Biennial Budget For the fiscal years beginning July 1, 2003 Through June 30, 2005 Table of Contents Introduction Budget Award City of Tempe Mission Statement City Organization Chart Budget Message Budget Summaries Budget Summaries Contents Budget Policies Fund Summary Total Financial Program Financial Program Summary Budget Process Flowchart Budget Process Summary Components of Total Financial Program General Governmental and Enterprise Funds: Ten Year Fund Balance Trends Operating Budget Overview Capital Budget Capital Budget Overview CIP Summary CIP Fund Balances CIP Project Listing Relationship Between Operating and Capital Budgets Capital Budget, Debt Service, and Property Tax Rate: Ten Year Historical Trends Debt Service Debt Policy, Bonded Debt Limits Summary Debt Service Schedule Property Taxes Citywide Overview Program Budget Program Budget at a Glance Per Capita Operating Expenditures by Program Program by Fund Summary Program by Department Summary Impact of Total Budget on Citizens Personnel Summary: Ten Year History Comprehensive Financial Plan Comprehensive Financial Plan Contents Comprehensive Financial Plan Overview Financial Overview Forecast Methodology Forecast and Major Revenue Assumptions Major Expenditure Assumptions and 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 Total Revenue by Source Components of Total Revenue 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 Diversity Program Community Relations Economic Development 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 OMB Staff 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, 2001. 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. Biennial Budget FY 2003-05 Will Manley City Manager Jerry Hart Financial Services Manager Cecilia Velasco-Robles Deputy Financial Services Manager Michelle Caruso Budget and Research Analyst Deborah Bair Budget and Research Analyst Tom Mikesell Budget and Research Analyst Anita Erspamer Executive Assistant City Organization Chart PEOPLE OF TEMPE City Clerk Kathy Matz City Attorney Marlene Pontrelli Mayor & City Council City Court Louraine Arkfeld City Manager Will Manley Police Ralph Tranter Fire Cliff Jones Community Services Tom Canasi Development Services Melanie Hobden Public Works Glenn Kephart Water Utilities Tom Gallier Diversity Rosa Inchausti Community Relations Randy Gross Economic Development Jan Schaefer Internal Audit Ken Jones Human Resources Valerie Hernandez Financial Services Jerry Hart Information Technology Gene Obis Budget Message June 19, 2003 To the Honorable Mayor and City Council: Transmitted herein is the City’s FY 2003-05 biennial operating budget, the third 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 2003-04 (Year 1) totals $247.6 million, a $14.7 million or 6.3% increase over FY 2002-03. The operating budget increases in FY 2004-05 (Year 2) by $9.2 million or 3.7% to $256.8 million. The economic downturn in the economy had a significant impact on budgetary decisions within the City. Specifically, the decline in sales tax and state-shared revenues prompted the City to streamline operations to reduce costs, especially in the General Fund. City management, with the support of the Mayor and Council, undertook a number of cost-saving initiatives designed to balance the biennial budget and maintain strong financial reserves while minimizing the impacts to resident service delivery. The following Biennial Budget Balancing Plan and Biennial Budget Impacts contributed to the changes in the budget from a year ago: Biennial Balancing Plan The following reflect the assumptions used to balance the two-year budget: § Reduction in Force - Elimination of funding for approximately 125 General Fund positions, which include previously frozen positions § § § § § § § Market Adjustment - No cost of living salary increase Operations - Budget Office identified $1M in non-personnel type departmental budget reductions Capital - Minimal capital replacement and elimination of non-recurring items ($1.3M) Maintenance of Effort (MOE) - Due to a change in legislation, the City is suspending its MOE contribution to Transportation for three fiscal years ($1.85M) until FY 05-06 Contingency (FY 03-05) - General Fund contingency reduced to balance the biennial budget Supplementals - No General Fund program increases No Growth - No General Fund additional positions Biennial Budget Impacts § § § § State-Shared Income - Department of Revenue and Joint Legislative Budget Committee estimated 15% and 6% decreases in the State-Shared Income Pool, equating to $2.6 million and $0.8 million decreases for the City of Tempe in each respective fiscal year State Retirement - Arizona State Retirement System contribution rate is set at 5.70%, an increase from 2.49% in previous forecasts ($1.4M impact) Police Retirement - Contribution rate is set at 9.73%, an increase from 6.0% in previous forecasts ($700K impact) Health, Dental & Life - Human Resources estimated increases as high as 15% Budget Highlights Total Financial Program The size of our total biennial program increases over the biennium largely due to the light rail component in transit and expansion of the Water/ Wastewater program. The preceding tables Biennial Budget Operating Budget Percent Change FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 $247,565,261 $256,761,144 6% 4% $117,968,707 $176 ,983,22 24% 50% Total Financial Program $365,533,968 $433,744,366 Capital Improvements Percent Change Percent Change 11% 19% Biennial Operating Budget Fund General FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 $121,825,963 $123,539,540 8,082,560 8,220,667 27,221,366 32,155,626 1,480,621 1,493,950 Special Revenue Transportation Transit Rio Salado Performing Arts 6,215,657 6,378,147 CDBG/Section 8 10,817,664 10,817,664 13,083,608 13,478,666 Water/Wastewater 45,965,050 47,696,565 Solid Waste 10,592,902 10,515,727 2,279,870 2,464,592 Total Operating Budget $247,565,261 $256,761,144 Debt Service Enterprise Golf depict the adopted biennial total financial program (operating and capital improvements budgets) and the operating budget detailed by fund. Personnel Total proposed full-time positions equal 1,643 for FY 2003-04 and for FY 2004-05. In response to the economic downturn, a citywide workforce reduction program was implemented, resulting in a net reduction of funding for 125 positions. This takes into account positions that were created subsequent to the adoption of the last biennial budget. Pay-As-You-Go Total “pay-as-you-go” financing within the Capital Improvements Program includes $30.0 million (FY 2003-04) and $39.3 million (FY 2004-05) from operating Capital Improvements Program Additional Needs 2003-04 Funded 2004-05 Funded Water 20,977,680 19,355,000 7,933,000 20,858,000 Wastewater 13,546,612 32,789,500 27,722,201 Golf 170,000 1,490,000 Cemetery 225,000 Program 2008-09 Total 6-Year 20,983,000 2,308,000 92,414,680 13,164,394 10,112,620 7,900,209 105,235,536 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 1,860,000 770,000 1,400,000 0 0 0 2,395,000 34,919,292 54,404,500 37,105,201 34,072,394 31,145,620 10,258,209 201,905,216 62,122,070 77,324,792 88,018,672 86,096,440 3,243,110 0 316,805,084 1,863,320 26,107,768 22,228,912 0 0 0 50,200,000 200,000 526,269 4,435,545 4,090,000 875,000 125,000 10,251,814 64,185,390 103,958,829 114,683,129 90,186,440 4,118,110 125,000 377,256,898 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Enterprise Program Subtotal Enterprise Special Purpose Program Transit Performing Arts Rio Salado Subtotal Special Purpose General Purpose Program 7,656,543 12,279,395 17,370,116 13,654,374 4,628,036 9,108,316 64,696,780 Transportation Program 11,207,482 6,340,498 6,716,061 6,537,878 5,832,804 4,770,398 41,405,121 18,864,025 18,619,893 24,086,177 20,192,252 10,460,840 13,878,714 106,101,901 $117,968,70 $176,983,22 $175,874,50 $144,451,08 $45,724,57 $24,261,92 $685,264,015 Subtotal General/Transp. TOTAL PROGRAM revenues, reflecting a $17.5 million and $9.3 million increase over each of the preceding years’ “pay-as-you-go” financing. Capital Budget The City’s 2003-09 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) totals $685.3 million, with the first year 2003-04 program recommended at $118.0 million, and the second year recommended at $177.0 million. The City funds the first two years of the six (6) year Capital Improvements Program, which is incorporated as part of the total biennial budget. Highlights of the 2003-05 biennial capital program include: Continued funding for the Transit program ($139.4 million) including: § Funding for the Central Phoenix and East Valley Light Rail Transit rail planning, design and construction ($125.8 million) § Funding for the Transit Center ($5.9 million) § Funding for the multi-use paths (phased) along the Western Canal ($4.7 million) Continued funding for Wastewater projects ($46.3 million) including: § Continued funding for 91st Avenue Treatment § § Plant capacity expansion ($24.6 million) Continued funding for the plant expansion at the Kyrene Water Reclamation Facility (KWRF) $17.3 million) Funding for Rural Road Influent Line to KWRF ($3.0 million) Continued funding for Water projects ($40.3 million): § Continued funding for expansion and waterline improvements at the Johnny G. Martinez Water Treatment Plant ($31.2 million) § Funding for waterline improvements along the Apache Blvd. corridor ($2.6 million) § Continued funding for the expansion of the Kyrene Booster Zone ($2.0 million) Continued funding for Transportation and Rightof-Way Improvements ($17.6 million): § Continued funding for local and major street renovation and reconstruction ($15.6 million) Funding for Police Property Facility/Apache Blvd. Police Substation ($7.5 million) Funding for Fire projects ($1.9 million) As the graphs below depict, the operating budget represents 68% of the FY 2003-04 total financial program, decreasing to 59% in FY 2004-05 as the size of our CIP budget increases. Departmental budgets make up over 85% of the citywide operating budget. Golf Fees Golf rate reviews will be conducted annually to ensure that the fund remains self