time 3822 Range 287 Cost Center 3825 3911 Position Transportation/Signal System Asst. Traffic Engineer Intelligent Trans. System Coordinator Signal Systems Analyst Senior Traffic Signal Technician Traffic Signal Services Supervisor Underground Utitlities Coordinator Traffic Signal Technician I/II+ Traffic Signal Service Worker I/II+ Total Full-Time 288 44 39 34 33 32 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 Actual Actual Budget 2002-03 Budget 1 1 1 1 1 0 3 5 13 0 1 1 1 1 0 3 5 12 0 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 13 0 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 13 51 44 44 44 40 37 37 36 36 36 32 28 18 18 18 16 15 14 12 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0.5 15 0.5 49 0.5 0 0.0 0.00 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 5 0 0 0.5 20 0.5 55 0.5 384 2.0 9.68 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 5 0 0 0.5 26 0.5 63 0.5 397 2.0 9.68 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 5 0 0 0.5 29 0.5 66 0.5 401 2.0 9.68 44 33 21 18 16 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 7 1 6 17 1 1 1 7 1 5 16 1 1 1 7 1 5 16 26 18 Transit Transit Administrator Assistant Transit Administrator Principal Planner Principal Civil Engineer Senior Transportation Planner Transit Operations Supervisor Sr Civil Engineer+ Transportation Planner Community Outreach & Marketing Coor Transit Finance Specialist Transit Operations Coordinator Alternative Modes Specialist Transit Operations Technician Senior Financial Services Technician Financial Services Clerk I/II+ Administrative Assistant II Transportation Operations Worker I/II+ Traffic Operations Worker II Senior Administrative Clerk Management Intern** Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Transportation Division Total Full-Time Transportation Division Total Perm FTE** Public Works Department Total Full-Time Public Works Department Total Perm FTE** Public Works Department Total Temp FTE* 3061 (1841) (1931) Range WATER UTILITIES Customer Services Customer Services Manager Customer Services Supervisor Senior Financial Services Technician Financial Services Technician I/II+ Water Service Representative Water Meter Reader Total Full-Time Cost Center 3224 3028 (3143) 3029 3002 3003 Position Environmental Management Deputy Water Utilities Mgr-Environmental Environmental Program Supervisor Air Quality Specialist Management Assistant I/II+ Sr. Cross Connection Control Inspector Environmental Program Technician Cross Connection Control Inspector Administrative Assistant II** Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Environmental Services Environmental Compliance Supervisor Environmental Investigator Environmental Technician II-Assignment Environmental Technician I/II+ Administrative Assistant II Administrative Clerk ** Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Household Products Recycling Center Environmental Program Specialist Environmental Technician I/II+ Total Full-Time Water Management - Administration Water Utilities Dept. Manager Deputy Water Utilities Manager - Operations Senior Management Assistant Water Quality Specialist Management Assistant II Water Mgmt Safety - Training Coordinator Operations Analyst Executive Assistant Administrative Assistant II COE* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Water Management Warehouse Warehouse Supervisor Inventory Services Specialist Distribution Clerk Total Full-Time Range 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Actual Actual Budget Budget 51 39 36 35 29 29 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 7 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 7 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 7 0.5 39 31 24 22 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 1 3 2 0.5 13 0.5 1 6 1 3 2 0 13 0 1 6 1 3 2 0 13 0 34 22 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 201 53 40 37 35 33 31 26 16 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 3 0.49 8 0.49 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0.49 7 0.49 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0.49 9 0.49 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0.49 9 0.49 25 13 8 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 289 Cost Center 3011 3012 3013 3014 3016 3021 3022 3024 290 Position Water Quality - Administration Plant Operations Manager Management Assistant I/II+ Total Full-Time Range 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Actual Actual Budget Budget 42 35 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 Control Center Operations Control Center Supervisor Instrumentation and Control Tech (3 SBP) Control Center Operator Plant Operator I/II+ Total Full-Time 33 27 25 23 1 0 4 1 6 1 4 4 0 9 1 4 4 0 9 1 4 4 0 9 Papago Water Plant Plant Team Leader Plant Electrician (SBP) Plant Operator I/II+ (4 SBP) Plant Mechanic (SBP) Total Full-Time 33 26 23 22 1 1 6 2 10 1 1 7 1 10 1 1 7 2 11 1 1 7 2 11 South Tempe Water Plant Plant Team Leader Plant Electrician Plant Operator I/II+ (SBP) Utility Services Mechanic Plant Mechanic (SBP) Equipment Operator II Total Full-Time 33 26 23 22 19 15 1 1 5 2 0 0 9 1 1 5 2 0 1 10 1 1 5 1 1 0 9 1 1 5 1 1 0 9 Field Facilities - Water Plant Team Leader Total Full-Time 33 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Distribution System Services - Administration Transmission and Collection Manager Total Full-Time 42 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Distribution System Maintenance Utility Services Supervisor Utility Services Crew Chief CMMS Tech I/II+ Underground Utilities Coordinator Senior Equipment Operator Senior Utility Services Worker Utility Services Tech I/II+ (SBP) Utility Services Worker I/II+ Total Full-Time 33 25 23 22 20 17 13 13 2 1 2 1 2 2 11 2 23 1 0 0 0 0 1 12 0 14 1 0 0 0 0 1 11 0 13 1 0 0 0 0 1 11 0 13 Irrigation Water Systems Supervisor Water Systems Coordinator CMMS Tech I/II+ Irrigator Total Full-Time 33 24 23 5 0 0 1 6 7 1 1 0 7 9 1 1 0 7 9 1 1 0 7 9 Cost Center Position 3025 Technical Support Team CMMS Tech II Underground Utilities Coordinator Engineering Tech II Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time 3031 3033 3034 3035 3041 3051 3052 Range 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 Actual Actual Budget 2002-03 Budget 23 22 22 16 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 1 9 4 2 2 1 9 4 2 2 1 9 Wastewater Services - Administration S.R.O.G Program Coordinator Total Full-Time 39 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Wastewater Utility Services Utility Services Crew Chief Equipment Operator II Utility Services Tech I/II+ (SBP) Total Full-Time 25 15 13 1 2 10 13 0 0 10 10 0 0 10 10 0 0 10 10 Kyrene Water Reclamation Plant Reclamation Plant Supervisor Plant Operator I/II+ Utility Services Mechanic Total Full-Time 30 23 19 1 2 1 4 1 1 0 2 1 2 0 3 1 2 0 3 Field Facilities - Wastewater Plant Team Leader Utility Services Mechanic Plant Mechanic+ (SBP) Total Full-Time 33 22 22 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 4 Laboratory Services Laboratory Manager Chemist I/II+ Administrative Assistant II Laboratory Technician Total Full-Time 42 29 16 14 1 6 0 1 8 1 6 1 1 9 1 6 1 1 9 1 6 1 1 9 Water Resources - Administration Water Resource Manager Water Resources Hydrologist Water Quality Specialist Total Full-Time 42 38 37 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Water Conservation Management Assistant II Water Conservation Coordinator Water Resources Technician Total Full-Time 35 30 20 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 3 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 291 Cost Center Position 3061 Technical Services - Administration Utility Technical Services Manager Operations Analyst Total Full-Time 3062 Mapping Engineering Technician I/II+ Total Full-Time 3063 Control Systems Instrumentation & Control Tech (SBP) Total Full-Time 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Actual Actual Budget Budget 42 31 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Water Utilities Department Total Full-Time Water Utilities Department Total Perm FTE* Water Utilities Department Total Temp FTE* 111 0 0.49 144 0.50 0.49 144 0.50 0.49 144 0.50 0.49 Public Works Department Total Full-Time Public Works Department Total Perm FTE** Public Works Department Total Temp FTE* 513 2.0 10.17 0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 Grand Total Full-Time Grand Total Perm FTE** Grand Total Temp FTE* **Permanent Full-Time Equivalent 292 Range 1628 1661 1727 1734 28.75 27.65 39.65 40.65 188.27 186.98 173.08 173.08 *Temporary Full-Time Equivalent ( )Former Cost Center Number Grant Funded Personnel (Included in preceding totals) City Attorney Legal Services (Victim’s Right Grant) Development Services Redevelopment-CDBG Section 8 Housing Housing Services (CDBG and Section 8) Total Police Grant Funded Total Grand Total 1999-00 Actual Personnel by Fund (Full-Time Only) 1999-00 Actual 2000-01 Actual 2001-02 Budget 1,277 1,316 1,374 1,378 63 18 17 0 15 60 23 16 3 14 62 29 15 3 14 62 32 15 3 14 22 151 65 1,628 22 143 64 1,661 23 143 64 1,727 23 143 64 1,734 General Fund Special Revenue Funds HURF Transit Rio Salado Performing Arts CDBG/Section 8 Housing Enterprise Funds Golf Water/Wastewater Sanitation Grand Total 2000-01 Actual 2001-02 Budget 2002-03 Budget 1 1 1 1 3 12 0 15 2 12 0 14 0 0 14 14 0 0 14 14 44 44 60 21 21 36 18 18 33 8 8 23 2002-03 Budget 293 Glossary of Terms Accrual Basis - A basis of accounting in which transactions are recognized at the time they are incurred, as opposed to when cash is received or spent. Appropriation - An authorization made by the City Council which permits the City to incur obligations to make expenditures for specific purposes. Assessed Valuation - A value that is established for real and personal property for use as a basis for levying property taxes (Note: Property values are established by the County). Asset - Resources owned or held by a government which have monetary value. Available (Undesignated) Fund Balance Refers to the funds remaining from the prior year which are available for appropriation and expenditure in the current year. Bond - A written promise to pay a sum of money on a specific date at a specified interest rate. The interest payments and the repayment of the principal are detailed in a bond ordinance. The most common types of bonds are general obligation, revenue bonds, and special improvement district bonds. These are most frequently used to finance capital projects. Bond Refinancing - The payoff and re-issuance of bonds, to obtain better interest rates and/or bond conditions. Budget - A plan of financial operation for a specified period of time (fiscal year). The Biennial Budget authorizes, and provides the basis for control of, financial operations during the fiscal year. Capital Improvements Program Budget - A Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Budget is a separate budget from the operating budget. Items in the CIP are usually construction or renovation projects designed to improve the value of the government assets. 294 Examples of capital improvement projects include new roads, sewer lines, buildings, recreational facilities and large scale remodeling. The City Council receives a separate document that details the CIP costs for the upcoming fiscal year. Line-Item Budget - A budget that lists each expenditure category (salary, materials, telephone service, travel, etc.) separately, along with the dollar amount budgeted for each specified category. Operating Budget - The portion of the budget that pertains to daily operations that provide basic governmental services. The operating budget contains appropriations for such expenditures as personnel, supplies, utilities, materials, travel, and fuel. Performance Budget - A budget that focuses upon departmental goals and objectives rather than line items, programs, or funds. Workload and unit cost data are collected in order to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of services. Typical measures collected might include average emergency response time for fire or cost per manhour of garbage collection. Program Budget - A budget that focuses upon broad functions or activities of an agency or jurisdiction rather than upon its organizational budget units or object classes of expenditure. The City's programs: (1) General Services; (2) Development Services; (3) Public Safety; (4) Environmental Health; (5) Community Services; and (6) Public Transportation. Budget Adjustment - A procedure to revise a budget appropriation either by City Council approval through the adoption of a supplemental appropriation ordinance for any interdepartmental or interfund adjustments or by City Manager authorization to adjust appropriations within a departmental budget. Budget Calendar - The schedule of key dates or milestones which the City follows in the preparation, adoption, and administration of the budget. Budget Document - The instrument used by the budget-making authority to present a comprehensive financial program to the City Council. Budget Group - A fun group of hard working employees responsible for budget preparation, benchmarking, forecasting, and financial analysis. Budget Message - The opening section of the budget which provides the City Council and the public with a general summary of the most important aspects of the budget, changes from the current and previous fiscal years, and recommendations regarding the financial policy for the upcoming period. Budgetary Basis - This refers to the form of accounting utilized throughout the budget process. These generally take one of three forms: GAAP, Cash, Modified Accrual or some type of statutory form budgets are adopted on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) except that (a) encumbrances are considered to be an expenditure chargeable to appropriations, (b) no depreciation is budgeted for in enterprise funds, (c) investments in supply inventories and assets restricted for self-insurance purposes are not considered to be appropriable, (d) revenues accruing to sinking funds are not appropriable, and (e) contributions into sinking funds are budgeted, whereas disbursements from sinking funds are not budgeted. Unencumbered appropriations lapse at the close of the fiscal year. Budgetary Control - The control or management of a governmental unit or enterprise in accordance with an approved budget for the purpose of keeping expenditures within the limitations of authorized appropriations and available revenues. Capital Budget - The appropriation of bonds or operating revenue for improvements to facilities and other infrastructure. Capital Improvements - Expenditures related to the acquisition, expansion or rehabilitation of an element of the government's physical plant; sometimes referred to as infrastructure. Capital Improvements Program - A plan for capital expenditures to provide long-lasting physical improvements to be incurred over a period of several future years. Tempe's City Charter requires annual submission of a fiveyear capital program for City Council approval. Capital Outlay- Expenditures which result in the acquisition of or addition to fixed assets. Cash Basis - A basis of accounting in which transactions are recognized only when cash is increased or decreased. Contingency - A budgetary reserve set aside for emergencies or unforeseen expenditures not otherwise budgeted. Cost Center - An organizational budget/ operating unit within each City division or department, i.e., Radio Maintenance is a cost center within the Communications Division. Debt Management (Capacity) Plan - The City's basis to evaluate upcoming and future debt financing in relation to the impact the borrowing will have on the City's debt ratios and relatedly the City's credit position as determined by the major rating agencies. Debt Ratios - Ratios which provide measure of assessing debt load and ability to repay debt which play a part in the determination of credit ratings. They are also used to evaluate the City's debt position over time and against its own standards and policies. The four major debt ratios used by the City are (1) Debt Per Capita; (2) Debt to Full Value; (3) Debt to Personal Income; and (4) Debt Services to Revenues. 295 Debt Service - The amount of interest and principal that a City must pay each year on net direct long-term debt plus the interest it must pay on direct short-term debt. Direct Debt - The sum of the total bonded debt and any unfunded debt (e.g. shortterm notes) of the City for which the City has pledged its "full faith and credit." It does not include the debt of overlapping jurisdictions. Self-Supporting Debt - Debt for which the City has pledged a repayment source separate from its general tax revenues (e.g. water bond repaid from water utility income/special assessment bonds). Outstanding Tax Supported Debt Direct debt minus self-supporting debt. Debt for which the City has pledged a repayment from its secondary property taxes. Distinguished Budget Presentation Awards Program - A voluntary awards program administered by the Government Finance Officers Association to encourage governments to prepare effective budget documents. Division - A group of homogeneous cost centers within a department, i.e., all traffic engineering, traffic operations and transit cost centers make up the Transportation Division within the Public Works Department. Encumbrance - The legal commitment of appropriated funds to purchase an item or service. To encumber funds means to set aside or commit funds for a future expenditure. Overlapping Debt - The City's proportionate share of the debt of other local governmental units which either overlap it or underlie it. The debt is generally apportioned based on relative assessed value. Estimated Revenue - The amount of projected revenue to be collected during the fiscal year. Overall Net Debt - Net direct debt plus overlapping debt. Fiscal Year - The time period designated by the City signifying the beginning and ending period for recording financial transactions. The City of Tempe has specified July 1 to June 30 as its fiscal year. Fixed Assets - Assets of long-term character which are intended to continue to be held or used, such as land, buildings, machinery, furniture and other equipment. Debt Service Fund Requirements - The amounts of revenue which must be provided for a Debt Service Fund so that all principal and interest payments can be made in full on schedule. Deficit - The excess of an entity’s liabilities over its assets or the excess of expenditures over revenues during a single accounting period. Department - A major administrative division of the City which indicates overall management responsibility for an operation or a group of related operations within a functional area. 296 Depreciation - Expiration in the service life of capital assets attributable to wear and tear, deterioration, action of the physical elements, inadequacy, or obsolescence. Expenditure/Expense - This term refers to the outflow of funds paid for an asset obtained or goods and services obtained. Full Faith and Credit - A pledge of a government’s taxing power to repay debt obligations. Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) - There are three types of classifications: (1) Full-time - works 40 hrs/week (full-time) and is benefitted; (2) Permanent FTE - works more than 19.5 hours per week and less than 40 hrs/week, is not seasonal, is not of specific limited duration, and is not for educational training; and (3) Temporary FTE - works less than 40 hrs/week, is seasonal, and is of specific limited duration, or is for educational training. Fund - A set of inter-related accounts to record revenues and expenditures associated with a specific purpose. Fund structure consists of Governmental Funds (e.g., General Fund, Special Revenue Fund, Debt Service Fund), Proprietary Funds, and Fiduciary Funds (See previous section on "Financial Structure and Operations" for complete description of funds). Governmental Funds Capital Projects Fund - Capital Projects Funds are used to account for financial resources to be used for the acquisition or construction of major capital facilities (other than those financed by Proprietary Funds and Trust Funds). Debt Service Fund - Debt Service Funds are set up to receive dedicated revenues used to make principal and interest payments on City debt. They are used to account for the accumulation of resources for, and the payment of, general obligation and special assessment debt principal, interest and related costs, except the debt service accounted for in the Special Revenue Funds, and Enterprise Funds. General Fund - The General Fund is the general operating fund of the City. It is used to account for all activities of the City not accounted for in some other fund. Special Revenue Fund - Special Revenue Funds are set up as accounts for Federal or State grants legally restricted to expenditures for specific purposes. Our Special Revenue Funds include the Highway User Fund, the Local Transportation Assistance Fund, the Performing Arts Fund, the Community Development Fund, and the Housing Assistance Fund. Proprietary Funds Enterprise Funds - Enterprise Funds are used to account for operations including debt service (a) that are financed and operated in a manner similar to private businesses - where the intent of the government body is that the costs (expenses, including depreciation) of providing goods or services to the general public on a continuing basis is financed or recovered primarily through user charges; or (b) where the governing body has determined that periodic determination of revenues earned, expenses incurred, and/or net income is appropriate for capital maintenance, public policy, management control accountability, or other purposes. Our Enterprise Funds include the Water and Wastewater Fund, the Refuse Fund, and the Golf Course Fund. Fiduciary Funds Trust And Agency Funds - Trust and Agency Funds are used to account for assets held by the City in a trustee capacity or as an agent for individuals, private organizations, other governmental units and/or other funds. These include Nonexpendable Pension Trust and Deferred Compensation Agency Fund. The Pension Trust Fund is accounted for in essentially the same manner as Proprietary Funds. The Deferred Compensation Agency Fund is custodial in nature (assets equal liabilities) and therefore, does not involve measurement of result of operations. Fund Balance - The difference between revenues and expenditures. The beginning fund balance represents the residual funds brought forward from the previous year (ending balance). Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) - Uniform minimum standards for 297 financial accounting and recording, encompassing the conventions, rules, and procedures that define accepted accounting principles. General Governmental Revenue - The revenues of a government other than those derived from and retained in an enterprise fund. General Governmental revenues include those from the General, Debt Service, and Special Revenue Funds. General Obligation Bonds - Bonds that finance a variety of public projects such as streets, buildings, and improvements; the repayment of these bonds is usually made from secondary property taxes, and these bonds are backed by the "full faith and credit" of the issuing government. Goal - A long-term, attainable target for an organization–its vision of the future. Grant - A contribution by the State or Federal government or other organization to support a particular function. Grants may be classified as either categorical or block depending upon the amount of discretion allowed the grantee. Indirect Cost - A cost necessary for the functioning of the organization as a whole, but which cannot be directly assigned, such as administrative support, facility maintenance or custodial services. Intergovernmental Revenue - Funds received from federal, state and other local government sources in the form of grants, shared revenues, and payments in lieu of taxes. Interfund Transfer - The movement of monies between funds of the same governmental entity. Internal Services Charges - The charges to user departments for internal services provided by another government agency, such as data processing, equipment maintenance and communications. Levy - To impose taxes for the support of government activities. Line-Item