sufficient. Seasonal fees for residents and non-residents increased in November 2002, ranging from $1 to $4 per 18 holes. Year 1 Contingencies 2% Debt Service 5% Federal Grants 4% CIP Budget $118.0 32% Operating Budget $247.6 68% Dept Op Budget 87% Non-Departmental 2% Total Financial Program $365.5 (in Millions) Contingencies 1% Debt Service 5% Federal Grants 4% Year 2 CIP Budget $177.0 41% Operating Budget $256.8 59% Dept Op Budget 88% Non-Departmental 2% Total Financial Program $433.7 (in Millions) Revenue Considerations The City will modify revenue as needed in several areas for FY 2003-04. Water/Wastewater For FY 2003-04, water and sewer rates will be reviewed to ensure full cost recovery and to maintain adequate reserves for capital needs. The last fee adjustment of 2% was implemented in November 2002. Solid Waste Fees Upon finalizing the FY 2002-03 financial report in the Fall of 2003, solid waste fees will be reviewed to determine if a fee adjustment is required. The last solid waste fee adjustment of 9.5% was Other Considerations We will continue to closely monitor the distribution methodology of State-Shared Revenues. Although the Legislature did abide by a “hold harmless” philosophy regarding StateShared income, a reverse revenue sharing of court fees was instituted. Starting September 15, 2003 and using FY 2002-2003 court collections as a baseline, 75% of any additional collection above the baseline will revert to the state. We will continue to review fees for service charges on an ongoing basis and will bring them to Council as necessary. Financial Assessment Over the years, through conservative financial management and adherence to sound fiscal analysis and policies, Tempe has developed and maintained a strong financial reputation. Fund Balances One measure of a city’s financial strength is the level of its fund balances (i.e., revenues exceed expenditures). The City’s estimated unrestricted fund balance in the General Fund will approximate Unreserved General Fund Bal50 40 30 Millions ($) ! Percent ! ! ! ! 40.0% emergencies. Finally, the City’s “rainy day reserve” of $8.0 million will be tapped for the Incentivized Workforce Reduction Program. 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 Fitch December 2000 AAA 30.0% Moody’s April 1997 20.0% 20 10 10.0% 0 0.0% 1999 2000 Fund Balance 2001 2002 2003 ! Fund Balance Coverage $33.8 million as of June 30, 2003. This balance represents 28% of FY 2002-03 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 Solid Waste programs) will have a combined fund balance of approximately $65 million at the end of FY 200203. 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 absorb unforeseen liabilitie s. The City currently has self-insurance reserves totaling $5.6 million, monies that will protect the City against potential claims. Additionally, the City approximates $9.7 million in debt service reserves at June 30, 2003, funds that will help stabilize and fund future debt service obligations. Included in each of the biennial budget years and financed from current revenues are $3.8 million and $2.9 million of contingency funding for unanticipated 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. Development Activity City staff worked with 17 companies in FY 200203 that will add over 2,030 jobs and make a capital investment of more than $53 million. Highlights include: § § § § Target Financial Services began construction of their second 100,000-sq. ft. building in Emerald Center at Warner Road and I-10. Life Time Fitness opened a 184,000-sq. ft., state-of-the-art health and fitness resort that caters to the entire family. Action Performance Companies, Inc. chose Tempe as the site for their corporate headquarters. Express Scripts, Inc. located a new $10 million facility in Tempe. Express Scripts is one of the largest pharmacy benefit management (PBM) companies in North America. Express Scripts now has almost 1,000,000 sq. ft. of operations in Tempe. Overall, FY 2002-2003 total building construction was valued at more than $199.5 million. This number includes over $109 million in commercial, industrial, and office developments. Residential construction was valued at over $87 million. Governments, churches and schools invested the remainder, approximately $3.5 million. Retail activity was affected by the economic downturn, but Tempe still saw positive signs in the marketplace. For example, both Costco and Target are expanding their Tempe stores; the Autoplex added an Acura dealership and continues to be an extremely successful development; and both Eckerd and CVS are building new drugstores at various locations in Tempe. In downtown Tempe, as of June 2003, there are 17 new businesses either opened or Favorable Development Activity ♦ Commercial Development ♦ Job Growth soon to open since January 2003. Taxable sales in downtown continued to increase this year and pedestrian counts continue to climb. Tempe continues to work on retail attraction and development and held a showcase for property owners and developers called “Romancing the Store.” The event was designed to educate national and independent retailers about available space in existing and future retail developments. The first office building on Tempe Town Lake, at Hayden Ferry Lakeside, opened in July 2002 with significant tenants such as MedAire, SunCor Development Company and McCarthy Building Companies, Inc. The site preparation phase for the new $65 million Tempe Center for the Arts (TCA) on the Town Lake started in April 2003. The TCA will open in May 2006. Construction on the Town Lake Marina began in January of 2003 with a grand opening date slated for November 2003. Arizona as a whole, and Tempe in particular, from the selection of Phoenix as the headquarters for the International Genomics Consortium (IGC) and the Translational Genomics Research Institute (TGen). The IGC will create a genetic database from tumors and other cancer cells, which will be a tremendous resource for researchers in developing specialized treatments for cancer and other diseases. TGen is focused on a relatively new field of genetic research that will lead to the development of new tests and treatments for cancer and other debilitating diseases. The research team at TGen will collaborate with researchers from all three of Arizona’s universities as well as other world-class scientists from academic, clinical and corporate entities to deliver these new discoveries to patients As a result of the IGC/TGen location in Phoenix, Arizona State University is creating a biodesign corridor that includes five research buildings. Construction started on the first of four phases of the Arizona Biodesign Institute-a 170,000-sq. ft. building on the Main Campus in Tempe that will be connected by light rail to the IGC and TGen by FY 2006-07. This $69 million complex will become a hub for biotechnical and biodesign research in central Arizona and will produce highly trained professionals, new discoveries, new technologies and even new businesses. Tempe will be in a strategic position to attract many of the new businesses spawned by the emphasis on biotechnology research. Tempe continues to concentrate on developing infill housing opportunities ranging from the Riverview at Rio Salado, a 460-unit ultra-high end apartment complex, to new affordable single family homes being built by the Community Land Trust of Tempe. Several new downtown residential projects are in the planning stages and should break ground in late 2004. ASU has made a significant commitment to student housing with the selection of OPUS to build a 2,000-unit academic village on the southern boundary of campus. § the budget provides a minimum level of maintenance and replacement dollars to ensure that all capital facilities and equipment are properly maintained; and § the budget requires no increase in the total property tax rate. The tax rate for FY 200304 is $1.35 per $100 assessed valuation. Major Policy Considerations Budget appropriation choices were made within the context of the City’s Comprehensive Financial Plan, (Debt Management Plan and Long-Range Financial Capacity Study), Council Budget Policies, and Strategic Issues 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 since 1989, which links our future debt capacity to population, tax base growth, and current level of general operating revenue. Long-Range Financial Capacity Study 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 provides for a balanced budget through FY 2004-05. A “Comprehensive Financial Plan” Section is included which describes revenues and expenditures, issues, trends, and resource choices for all funds. Council Budget Policies for FY 2003-05 The operating budget embraces the following tenets that over the years have made the City financially strong: § 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; 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: 1. Successful efforts to control spending were directed at avoiding increases in personnel. 2. Maintain the City’s strong financial reserve and fund balance program since the economy has slowed significantly since January 2001. 3. Increased assessed valuation allowed us to maintain our property tax rate at $1.35/$100 assessed value, yet provide for increasing bond capacity. Average annual increase in assessed values of 4.0% are projected over the next five years. 4. Evaluate the revenue structure on a regular basis to insure that fees are adjusted on a timely basis to reflect City costs. 5. Conduct periodic budget reviews with City Council. 