Budget - A budget prepared along departmental lines that focuses on what is to be bought. Long-Term Debt - Debt with a maturity of more than one year after the date of issuance. Maintenance of Effort – A transfer of General Fund dollars to Transportation to fulfill the statutory requirement placed on cities to maintain the expenditure of local revenue for streets at a level computed as an average of local funds expended for any four of the FY 1981-82 through FY 1985-86. That obligation is calculated at $1,850,705. Objective - A specific measurable and observable result of an organization's activity which advances the organization toward its goal. Operating Expenses - The cost for personnel, materials and equipment required for a department to function. Operating Revenue - Funds that the government receives as income to pay for ongoing operations, including such items as taxes, user fees, interest earnings, and grant revenues. Operating revenues are used to pay for day-to-day services. Pay-As-You-Go Financing - A term used to describe a financial policy by which the capital program is financed from current revenues rather than through borrowing. Performance Budget - A budget wherein expenditures are based primarily upon measurable performance of activities and work programs. Performance Indicators - Specific quantitative and qualitative measure of work performed as an objective of the department. Personal Services - Expenditures for salaries, 298 wages, and fringe benefits of a government's employees. taxes in Arizona consist of both primary and secondary levies. Policy - A plan, course of action or guiding principle, designed to set parameters for decisions and actions. Primary Property Tax - A statutory limited tax levy which may be imposed for any purpose. Prior Year Encumbrances - Obligations from previous years in the form of purchase orders or contracts which are chargeable to an appropriation, and for which a part of the appropriation is reserved. They cease to be encumbrances when the obligations are paid or otherwise terminated. Secondary Property Tax - An unlimited tax levy which may be used only to retire the principal and interest or redemption charges on bond indebtedness. Retained Earnings - An equity account reflecting the accumulated earnings of an enterprise or internal service fund. Program Budget - A budget which allocates money to the functions or activities of a government rather than to specific items of cost or to specific departments. The City’s program budget is divided into six major programs: Revenue - Funds that the government receives as income. It includes such items as tax payments, fees from specific services, receipts from other governments, fines, forfeitures, grants, shared revenues and interest income. (1) General Services consist of: Mayor and Council; City Manager; City Clerk; Human Resources; City Attorney; Management Services; Public Works; and Other Programs. Revenue Bonds - Bonds usually sold for constructing a project that will produce revenue for the government. That revenue is pledged to pay the principal and interest of the bond. (2) Development Services consist of: Development Services - Section 8 Housing; and Public Works – Design/Construction/ Landscape maintenance. Reserve - An account used to indicate that a portion of a fund's assets are legally restricted for a specific purpose and is, therefore, not available for general appropriation. (3) Public Safety consists of: City Court; Police; and Fire. Resolution - A special or temporary order of a legislative body requiring less legal formality than an ordinance or statute. (4) Environmental Health consists of: Water Utilities; Public Works- Sanitation; and Development Services – Code Enforcement. (5) Community Services consist of: Community Services – Recreation/Library/ Social Services; and Public Works – Park Maintenance. (6) Transportation consists of: Public Works – Transit/Street Maintenance. Resources - Total amounts available for appropriation including estimated revenues, fund transfers, and beginning balances. Risk Management - An organized attempt to protect a government's assets against accidental loss in the most economical method. Source of Revenue - Revenues are classified according to their source or point of origin. Property Tax - A levy upon the assessed valuation of the property within the City of Tempe upon each $100 of valuation. Property 299 Tax Levy - The resultant product when the tax rate per one hundred dollars is multiplied by the tax base. Taxes - Compulsory charges levied by a government for the purpose of financing services performed for the common benefit of the people. This term does not include specific charges made against particular persons or property for current or permanent benefit, such as special assessments. Transfers In/Out - Amounts transferred from one fund to another to assist in financing the services for the recipient fund. Unencumbered Balance - The amount of an appropriation that is neither expended nor encumbered. It is essentially the amount of money still available for future purposes. Unreserved Fund Balance - The portion of a fund's balance that is not restricted for a specific purpose and is available for general appropriation. User Charges - The payment of a fee for direct receipt of a public service by the party who benefits from the service. Workload Indicator - A unit of work to be done (e.g., number of permit applications received, the number of households receiving refuse collection service, or the number of burglaries to be investigated). 300 Index A Annexation Progress ..........................................255 Assessed Valuation: Ten Year Historical Trends ..............................74 B Bed Tax ..............................................................117 Benchmarking, Performance ..............................147 Bonded Debt Limits Summary ............................69 Budget Basis, Budgetary Units, and Changes to Budget..........................................251 Budget Message .....................................................1 Budget Per Capita ........................................ 66, 145 Budget Policies ....................................................12 Budget Process Flowchart ....................................17 Budget Process Summary ....................................18 Budget Resolution ..............................................242 Budget Schedules Estimated Revenues and Expenditures Summary ........................................................245 Tax Levy and Tax Rate Information ..............246 Revenues Other Than Property Taxes ............247 Other Financing Sources and Interfund Transfers Summary .....................................249 Expenditures Within Each Fund Summary ....250 Building Safety Performance Budget.................185 C Capital Improvements Program Capital Expenditures Policy .............................13 Fund Balances ..................................................61 Overview ..........................................................45 Project Listing ..................................................48 Relationship Between Operating and Capital Budgets ...........................................62 Summary ..........................................................60 Ten Year Historical Trends ..............................74 Charges for Services Development Related .....................................123 Recreation and Social Service ........................122 City Attorney Performance Budget ....................170 City Clerk Performance Budget .........................164 City Court Performance Budget .........................166 City Manager .....................................................150 Citywide Overview of Operating Budget, Debt Service, Revenues and Staffing ...............28 Community Development Block Grant Revenue ..........................................................130 Community Profile.............................................256 Community Relations Performance Budget .......158 Community Services Performance Budget .......................................206 Administration and Recreation .......................208 Library ............................................................210 Cultural Services ............................................212 Social Services................................................214 Comparative Revenue by Source .......................112 Comprehensive Financial Plan Assumptions .....................................................84 Economic Outlook ............................................88 Enterprise Funds ...............................................96 Financial Action Plan .....................................104 General Fund ....................................................90 Methodology.....................................................83 Overview ..........................................................80 Transit Fund......................................................92 Transportation Funds ........................................94 Rio Salado/Community Facilities District Funds ..............................................102 Customer Services Performance Budget ............236 D Debt Policy...........................................................70 Debt Service Schedule .........................................71 Debt Service Ten Year Historical Trends ............74 Departmental, Per Capita Performance Budget ............................................................145 Departments, Performance Budget City Attorney ..................................................170 City Clerk .......................................................164 City Court .......................................................166 City Manager ..................................................150 Community Services.......................................206 Development Services ....................................178 Economic Development .................................156 Financial Services ...........................................172 Fire..................................................................198 Human Resources ...........................................168 Information Technology .................................176 Mayor and Council .........................................148 Police ..............................................................188 Public Works ..................................................216 Strategic Planning ...........................................162 Tempe Learning Center ..................................160 Water Utilities ................................................234 E Engineering Performance Budget ......................218 301 Enterprise Funds ............................................ 39, 96 Revenues Golf Fees .....................................................133 Sanitation Fees ............................................132 Unreserved Retained Earnings (10 Years) ....27 Water/Wastewater User Fees ......................131 Environmental Performance Budget ..................238 Equipment Management Performance Budget ............................................................228 F Field Services Street Maintenance .........................................222 Facility Management ......................................224 Parks & Golf Course Maintenance .................226 Sanitation ........................................................220 Financial Action Plan .........................................104 Financial Program ................................................21 Financial Program Components ..................... 