6. Continue examination of current programs by each Department for potential “sunsetting”. Strategic Issues The City establishes strategic issues, goals and objectives to provide more long-range focus to resource allocation choices. The strategic issues, goals and objectives are aligned to Council committees as follows: • • • • • Finance and Diversity Committee Tourism and Economic Development Committee Rio Salado Committee of the Whole Cultural and Community Programs Committee Neighborhood Enhancement and People Improvement Program Committee • Transportation/Light Rail & Development Services Committee • Community/Schools/ASU Partnership Committee Income/Outgo The pie charts below 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. Local taxes (e.g., city sales tax and property tax) continue to be the largest City revenue source, representing 32% of the FY 2003-04 total revenue budget, decreasing to 28% in FY 2004-05. Other major revenue sources include user charges (such as water service and solid waste fees) and intergovernmental revenue. The pie charts show a breakdown of City expenditures and where the money is spent by program. Transit and Environmental Health represent the greatest areas of program appropriation, accounting for 55% of the total financial program in each of the fiscal years 2003-05 Where the Money Comes From Local Taxes 32% Local Taxes 28% CIP/Other Funding 8% Bonds 21% Intergovernmental 7% Bonds 26% All Other 10% Intergovernmental 9% User Charges 17% All Other 13% User Charges 15% FY 2003-04 CIP/Other Funding 14% FY 2004-05 Where the Money Goes Transit 30% Development Services 6% Transit 29% Development Services General Services 5% 9% Community Services 10% Community Services 14% Environmental 25% General Services 11% Public Safety 18% FY 2003-04 Public Safety 17% Environmental 26% FY 2004-05 The final chart portrays budget appropriations by line-item category. Personal Services (salaries, wages and benefits) and Capital Projects represent the largest portions of the total financial program. Where the Money Goes by Line Item Category Personal Services 33% Capital Projects 41% Capital Outlay 1% Other 5% Capital Outlay 1% Other 4% Debt Service 11% Debt Service 10% Capital Projects 32% FY 2003-04 Supplies/Services 18% Conclusion We approach the new biennium on a cautionary note. At best, we can expect the economy to grow at a significantly slower pace than in recent years. The uncertainty over the ensuing biennium underscores the need to continue to focus on our long-range planning and the managing of our resources. The following proposed budget is committed to Council’s policy of preserving Tempe’s solid financial position by maintaining strong fund balances and reserves, recommending a balanced budget, and making decisions within the context of our long-range financial capacity study and debt management plan. With final budget adoption, I want to thank the Mayor and City Council, residents of Tempe and City staff for their time and effort throughout this budget process. Respectfully submitted, Will Manley, City Manager Personal Services 28% FY 2004-05 Supplies/Services 16% 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 Summaries Contents Contents Budget Policies Fund Summary Total Financial Program Financial Program Summary Budget Process Flowchart Budget Process Summary Components of Total Financial Program General Governmental and Enterprise Funds: Ten Year Fund Balance Trends Operating Budget Overview General Fund Transit Fund Transportation Funds Debt Service Fund Community Development Block Grant/Section 8 Housing Grant Funds Enterprise Funds Capital Budget Capital Budget Overview CIP Summary CIP Fund Balances CIP Project Listing Relationship Between Operating and Capital Budgets Capital Budget, Debt Service, and Property Tax Rate: Ten Year Historical Trends Debt Service Debt Policy, Bonded Debt Limits Summary Debt Service Schedule Property Taxes Citywide Overview: Operating Budget, Debt Service, Revenues, and Staffing Program Budget Program Budget at a Glance Per Capita Operating Expenditures by Program Program by Fund Summary Program by Department Summary Impact of Total Budget on Citizen s Personnel Summary: Ten Year History 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 2002-03 estimated General Fund operating revenues ($121.3 million) to expenditures ($119.3 million) Ratio 1:1 Financial systems will be maintained to monitor expenditures, revenues and program performance on an ongoing basis. • Status : Ongoing monitoring system with monthly reviews including automated 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 (Fall 2002 Update) Debt Service Policies Long-term debt will not be issued to finance current operations. • Status : None issued to finance current operations Outstanding Non-enterprise General Obligation (G.O.) 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 2001-02 G.O. tax supported debt $63.4 million; FY 2002-03 G.O. tax supported debt $77.0 million, percent change 21.5%; FY 2003-04 $82.9 million (est.), percent change 7.7%; FY 2004-05 $97.4 million (est.), percent change 17.5% * Includes total Non-enterprise G.O. tax supported debt less debt service fund reserve Outstanding Non-enterprise G.O Tax Supported Debt will not exceed 1.10-1.25% of the estimated full assessed valuation* (FY 2002-03 $9,669,307,443); (FY 2003-04 est. $10,779,997,040); (FY 200405 est. $11,211,196,922) • Status : Debt to Full Value: FY 2002-03 0.8%; FY 2003-04 0.77%; FY 2004-05 0.87% * Actual full cash value, net of estimated value of property exempt from taxation Annual G.O Tax Supported Debt Service (FY 2002-03 $10.7 million; FY 2003-04 $12.7 million) will not exceed 10-15% of the Total Governmental Revenue (FY 2002-03 $134.9 million; FY 2003-04 $136.0 million; FY 2004-05 $137.9 million)* • Status : Debt Service to Revenues: FY 2002-03 7.9%; FY 2003-04 9.3% (est.); FY 2004- 05 9.3% (est.) * Includes General Fund and Debt Service Outstanding G.O. Tax Supported Debt per capita will be maintained within the range of $700 and $800 per capita and increase no more than 50% within four years or 20% in one year. • Status : Debt Per Capita: FY 2002-03 $483; FY 2003-04 $517 (est.); FY 2004-05 $605 (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 2003-05 Biennial CIP Budget of $118.0 million (FY 2003-04) and $177.0 million (FY 2004-05) adopted as part of a 6 year, $685.3 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 2001-02 16.0%; FY 2002-03 15.9% 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 $77,000 plus an estimated $13.8 million ($8.0M Special Purpose, $3.1M Water/Wastewater, $1.5M General Purpose, and $1.2M Transportation) in additional debt service. Future operating costs associated with new capital projects have been incorporated into the Comprehensive Financial Plan. The City will maintain all its physical assets at a level adequate to protect the City's capital investment and to minimize future maintenance and replacement costs. • Status : Aggressive capital maintenance program approved in Capital Improvements Program budget Sources of Funds ($ Millions) General Obligation/Excise Tax Bonds FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 $78.0 $113.0 31.2 40.5 Outside Revenue 8.1 22.9 Capital Projects Fund Balance 0.7 0.6 $118.0 $177.0 Pay-As-You-Go Financing Total Sources of Funds The City will establish an appropriate mix of bonded debt and pay-as-you-go financing in the funding of capital projects. Reserve Policies 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 02 Revenues FY 2002-03 Fund Balance Coverage $35.1 M $121.3 M 29.0% Fund Balance FYE 03 Revenues FY 2003-04 Fund Balance Coverage $33.8 M $121.9 M 28.0% Fund Balance FYE 04 Revenues FY 2005-05 Fund Balance Coverage $33.8M $123.5M 27.0% Fund Balance FYE 02 Water/Wastewater Revenue FY 2002-03 Fund Balance Coverage Days Coverage $71.7 M $46.2 M 155.2% 566 Solid Waste $1.2 M $10.3 M 11.7% 43 Golf $0.2 M $2.1 M 10.0% 35 Water/Wastewater Solid Waste Golf Water/Wastewater Fund Balance FYE 03 $64.5 M $0.3 M $0.5 M Fund Balance FYE 04 $53.6 M Revenue FY 2003-04 $45.4 M $10.6 M $2.1 M Revenue FY 2004-05 $45.8 M Fund Balance Coverage 142.1% 2.8% 23.8% Fund Balance Coverage 117.0% Days Coverage 519 10 87 Days Coverage 427 Solid Waste $0.3M $10.6 M 2.8% 10 Golf $0.5 M $2.1 M 14.3% 52 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 (Solid Waste, Golf). • Status: Self-insurance reserves shall be maintained at a level which, together with purchased insurance policies, adequately indemnify the City's capital assets. • Status : FY 2002-03 $5.6 million and FY 2003-04 $5.6 million in self-insurance reserves Financial Reporting Policies 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 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 local and state-shared revenues. 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 three 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 increasing transportation needs, a Transit Tax 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 $14.0 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, 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 Tenets • • • 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. 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 identify and address Council’s strategic issues. • Continue periodic budget reviews with the City Council. • Continue examination of current programs by each department for potential sunsetting opportunities. Fund Summary FY 2003-04 Fund General Estimated Fund Balance Revenue 1 Total Financial Resources Budgeted Expend. 2 Adjusted Financial Estimated Fund Balance Interfund Transfer In (Out) $33,751,999 $121,825,963 $155,577,962 $121,825,963 $33,751,999 $0 $0 $33,751,999 (2,945,000) 6,483,996 Special Revenue: HURF/LTAF $5,933,387 11,578,169 17,511,556 8,082,560 9,428,996 CDBG/Section 8 0 10,817,663 10,817,663 10,817,664 (1) (0) Rio Salado 0 856,800 856,800 1,480,621 (623,821) (623,821) Performing Arts 12,387,081 5,428,500 17,815,581 6,215,657 11,599,924 Transit 48,731,900 33,909,993 82,641,893 27,221,366 55,420,527 Debt Service 9,718,444 14,209,096 23,927,540 16,173,349 7,754,190 Golf Courses 481,517 2,066,800 2,548,317 2,279,870 268,447 268,447 Solid Waste 292,579 10,603,700 10,896,279 10,592,902 303,377 303,377 64,492,949 45,384,864 109,877,813 45,965,050 63,912,763 0 (10,545,243) 53,367,520 $175,789,856 256,681,548 432,471,404 250,655,002 181,816,401 2,000,000 (32,572,313) 151,244,088 $22,119,879 86,696,394 108,816,273 117,968,707 $197,909,735 343,377,942 541,287,677 368,623,709 172,663,967 32,572,313 (32,572,313) $172,663,967 2,000,000 (400,000) 11,199,924 (17,455,070) 37,965,457 (1,227,000) 8,527,190 Enterprise: Water/Wastewater TOTAL OPERATCapital Improvements TOTAL FUNDS (9,152,434) 30,572,313 21,419,879 FY 2004-05 Fund General Estimated Fund Balance Revenue 1 Total Financial Resources Budgeted Expend. 