22, 23 Financial Program Summary ...............................24 Financial Reporting Policies ................................14 Financial Services Administration, Financial Services and Tax and License ..........................................173 Performance Budget .......................................172 Financial Structure and Organization Type of Budgeting ..........................................253 Level of Revenue and Expenditure Detail ......253 Relationship Between Budgeting and Accounting ..................................................253 Fund Structure ................................................254 Fines and Forfeitures ..........................................124 Fire Performance Budget .......................................198 Administration/Fire Prevention ......................200 Emergency/Medical Services .........................201 Training/Professional Development ...............203 Special Operations ..........................................204 Support Services/Personnel Safety .................205 Fund Balances, Unreserved General Fund ....................................................26 Highway User Revenue Fund ...........................26 Local Transportation Assistance Fund .............26 Fund Structure ....................................................254 Fund Summary .....................................................25 G General Fund Fund Balances, Unreserved (10 Years) ............26 Comprehensive Financial Plan .........................90 Overview ..........................................................29 302 General Governmental Revenues Charges for Services Development Related ..................................123 Recreation and Social Services ...................122 City Property Tax ...........................................116 City Sales Tax.................................................115 Fines and Forfeitures ......................................124 Interest Earnings .............................................125 Salt River Project In-Lieu Tax........................118 State-Shared Income Tax .................................................121 Sales Tax .....................................................119 Vehicle License Tax ...................................120 Transient Lodging Tax ...................................117 General Purpose Debt ..........................................71 Glossary of Terms ..............................................294 Golf Fund .....................................................42, 100 Comprehensive Financial Plan .......................100 Overview ..........................................................42 Revenue ..........................................................133 H Highway User Tax Fund (HURF) ..................35, 94 Fund Balances, Unreserved (10 Years) ............26 Comprehensive Financial Plan .........................94 Overview ..........................................................35 Revenue ..........................................................128 Human Resources Performance Budget .............168 I Impact of Budget on Citizens ...............................76 Information Technology Performance Budget .......................................176 Interest Earnings ................................................125 Internal Audit Performance Budget ...................152 L Library Performance Budget ..............................210 Local Sales Tax ..................................................115 Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF) Fund Balances, Unreserved (10 Years) ..........129 Comprehensive Financial Plan .........................94 Overview ..........................................................35 Revenue ..........................................................129 M Maintenance of Effort ..........................................36 Mayor and Council Performance Budget ...........148 Mission Statement .................................................iv N Needs Assessment Phase .....................................18 Neighborhood Program Performance Budget ....153 O Operating Budget Overview ................................29 Operating Budget Policies ........................... 13, 104 Operating Revenue.............................................108 Organization Chart .................................................v P Parks and Recreation Performance Budget ........208 Per Capita Operating Expenditures by Program .......................................................66 Per Capita Performance Budget .........................145 Performance Benchmarking ...............................147 Performance Budget Summary ..........................146 Performance Budget, Departmental Per Capita .......................................................145 Personnel Schedules ........................................................261 Summary by Department ................................260 Summary by Fund ..........................................293 Ten Year History ..............................................77 Police Performance Budget .......................................188 Office of the Chief ..........................................190 Patrol ..............................................................192 Support Services .............................................194 Investigations .................................................196 Program Budget At a Glance .......................................................65 Department Summary.......................................68 Fund Summary .................................................67 Per Capita .........................................................66 Property Tax Levy and Rate .................................................246 Ordinance .......................................................243 Ten Year Historical Trends ..............................74 Public Works Performance Budget .......................................216 Administration and Engineering.....................218 Field Services Sanitation ....................................................220 Street Maintenance .....................................222 Facility Management ..................................224 Parks & Golf Course Maintenance .............226 Equipment Management .................................228 Transportation ................................................230 R Recreation Performance Budget.........................208 Relationship Between Operating and Capital Budgets ................................................62 Reserve Policies ...................................................14 Retained Earnings, Unreserved Golf Fund .........................................................27 Sanitation Fund .................................................27 Water and Wastewater Fund .............................27 Revenue(s) By Source .......................................................111 Charges for Service Development Related ..................................123 Recreation and Social Services ...................122 City Property Tax ...........................................116 City Sales Tax.................................................115 Community Development Block Grant ..........130 Comparative Revenue by Source....................112 Fines and Forfeitures ......................................124 Golf Course Fees ............................................133 Highway User Tax ..........................................128 Interest Earnings .............................................125 Local Transportation Assistance Fund ...........129 Performing Arts Fund .....................................127 Salt River Project In-Lieu Tax........................118 Sanitation Fees................................................132 Section 8 Housing Grant.................................130 State-Shared Income Tax................................121 State-Shared Sales Tax ...................................119 State-Shared Vehicle License Tax ..................120 Total Revenue .................................................108 Transit Tax......................................................126 Transient Lodging Tax (Bed Tax) ..................117 Water/Wastewater User Fees ..........................131 Rio Salado Performance Budget ........................156 S Sales Tax, City ...................................................115 Salt River Project In-Lieu Tax ...........................118 Sanitation Fund Comprehensive Financial Plan .........................98 Overview ..........................................................42 Performance Budget .......................................220 Retained Earnings, Unreserved (10 Years) Revenue ....................................................27, 132 Schedule A .........................................................245 Schedule B .........................................................246 Schedule C .........................................................247 Schedule D .........................................................249 Schedule E..........................................................250 303 Section 8 Housing Overview ..........................................................38 Revenue Trends ..............................................130 Social Services Performance Budget .................214 Special Revenues Highway User Revenue Fund .........................128 Local Transportation Assistance Fund ...........129 Community Development Block Grant ..........130 Section 8 Housing Grant ................................130 Transit Tax .....................................................126 Performing Arts Tax .......................................127 State-Shared Revenues Income Tax .....................................................121 Sales Tax ........................................................119 Vehicle License Tax .......................................120 Strategic Issues: Goals and Strategy/Action Plan Cultural and Community Programs ................144 Economic Development .................................143 Finance ...........................................................143 Human Services and People Improvement Program.......................................................138 Neighborhood Enhancement and Public Safety ...............................................137 Rio Salado ......................................................139 Technology Advancement and Community Development ...............................................140 Transportation ................................................141 Streets Performance Budget ...............................222 T Transient Lodging Tax .......................................117 Transit Fund Comprehensive Financial Plan .........................92 Overview ..........................................................34 Performance Budget .......................................230 Revenue ..........................................................126 Transportation Comprehensive Financial Plan .........................94 Overview ..........................................................35 Performance Budget .......................................230 Revenue Highway User Tax ......................................128 Local Transportation Assistance Fund ........129 Transit Tax ..................................................126 W Water Utilities Performance Budget ..................234 Water/Wastewater Fund Comprehensive Financial Plan .........................96 Overview ..........................................................39 Retained Earnings, Unreserved (10 Years) ......27 Revenue ..........................................................131 304 Office of Management and Budget Staff Even though the budget is heard by the Mayor and Council in March and April, its preparation begins months prior, with projections of City funding sources, remaining bond authorization, reserves, revenues, and expenditures. It continues through numerous phases and culminates with adoption in June. We recognize and appreciate that budgeting is an ongoing process of planning, monitoring, problem solving, and customer service throughout the fiscal year. Each year, every effort is made to improve both the budget process and the usefulness of budget documents. Please see City of Tempe budget documents on the World Wide Web. We’re at: www.tempe.gov Cecilia Velasco-Robles Deputy Financial Services Manager Debbie Bair Budget & Research Analyst Michelle Caruso Budget & Research Analyst Travis Clark Budget & Research Analyst Melanie Housh Budget Intern Anita Erspamer Executive Assistant If you have any questions, call us at (480) 350-8350 Our mailing address is: City of Tempe Financial Services/Budget P.O. Box 5002 Tempe, Arizona 85280 305