2 Adjusted Financial Resources $33,751,999 $123,649,199 $157,401,198 $123,649,199 $33,751,999 Estimated Fund Balance Interfund Transfers In (Out) $0 $0 $33,751,999 0 (2,000,000) $7,620,528 Special Revenue: HURF/LTAF $6,483,996 11,580,200 CDBG/Section 8 0 10,817,663 Rio Salado 0 896,750 Performing Arts 11,199,924 Transit Debt Service 18,064,196 8,443,668 9,620,528 10,817,663 10,817,663 896,750 1,493,950 (597,200) 0 0 (597,200) 5,533,300 16,733,224 6,320,447 10,412,777 0 (2,300,000) 8,112,777 37,965,457 34,930,222 72,895,679 32,240,625 40,655,054 (26,260,792) 14,394,262 8,527,190 14,356,300 22,883,490 16,566,607 6,316,883 (1,225,000) 7,091,883 268,447 2,066,800 2,335,247 2,464,592 (129,345) 0 (129,345) 2,000,000 Enterprise: Golf Courses Solid Waste Water/Wastewater TOTAL OPERATCapital Improvements TOTAL FUNDS 303,377 10,603,700 10,907,077 10,565,727 341,350 53,367,520 45,835,835 99,203,355 47,564,497 51,638,858 0 (10,721,445) 40,917,413 341,350 151,867,910 260,269,969 412,137,879 260,126,975 152,010,904 2,000,000 (42,507,237) 111,503,667 21,419,879 135,949,716 157,369,595 176,983,222 (19,613,627) 40,507,237 $173,287,789 396,219,685 569,507,474 437,110,197 132,397,277 42,507,237 (42,507,237) $132,397,277 20,893,610 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 $197.9 million and $173.3 million with an ending fund balance of $132.4 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. Total Financial Program The total financial program adopted for the biennial budget is $365 million for FY 2003-04 and $434 million for FY 2004-05. Year 1 of the biennium reflects a $247 million operating budget and a $118 million Capital Improvements Program, representing an 11.4% increase from the FY 2002-03 total financial program. In Year 2, the total financial program increases to $434 million, an 18.7% increase in the total financial program from FY 2003-04, with the CIP budget growing to $177 million. Operating budget growth of 6.3% and 3.7% in FY 2003-04 and FY 2004-05, respectively, is related primarily to increased funding for performing arts and water/wastewater. The increase in the CIP is largely attributed to the construction of the performing arts facility, expanded water/wastewater program and implementation of light rail. Contingencies Non- Departmental Contingencies 2% Non-Departmental 2% CDBG/Section 8 4% Debt Service 5% Dept Op Budget 87% FY 2003-04 CIP Budget $118 / 32% Operating Budget $247 / 68% (in Mi l Contingencies Non-Departmental FY 2004-05 Contingencies 1% Non-Departmental 2% CDBG/Section 8 4% Debt Service 5% Dept Op Budget 88% CDBG/Section 8 CIP Budget $177 / 41% Operating Budget $257 / 59% Debt Op Budget (in Mi l - Total Financial Program FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 OPERATING BUDGET Departmental Operating Budget $202,796,166 $215,562,588 $225,161,927 11,518,082 13,083,608 13,478,666 Non-Departmental 5,551,135 4,275,733 4,364,267 Contingencies 4,366,550 3,825,668 2,938,620 CDBG/Section 8 Housing 8,614,252 10,817,664 10,817,664 $232,846,185 $247,565,261 $256,761,144 95,318,794 117,968,707 176,983,222 $328,164,979 $365,533,968 $433,744,366 Debt Service TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET Capital Improvements TOTAL FINANCIAL PROGRAM Financial Program Summary The tables below depict the City’s Financial Program Summary, revenues and expenditures, for both fiscal years . Revenues FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 Operating Revenue FY 2003-04 Enterprise Water/Wastewater Solid Waste General Governmental $86,747,724 $88,241,674 32,466,160 32,027,500 Charges for Services 6,988,051 7,519,651 Interest 2,600,000 2,600,000 Capital Revenue Bonds Fines & Forfeitures 4,947,485 5,154,793 Excise Other 2,285,639 2,352,224 Enterprise G.O Local Taxes/Licenses Intergovernmental Golf Subtotal Operating Reve- Tax-Supported G.O. FY 2004-05 45,384,864 10,603,700 45,835,835 10,603,700 2,066,800 2,066,800 $256,861,548 $260,126,873 $57,486,520 $78,617,768 12,750,000 19,100,000 7,735,000 15,315,000 6,667,000 21,064,000 Special Revenue Transit 33,618,393 34,611,083 HURF 10,986,169 11,000,000 Federal Funds CDBG/Section 8 10,817,663 10,817,663 Land Sale 908,582 1,348,448 Performing Arts 5,428,500 5,533,300 Development Fees 474,292 494,500 Rio Salado 856,800 896,750 22,831,026 37,677,777 Lottery Funds 883,600 865,900 * Figures adjusted for rounding. Subtotal Operating Budget Other Subtotal Capital Revenue $108,852,420 $173,617,493 TOTAL PROGRAM* $365,533,968 $433,744,366 FY 2003-04 Expenditures FY 2004-05 Capital Budget $64,732,798 25,427,607 22,821,799 7,350,932 13,083,608 1,492,827 $66,128,473 24,958,317 23,336,837 7,577,885 13,478,666 1,538,028 45,965,050 10,592,902 2,279,870 47,696,565 10,515,727 2,464,592 27,221,366 8,082,560 7,598,433 3,219,231 1,480,621 6,215,657 32,155,626 8,220,667 7,526,434 3,291,230 1,493,950 6,378,147 Operating Budget General Governmental Public Safety General Services Community Services Developmental Debt Service Environmental Health Enterprise Water/Wastewater Solid Waste Golf Special Revenue Transit Tax Highway User Section 8 CDBG Rio Salado Performing Arts CIP Outside Revenues $247,565,261 $256,761,144 General Purpose General Government Park Improvements Police Fire Enterprise Water Wastewater Golf Cemetery Transportation Streets Signals Special Purpose Transit Rio Salado Performing Arts Subtotal Capital Budget TOTAL PROGRAM FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 $3,039,243 1,923,000 794,300 1,900,000 $3,178,445 2,385,000 6,715,950 0 20,977,680 13,546,612 170,000 225,000 19,355,000 32,789,500 1,490,000 770,000 10,262,482 945,000 5,395,498 945,000 62,122,070 77,324,792 200,000 526,269 1,863,320 26,107,768 $117,968,707 $176,983,222 $365,533,968 $433,744,366 Budget Process Flowchart The following flowchart depicts the City of Tempe’s Biennial Budget process and timeline. Review Operating Requests Develop Biennial Departmental Submit Dept. Operating Requests Operating Budget Work Study Session Adopt Tentative Operating Budget Prepare Forecast Models Operating Budget Guidelines Public Hearing Adopt Final Identify Strategic Public Hearing, Adopt Tentative CIP Budget Guidelines Work Study Session Submit CIP Requests Develop Biennial Departmental CIP Review CIP … November December Financial Capacity Phase January February Review/ Development Phase Policy/ Strategy Phase Needs Assessment Phase March April May June... Adoption/ Implementation Phase Budget Process Summary Budget Process Overview • Budget preparation allows departments the opportunity to reassess goals and objectives and the means for accomplishing them. Even though the budget is 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. Due to the prolonged economic downturn, the following process was altered for non-enterprise funds, whose focus included cost containment and streamlining efforts. • • 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 exceed the contingency budget. Financial Capacity Phase Forecasting is an integral part of our decisionmaking process. Both long-range and shortrange 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 threeyear 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 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. 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 worksheets 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). 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. 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. • 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. • 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. Actual budget preparation responsibility can be identified more specifically: 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 3 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. rd The property tax levy must be adopted by the 3 Monday in August. State law requires cities and towns with property taxes to adopt their rd tax rates annually, even though a jurisdiction may operate on a biennial budget. 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 administrator 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 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 and the Financial Services Manager), and (d) reviewing the linkage between budget requests and the City’s strategic issues. 5. The Budget Team consisting of the Department Managers 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 bala nce among programs within a department, office, or agency. Upon written request by 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). Components of Total Financial Program–FY 2003-04 2003-04 Total Budget $365,533,968 Operating Budget $247,565,261 Capital Budget $117,968,707 General Governmental Enterprise Special Revenue General Purpose Enterprise Transportation Special Purpose Public Safety Water/ Wastewater Transit General Governmental Water Streets Transit $64,732,798 $45,965,050 $27,221,366 $3,039,243 $20,977,680 $10,262,482 $62,122,070 _______________________ ___ _______________________ ___ ________________________ __ _______________________ ___ ________________________ __ _______________________ ___ _______________________ ___ General Services Solid Waste Highway User Park Improvements Wastewater Signals Performing Arts $25,427,607 $10,592,902 $8,082,560 $1,923,000 $13,546,612 $1,863,320 _______________________ ___ _______________________ ___ ________________________ __ _______________________ ___ ________________________ __ _______________________ ___ Community Services Golf Section 8 Housing Fire Cemetery Rio Salado $22,821,799 $7,598,434 $1,900,000 $225,000 _______________________ ___ ________________________ __ _______________________ ___ ________________________ __ Debt Service Performing Arts Police Golf $13,083,608 $6,215,657 _______________________ ___ ________________________ __ Development Services CDBG $7,350,932 $3,219,230 _______________________ ________________________ __ Components of Total Financial Program-FY 2004-05 2004-05 Total Budget $433,744,366 Operating Budget $256,761,144 Capital Budget $176,983,222 General Governmental Enterprise Special Revenue General Purpose Enterprise Transportation Special Purpose Public Safety Water/ Wastewater Transit Police Wastewater Streets Transit $66,128,473 $47,696,565 $32,155,626 $6,715,950 $32,789,500 $5,395,498 $77,324,792 ________________________ __ _______________________ ___ ________________________ __ _______________________ ___ ________________________ __ _______________________ ___ _______________________ ___ General Services Solid Waste Highway User General Governmental Water Signals Performing Arts $24,958,317 $10,515,727 $8,220,667 $3,178,445 $19,355,000 $26,107,768 ________________________ __ _______________________ ___ ________________________ __ _______________________ ___ ________________________ __ _______________________ ___ Community Services Golf Section 8 Housing Park Improvements Golf Rio Salado $23,336,837 $7,526,434 $1,490,000 ________________________ __ ________________________ __ ________________________ __ Debt Service Performing Arts Cemetery $13,478,666 $6,378,147 ________________________ __ ________________________ __ Development Services CDBG $7,577,885 $3,291,230 ________________________ ________________________ __ General Governmental Funds: Ten Year Fund Balance Trends General Fund Unreserved Fund Balance Millions $40.0 $35.0 $30.0 $25.0 $20.0 $38.2 $38.6 $37.0 99 00 $34.7 $28.6 $15.0 $35.1 $30.7 $23.2 $10.0 Over the ten year period, fund balances in the General Fund improved as a result of economic development and sales tax growth. At FYE 2002, the General Fund unreserved fund balance is estimated at $35.1 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 $5.0 $0.0 93 94 95 96 97 98 01 02 Fiscal Year Ending June 30 Debt Service Fund Debt Reserves Millions $14.0 $12.0 $10.0 $8.0 $13.1 $6.0 $12.1 $11.7 $11.1 $9.6 $9.3 $7.6 $6.8 $4.0 $8.0 $7.3 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, planned drawdowns of debt reserves will occur over the next several years. $2.0 $0.0 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 Fiscal Year Ending June 30 Highway User Revenue/Local Trans. Assistance Unreserved Fund Balance Millions $10.0 $8.0 $6.0 $7.6 $4.0 $8.4 $8.9 $5.8 $2.0 $3.7 $3.3 $3.3 $4.1 $2.1 $0.0 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 Fiscal Year Ending June 30 01 02 Transportation fund balances hit a low in FY 1993 due to streets infrastructure demands. Fund balances have gradually increased as state-shared revenue growth has grown at a modest pace, coupled Enterprise Funds: Ten Year Fund Balance Trends Water/Wastewater Fund Unreserved Retained Earnings Millions $80.0 $60.0 $40.0 $71.7 $55.2 $56.4 $55.7 $33.7 $36.8 $20.0 $20.7 $21.7 $24.4 93 94 $41.0 $0.0 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 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. The increase in the FY 2001-02 fund balance is due mainly to the change in reporting requirements under Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 34. Future drawdowns are planned for pay-as-you-go financing of capital improvements, with a target guideline of an unreserved retained earnings balance Fiscal Year Ending June 30 Solid Waste Fund Unreserved Retained Earnings Millions $4.6 $4.2 $3.8 $3.4 $3.0 $2.6 $2.2 $1.8 $1.4 $1.0 $0.6 $0.2 A planned drawdown of unreserved retained earnings began in FY 1999-00. The fund’s targeted balance guideline is 10% of anticipated solid waste revenue. The last fee increase of 9.5% was implemented in January 2003. $4.3 $4.0 $3.3 $2.9 $3.2 $3.1 $2.3 $2.3 $.5 $1.0 $.02 $0.4 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 Fiscal Year Ending June 30 Golf Fund Unreserved Retained Earnings Thousands $1,750 $1,500 $1,250 $1,000 $1,638 $1,398 $750 $897 $500 $250 $1,538 $55 $50 $894 $792 $351 $140 $55 $50 $0 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 Fiscal Year Ending June 30 00 01 02 In FY 1992-93, improvements at Ken McDonald Golf Course closed part of the course (9 holes) for a period of time. Improved attendance at both golf courses the last two years has provided a reserve to fund current and future capital improvements. Slow growth and increasing expenses had caused and are again causing the steady decline in reserves. The last rate increase ranging from $1 to $4 per 18 holes Operating Budget Overview The citywide operating budget for FY 2003-04 totals $247.6 million and for FY 2004-05 totals $256.8 million. These operating budget amounts represent 6.3% and 3.7% growth respectively for the two fiscal years. This includes $10.8 million for Community Development Block Grant and Section 8 Housing grant funding. The number of full-time employees for FY 2003-05 totals 1,643 which represents a 4.6% decrease from the previous biennial budget. 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. General Fund appropriations decrease by (5.2%) and increase 1.4% in the biennial budget. The year two increase reflects funding for retirement and benefit inflationary adjustments. Major Revenue Local Taxes Intergovernmental All Other Charges for Services Property Tax Fines & Forfeitures The operating budget streamlining plan was necessary to address the effects of a prolonged economic downturn. FY 2003-04 51.3% 26.7% 5.2% 5.7% 7.0% 4.1% FY 2004-05 51.4% 25.9% 5.3% 6.1% 7.1% 4.2% 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. Local Sales Taxes and Intergovernmental revenues represent the two major revenue sources in the General Fund. Together they comprise 78.0% or $95.1 million of the total $121.8 million FY 2003-04 General Fund revenues. In FY 2004-05 the two sources are estimated to account for $95.5 million or 77.3% of total General Fund revenues. Major Services n ♦ General Fund Fund Structure Description 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 Local Taxes Local sales tax revenues are estimated at $62.5 million in FY 2003-04 and $63.5 million in FY 2004-05, 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. Tempe's single largest revenue source is highly responsive to changes in economic activity. The City has adequate reserves and streamlining plans to address any prolonged downturn. n 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 $32.5 million or 26.7% in FY 2003-04 and $32.0 million or 25.9% in FY 2004-05 of total General Fund revenues. 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 the 2000 U.S. Census. State sales tax Estimated state sales tax distributions total $12.5 million in FY 2003-04 and $13.0 million in FY 2004-05. Tempe's allocation is based on its share of total statewide incorporated population (currently 4.0%). 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 $320.0 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 $365.0 million and $343.0 million respectively. Tempe’s share is estimated at $14.3 million and $13.5 million for the biennium. 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 license tax collections based on its population in relation to the total incorporated population of the county. n Charges for Services Charges for services represent $7.0 million or 5.7% in FY 2003-04 and $7.5 million or 6.1% in FY 2004-05 of total General Fund revenues. Recreation and social services programs represent $4.8 million in FY 2003-04. 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. Property Tax Tempe’s property tax rate is $1.35 per $100 of assessed valuation, consisting of a primary tax rate of $0.55 per $100 of assessed valuation and a secondary tax rate of $0.80 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 $8.5 million in FY 2003-04 and $8.8 million for FY 2004-05. n Fines and Forfeitures Fines and Forfeitures represent $4.9 million in FY 2003-04 and $5.2 million in FY 2004-05. Traffic Fines represent $1.4 million or 27.8% in FY 2003-04 and 26.2% in FY 2004-05 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. n 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. n Expenditure Structure The General Fund operating budget for FY 2003-04 totals $121.8 million and $123.5 million for FY 2004-05. 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, Solid Waste, and Golf), Transportation (LTAF and HURF), Transit, Rio Salado and Debt Service. Major Expenditure Personal Services Fees and Services Materials and Supplies All Other FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 79.8% 80.8% 12.9% 13.3% 5.1% 5.0% 2.2% 0.9% For FY 2003-04, Personal Services (salaries, wages and benefits) account for $97.3 million or 79.8% of the total General Fund operating budget. The remaining appropriations consist of $15.7 million or 12.9% for Fees and Services, $6.2 million or 5.1% for Materials and Supplies, and 2.2% for Capital and All Other. In FY 2004-05, General Fund appropriations for Personal Services consist of $99.8 million or 80.8% of the total budget, $16.5 million or 13.3% for Fees and Services, $6.2 million or 5.0% for Materials and Supplies, and 0.9% for Capital and All Other. n 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 $77.2 million of the $97.3 million and $78.7 million of the $99.8 million in total General Fund appropriations. Personal Services will continue to represent the major portion of fund expenditures regardless of any policy changes over the next five years. Fringe benefits represent $20.1 million and $21.1 million respectively in the two fiscal years. n Fees and Services For the two fiscal years, this budget category comprises 12.9% (FY 2003-04) and 13.3% (FY 2004-05) of total General Fund appropriations. The largest portion of this expenditure category is for contracted services, accounting for 21.0% and 24.2% 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, solid waste, and sewer) comprise the second largest share (19.5% and 18.6%) 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 2003-04 include software maintenance agreements (7.1%), equipment rental and repair (6.3%), computer refresh (10.6%), and county jail costs (4.6%). For FY 2004-05 major expenditures include software maintenance agreements (6.8%), equipment rental and repair (6.0%), telephone service (3.7%), and county jail costs (4.4%). Materials and Supplies Totaling $6.2 million in each fiscal year, expenditures for Materials and Supplies respectively account for 5.1% and 5.0% of the total General Fund operating budgets. In each fiscal year 26.0% ($1.6 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. n n Capital Outlay/All Other Capital Outlay accounts for $1.8 million or 1.5% in FY 2003-04 and $2.1 million or 1.7% in FY 2004-05 of the total General Fund operating budgets. Respectively over the next two fiscal years, funding for replacement and new equipment (primarily automobiles and trucks) constitutes the largest portion, with vehicle replacement making up 49.5% and 58.2% of total Capital Outlay. Other major Capital Outlay budgeted items include radios, turf equipment and computer equipment. Within the All Other category are budgeted amounts for contingencies, travel, contributions to community service organizations and the local convention and visitors bureau, and payment to the county for animal control. minimal revenue growth during the next biennium. General Fund expenditure growth over the past five years has averaged just under 7.8% annually. This rate of increase is significantly less than previous years, and was adjusted to offset predicted slowing of revenue growth. In the past, operating surpluses have been utilized for "pay-as-you-go" financing in the Capital Improvements Program. Throughout the forecast period, this type of financing for the Capital Improvements Program has been suspended to ensure a balanced budget and to offset decreased revenue streams. ♦ Program Budget Summary n Operating Revenues and Expenditures Revenue growth in FY 1993-94 and FY 199495 averaged over 20% annually, primarily the result of a voter-approved increase in the sales tax rate from 1.0% to 1.2% in September 1993. A strong and increasingly diversified local economy has contributed to continued growth in revenues, resulting in an overall positive average annual revenue growth over the past five years. However, due to the slow growth at the national and state economy level we predict Fiscal Year Revenues ($) Expenditures ($) 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 2000-01 134.0 108.1 2001-02 124.2 118.2 2002-03 est. 121.2 121.3 The following section describes the allocation of funding for the major functional, or program areas of Tempe city government. The General Fund for FY 2003-04 totals $121.8 million, and in FY 2004-05 appropriations increased by 1.4% to 123.5 million. Most General Fund spending growth is related to inflationary increases in retirement contributions and health benefits. 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. n General Services Program General Services appropriations account for 20.6% and 19.9% of the General Fund budgets in FY 2003-04 and FY 2004-05 respectively. This area includes appropriations for Mayor and Council, City Manager, City Clerk, Human Resources, City Attorney, Fleet Services, Information Technology, Accounting, Purchasing, and other programs. Funding for General Services decreased in FY 2003-04 to $25.4 million, a $2.1 million decrease over FY 2002-03. FY 2004-05 appropriations decreased by $439,482 to $24.6 million. Streamlining of personnel and operating costs were necessary to offset the slowdown in revenue collections. Development Services Program In both fiscal years, approximately 6% 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 2003-04 $6.8 million budget represents a decrease from FY 2002-03, while the FY 2004-05 $7.0 million budget reflects a 2.9% increase. Inflation is the primary driver of the slight increase in year two. n General Fund appropriations for Community Services represent 21.9% or $26.6 million in FY 2003-04 and 22.1% or $27.3 million in FY 200405. n Environmental Health Program With most of our Environmental Health n Public Safety Program Public Safety continues to represent the largest appropriations area, accounting for 51.0% or Program General Services FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 $27,538,924 $25,044,986 $24,605,504 7,456,621 6,846,657 7,047,064 Public Safety 59,567,626 61,655,129 62,963,950 Community Services 25,184,122 26,648,212 27,269,274 Environmental Health 1,569,737 1,630,978 1,653,750 $121,317,030 $121,825,962 $123,539,542 Development Services Total General Fund $61.6 million in FY 2003-04 and $63.0 million in FY 2004-05 of the total General Fund budgets. It includes appropriations for Police, Fire, and City Court. Increases in the Public Safety program are driven by an increase to the Police retirement contribution and benefits. n Community Se rvices 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, and Facility Services. appropriations residing in the Enterprise Funds, this area represents just 1.3% in FY 2003-04 and FY 2004-05 of the General Fund appropriations, and consists of Field Services Administration. Inflation is the primary driver of increases in this area. ♦ 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. Per state statute (Arizona Revised Statutes §282502 (F)), a municipality with a population of 60,000 or more persons is required to spend onethird of its local transportation monies for public transportation each fiscal year. Total Lottery proceeds are expected to be $883,600 in FY 2003-04 and $865,900 in FY 2004-05, which represent a slight decrease, a trend that is likely to continue as Tempe's population growth rate remains below those of other cities. The decrease 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 $291,600 and $285,700 respectively. Major Services Expenditure Structure 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 light rail. For FY 2003-04, the transit tax is expected to generate $26.0 million in revenue, or 76.7% of total Transit Fund revenues and FY 2004-05 is estimated at $26.9 million or 77.0%. n Lottery Proceeds The Transit Fund includes all personnel in Transit Administration, Transit Store and Bus Major Expenditure FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 Fees and Services 75.4% 66.6% Capital Outlay/All Other 16.2% 23.6% Personal Services 4.3% 6.3% Internal Services 2.4% 2.1% Contingency 1.7% 1.4% Stop Maintenance. Major expenditures in the Transit Fund include: Fees and Services, Capital Outlay/All Other, Personal Services, Internal Services, and Contingency. The following table depic ts the major expenditure categories as a percentage of the total transit budget. n Fees and Services The largest expenditure in the Transit Fund is for Fees and Services, specifically funding for local and City of Phoenix transit routes and DialA-Ride services. In FY 2003-04, Fees and Services are estimated to account for $20.5 million or 75.4% and FY 2004-05 is estimated at $21.4 million or 66.6% of the Transit Fund operating budget. Major Services • • • • n Capital Outlay/All Other Within this category are budgeted amounts for capital outlay, debt service, travel and other contributions. Debt service represents 86% of these expenditures in FY 2003-04. n Personal Services Personal Services account for 4.3% of the total FY 2003-04 budget, or $1,940,538 and 6.3% or $2,011,548 of the FY 2004-05 budget. n Internal Services Indirect cost allocations to the Transit Fund account for 2.4% or $656,977 of the FY 200304 budget and 2.1% or $670,189 of the FY 2004-05 budget. This amount represents the Transit Fund’s share of certain administrative costs funded by the General Fund. n Contingency The contingency account remains constant for each of the two fiscal years at $449,232. This amount represents 1.7% of the budget in FY 2003-04 and 1.4% of the budget in FY 2004-05. This funding has been set aside for vehicle replacement and unanticipated expenses. 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. n ♦ Transportation Funds Street Maintenance Operations Studies and Design Street Lighting and Signal Systems Revenue Structure Transportation revenues are derived primarily (94.9% in FY 2003-04 and in FY 2004-05) from state-shared Highway User taxes. State Lottery proceeds account for 7.6% of FY 200304 and 7.4% of FY 2004-05 Transportation revenues. 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 $313.5 million in FY 2003-04 and $316.6 million in FY 2004-05, with Tempe’s share at $10.9 million and $11.0 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 2003-04 as our relative share of total statewide population falls. n Lottery Proceeds Lottery proceeds (Local Transportation assistance Fund or LTAF), including Powerball revenue, are expected to be $883,600 in FY 2003-04 and $865,900 in FY 2004-05, representing a slight decrease, a trend that is likely to continue as long as Tempe’s population growth remains below that of 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. n 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 $31 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 popula tions 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 n requirement placed on Arizona 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 fiscal years 1981-82 through 1985-86. This obligation was suspended, by the State Legislature, in response to revenue slowdown experienced by Cities within Arizona. Expenditure Structure Transportation funds include all personnel in the Streets and Traffic Operations and Transportation Divisions. Major budgeted expenditures for the Transportation funds include: Personal Services, Internal Services, Utilities, Materials and Supplies, Fees and Services, and All Other. The following table depicts the major expenditure categories as a percentage of the total budget. Major Expenditure FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 Personal Services 45.5% 45.9% Internal Services 20.1% 20.3% Utilities 14.9% 14.7% Materials and Supplies 5.8% 5.7% Fees and Services 4.5% 4.4% All Other 9.2% 9.0% n Personal Services The largest budgeted expenditure in the Transportation Fund is Personal Services, which accounts for 45.5% or $3.7 million in FY 2003-04 and 45.9% or $3.8 million in FY 2004-05 of the total Transportation budget and will likely continue in that range for the next few 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 20.1% or $1.6 million of the FY 2003-04 budget and 20.3% or $1.7 million of the FY 2004-05 budget. Utility costs (electricity for street lights and traffic signals) account for another 14.9% and 14.7% or $1.2 million for the biennium. n Loan Repayment The expenditure in the Transportation funds for Loan Repayment to the Water Utilities Fund amounts to $356,175 in both FY 2003-04 and FY 2004-05. 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. 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 95.4% in FY 2003-04 and 95.3% in FY 2004-05 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. Summary Expenditures for Transportation increased from $8.1 million in FY 2003-04 to an estimated $8.2 million in FY 2004-05. The FY 2003-04 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 $1.4 million dollars from FY 2000-01 to 2001-02. Total Transportation revenues are projected to increase by 1.6% to $11.0 million by FY 2004-05. 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 The secondary property tax rate for both fiscal years is $0.80 per $100 of assessed valuation and is expected to generate $13.6 million in FY 2003-04 and $13.7 million in FY 2004-05. 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 $654,200 and $673,800 from the SRP Payment In-Lieu of Property Taxes. Our estimate of FY 2003-04 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 $77.3 million of tax-supported general obligation bonds over the next six years. 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-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, 2003 totaled $188.0 million, including $98.0 million in Water/ Wastewater bonds (not repaid by general tax revenues). Summary Projected revenues for FY 2003-04 total $14.2 million, a 5.0% increase from actual FY 2002-03 collections. FY 2004-05 projected revenues total $14.4 million or a 1.0% increase over the prior fiscal year. Expenditures are estimated at $13.1 million in FY 2003-04 and at $13.5 million in FY 2004-05. 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. Fund Structure Outstanding tax-supported debt (property and excise taxes) is not to exceed the estimated full cash value. With outstanding tax-supported debt of $188.0 million and estimated full cash value of Tax-Supported Debt Bonds General Obligation FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 $12,000,000 $15,000,000 $9.8 billion, the City’s estimated debt to full cash value for FY 2003-04 is 1.92% and is projected to remain about the same for FY 2004-05. Our General Obligation debt is in compliance with our debt management plan which generates a three year projection to monitor the City’s fiscal health. ♦ 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 FYE CDBG Section 8 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 Solid Waste and Golf Funds. Major Services 1995-96 1,980,305 3,846,066 1996-97 2,700,015 3,861,578 1997-98 2,915,622 3,843,309 1998-99 2,399,237 4,068,842 1999-00 2,390,100 4,624,100 2000-01 2,967,700 4,985,700 2001-02 2,148,750 5,427,291 • Water/Wastewater Administration 2002-03 est. 5,553,570 5,926,644 • Water Resource Management 2003-04 est. 3,291,230 7,526,433 • Water Conservation 2004-05 est. 3,552,230 7,265,433 • Water Quality This budget provides for: • Transmission & Collection 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. Expenditure Structure Pursuant to federal requirements, most CDBG and Section 8 funding is expended on property rehabilitation and rental subsidies. In FY 200304, 8.0% is earmarked for salaries and benefits, another 5.1% allocated to contingencies and miscellaneous expenses, and in FY 2004-05, 8.4% is earmarked for salaries and benefits, with another 4.9% allocated to contingencies and miscellaneous expenses. • Technical Services • Wastewater Reclamation • Environmental Services • Customer Services • Irrigation Major Revenue FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 Water and Irrigation 56.2% 56.3% Wastewater User Fees 34.8% 34.8% Interest Income 4.5% 4.5% All Other 4.5% 4.4% Revenue Structure ♦ Water/Wastewater Fund Fund Structure Description 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. User fees account for 91.0% or $41.3 million of the $45.4 million in total fund revenues in FY 2003-04 and 91.0% or $41.7 million in FY 200405. n Water and Irrigation User Fees Water and irrigation user (consumption) fees n Wastewater User Fees Over 35,000 Wastewater Service accounts are estimated to produce $15.8 million or 34.8% in FY 2003-04 and $15.9 million or 34.8% in FY 2004-05 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. n Interest Income/All Other Cash balances in the Water/Wastewater Fund are expected to generate $2.0 million in Interest Income during FY 2003-04 and FY 2004-05, or 4.5% 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. Expenditure Structure Total estimated operating expenses for FY 2003-04 are $46.0 million and $47.7 million in FY 2004-05. Together, Debt Service, Personal Services and Wastewater Plant Regional Operating Expenses represent 67.0% and 68.3% of the total operating expenses Debt Service accounts for 34.5% of total estimated expenses for FY 2003-04 and 36.3% for FY 200405, indicative of the capital intensive nature of a water/wastewater operation. Personal Services Personal Services represent $10.7 million or 23.3% in FY 2003-04 of Water/Wastewater operating expenditures and $11.0 million or 23.1% in FY 200405. For FY 2003-04, salaries and wages account for 78.6% of the total Personal Services budget, followed by health insurance at 10.3%, FICA at 5.9%, retirement at 4.5%, and other at 0.7%. For FY 2004-05, salaries and wages account for 77.8% of the total Personal Services budget, followed by health insurance at 11.2%, FICA at 5.8%, retirement at 4.4%, and other at 0.8%. n n Wastewater Plant Regional Operating Expenses Tempe participates in an intergovernmental agreement for the construction, operation, and maintenance of jointly used facilities, including the 91 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. st Expenses associated with the 91 Avenue Plant represent $4.3 million or 9.2% of the FY 2003-04 total and 8.9% in FY 2004-05. 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. st Major Expenditure FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 Debt Service 34.5% 36.3% Personal Services 23.3% 23.1% All Other 18.7% 17.9% Internal Services 9.2% 9.0% WW Regional Exp. 9.2% 8.9% Electricity and Water 5.1% 4.8% n respectively for the two fiscal years. The table above shows the composition of fund expenditures earmarked for Debt Service, Personal Services, Wastewater Plant Regional Operating Expenses, Internal Services, Electricity and Water, and All Other. n n Debt Service Electricity and Water Utilities comprise a major expense within this fund, as substantial electricity and water is required to provide these services. For FY 2003-04, electricity and water are budgeted at $2.3 million, or 5.1% of total expenses and 4.8% in FY 2004-05. Internal Services Internal Services costs for information systems, communications, vehicle maintenance, and indirect charges account for $4.2 million or 9.2% of FY 2003-04 Water/Wastewater expenses and $4.3 million or 8.9% in FY 2004-05. n All Other Other major budgeted expenses include chemical supplies, contingencies, water quality testing and contracted services. Summary FY 2003-04 estimated operating expenses for the Water/Wastewater Fund are $46.0 million, a 14.0% increase over FY 2002-03 expenses. Tempe’s shared cost to operate the 91 Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant is expected to remain constant through FY 200405. Debt service expense increased in FY 2004-05 primarily due to Wastewater treatment plant expansion and mandated water testing. • Residential Collection • Commercial Collection • Recycling Collection • Roll-Off Collection Revenue Structure Revenue in the Solid Waste 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. st Revenues for FY 2003-04 and FY 2004-05 are projected to be $45.4 million and $45.8 million; this includes a rate increase in November of 2002. Continued 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. n Residential Solid Waste User Fees Residential solid waste user fee revenues are expected to amount to $5.7 million in FY 200304 and FY 2004-05 or 53.8% of the total revenues for this fund. Residential customers pay $13.96 per month and the number of active accounts total 33,703. n ♦ Solid Waste Fund Commercial Solid Waste User Fees Commercial solid waste fees generate $4.1 million in FY 2003-04 and FY 2004-05 or 38.7% 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 1,931. The number of commercial accounts is expected to remain steady but could decline as competition for commercial refuse services increases. Fund Structure Description Expenditure Structure The Solid Waste 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. Solid Waste estimated expenses for FY 2003-04 total $10.6 million and $10.5 million in FY 200405. Of the total FY 2003-04 operating expenses, Personal Services, Internal Services and Landfill Usage Charges comprise 88.4%. Capital Outlay accounts for 7.4%, while the remaining 4.2% is for Materials and Supplies, Utilities, and Miscellaneous Fees and Services. Major Services This enterprise fund provides for: Major Expenditure Categories Personal Services Landfill Usage Charge Internal Services Capital Outlay All Other expenses. FY 2003-04 36.1% 26.2% 26.1% 7.4% 4.2% FY 2004-05 37.5% 26.4% 27.2% 4.7% 4.2% In FY 2004-05, Personal Services, Internal Services and Landfill Usage Charges comprise 91.1%. Capital Outlay accounts for 4.7%, while the remaining 4.2% is for Materials and Supplies, Utilities, and Miscellaneous Fees and Services. n Personal Services As with many labor intensive operations, Personal Services represent a major expense in the Solid Waste Fund, accounting for $3.8 million or 36.1% of the $10.6 million FY 2003-04 budget and $3.9 million or 37.5% of the $10.5 million FY 2004-05 budget. Respectively, for each of the fiscal years, salaries account for 75.8% and 74.7% of the total personal services budget, with health insurance accounting for 13.5% and 14.6%, and the remainder for other fringe benefits. n Landfill Usage Charges Landfill usage charges remain relatively constant in each of the fiscal years at $2.8 million, representing 26.2% and 26.4% 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 Internal Services Internal Service charges represent 26.1% or $2.8 million of the FY 2003-04 budget and 27.2% or $2.9 million of the total FY 2004-05 budget. Internal Service charges consist of data processing, communications, vehicle maintenance and related Internal Services charges. As might be expected in Solid Waste operations, a majority (53.0% and 53.2%, respectively) of total internal service costs derive from vehicle operating and maintenance n Capital Outlay/All Other The Solid Waste budget reflects appropriations of $800,000 and $500,000 in the two fiscal years for replacement of refuse trucks. Other budgeted expenses include recycling sorting fees of $88,500 each year. Summary The Solid Waste Fund budget of $10.6 million for FY 2003-04 and $10.5 million in FY 2004-05 represents a $77,000 decrease. This is due to reduced capital outlay costs associated with refuse vehicles. For the biennium, revenues in this fund are expected to slightly increase to $10.6 million, a 2% increase over FY 2002-03 collections. ♦ Golf Fund Fund Structure Description The Golf Fund is a self-supporting enterprise fund similar to the Water/Wastewater and Solid Waste 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 89.5% of golf course revenues, with the balance derived from a share of pro shops and restaurant revenues. n Greens Fees Greens fees amount to $1.9 million in FY 200304 and FY 2004-05 of the total Golf Fund revenues. Green fees are set by Council and were last adjusted in November 2002, with adjustments ranging from $1 to $4 per 18 holes. Projections in the two fiscal years are conservative to reflect the volatility that can result from weather conditions or fee changes. Total rounds in FY 2002-03 for Ken McDonald (9 and 18 holes) and Rolling Hills (9 holes) were 86,065 and 83,670 rounds respectively. 50.6% of FY 2003-04 appropriations and $1.2 million or 48.6% of FY 2004-05. Salaries and wages alone represent 76.0% and 75.1% respectively of total Personal Services, with health insurance and FICA accounting for an additional 18.7% and 19.6% for the two fiscal years. The remainder is for retirement and other benefits. n Fees and Services Budgeted expenses account for 17.9% and 16.5% in each fiscal year and primarily fund irrigation water and electricity. Internal Services Golf operation internal servic e costs are primarily vehicle maintenance and fuel. n 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 $150,000 a year is paid in advance of the gross annual receipts, depending on which is greater for the first four years of the five year contract. The restaurant concessionaire pays revenue of $5,599 per month. n n 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 68.5% in FY 2003-04 and 65.1% in FY 2004-05 of total Golf Fund expenses. The remaining expenses include Internal Services, Debt Service, Materials and Supplies, and Capital Outlay. Major Expenditure Categories FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 Personal Service 50.6% 48.6% Fees and Services 17.9% 16.5% Internal Services 14.7% 14.0% Materials and Supplies 9.4% 8.7% Debt Service 7.4% 12.2% n Personal Services Personal Services account for $1.2 million or n Debt Service The Debt Service increase in FY 2004-05 is for repayment of debt associated with a Rolling Hills irrigation capital improvements project. Summary Golf Fund appropriations for the two fiscal years remain constant at $2.3 million and $2.5 million, a decrease from the FY 2002-03 budget of $2.8 million. Cost containment was necessary to offset declining revenues reflective of the economic slowdown. Revenues are expected to generate $2.1 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 2002 fund balance reserve was $791,701 or 38.3% of estimated FY 2003-04 operating revenues. 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 2003-04 Capital Improvement expenditures total $117,968,707, a (10%) decrease from the $131 million CIP budget for 2002-03. For FY 2004-05, Capital Improvement expenditures total $176,983,222, a 50% increase from 2003-04. This increase in the budget is driven largely by capacity expansion in the Water/Wastewater Program, Light Rail and the construction of the Performing Arts Center. 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. The Capital Budget is grouped into four major capital programs. These include $34.9 million in 2003-04 and $54.4 million in 2004-05 for Enterprise capital programs; $64.2 million and $104 million for Special Purpose capital programs; $7.7 million and $12.3 million for General Purpose capital programs; and $11.2 million and $6.3 million for Transportation capital programs in each respective fiscal year. Transit projects represent the single largest appropriation area in fiscal year 2003-04 accounting for 53% of the total Capital Budget. Other major project areas include $20.9 million for Water, $13.5 million for Wastewater, and $10.3 million for Transportation and R.O.W. In fiscal year 2004-05, Transit projects again represent the largest appropriation area of the total Capital Budget at 44%, followed by Wastewater projects at $32.8 million, Performing Arts projects at $26.1 and Water projects at $19.4 million. The following table shows a comparison of the 2003-04 and 2004-05 Capital Programs with the Comparison of Capital Programs Capital Program Enterprise Water Wastewater Golf Cemetery Special Purpose Transit Performing Arts Rio Salado General Purpose Police Fire Storm Drains Park Improvements General Governmental Transportation Transportation and R.O.W Sidewalks & Bikeways Traffic Signals/ Street Lighting Total 2002-03 Budget 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget $13,923,000 29,846,000 2,305,000 0 20,977,680 13,546,612 170,000 225,000 $19,355,000 32,789,500 1,490,000 770,000 59,703,524 0 2,082,620 62,122,070 1,863,320 200,000 77,324,792 26,107,768 526,269 2,309,100 1,700,000 0 6,335,000 6,387,430 794,300 1,900,000 200,000 1,923,000 2,839,243 6,715,950 0 200,000 2,385,000 2,978,445 4,186,639 10,262,482 410,000 0 1,450,000 945,000 $130,638,313 $117,968,707 5,395,498 0 945,000 $176,983,222 Enterprise Enterprise capital projects include those for Golf, Water, Cemetery, and Wastewater representing $34.9 million or 30% in fiscal year 2003-04 and $54.4 million or 47% in fiscal year 2004-05 of the total Capital Budget. The primary funding for the Enterprise capital projects comes from bond proceeds that total $24.5 million or 70% in fiscal year 2003-04 and $43.9 million or 81% in fiscal year 2004-05 of the total financing. Of this amount, Excise Tax Bonds provide $11.7 million in fiscal year 2003-04 and $24.8 million in fiscal year 2004-05. The remaining bond funding comes from General Obligation Bonds that provide $12.8 million in fiscal year 2003-04 and $19.1 million in fiscal year 2004-05. The remaining portion of capital projects is financed with Water/ Wastewater operating revenues and development fee revenue for a combined total of $10.5 million in both fiscal year 2003-04 and fiscal year 2004-05. Enterprise – Sources of Funds ($ Millions) FY 03-04 FY 04-05 Excise Tax Bonds $11.7 $24.8 General Obligation Bonds 12.8 19.1 Operating Revenues 10.0 10.0 Development Fees 0.5 0.5 Total $35.0 $54.4 Water projects comprise $21.0 million or 60% in fiscal year 2003-04 and $19.4 million or 36% in fiscal year 2004-05 of the Enterprise Capital Budget. Major projects include $31.2 million over the next two fiscal years for expansion and waterline improvements at the Johnny G. Martinez Water Treatment Plant, $2.6 million over the next two fiscal years for replacement of the Apache Boulevard waterline, and $2.0 million in fiscal year 2003-04 for expansion of the Kyrene Booster Zone. Wastewater projects comprise $13.5 million or 39% in fiscal year 2003-04 and $32.8 million or 60.3% in fiscal year 2004-05 of the Enterprise Capital Budget. This includes $24.6 million over the next two fiscal years for the City’s share of improvements at the 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant, $17.3 million for expansion of the Kyrene Water Reclamation Facility (KWRF) over the next two fiscal years, and $3.0 million for the Rural Road Influent Line to KWRF. Special Purpose Special Purpose capital projects include those for Transit, the Performing Arts, and the Rio Salado program, representing $64.2 million or 54% in fiscal year 2003-04 and $104.0 million or 59% in fiscal year 2004-05 of the total Capital Budget. The Transit capital program represents $62.1 million or 96.8% in fiscal year 2003-04 and $77.3 million or 74.4% in fiscal year 2004-05 of the Special Purpose Capital Budget. Major projects funded over the next two fiscal years include $125.8 million for planning, design, and construction of the Central Valley and East Valley Light Rail Transit corridor, $5.9 million for a Transit Center, and $4.7 million for multiuse paths along the Western Canal. The Transit capital program is funded from Excise Tax bonds, transit taxes, performing arts tax revenue, capital projects fund balances, and Outside Special Purpose – Sources of Funds ($ Millions) FY 03-04 FY 04-05 Excise Tax Bonds $39.5 $53.8 Transit Tax Revenues 17.7 23.3 Outside Revenue 6.4 24.1 Performing Arts Tax 0.4 2.3 Capital Projects Fund Total $64.2 $104.0 Revenue. The Performing Arts Center capital program represents $1.9 million or 2.9% in fiscal year 2003-04 and $26.1 million or 25.1% in fiscal year 2004-05 of the Special Purpose Capital Budget. This funding primarily provides for the construction of the Tempe Center for the Arts on the south side of Tempe Town Lake. Performing Arts Capital Budget funding comes from excise tax bonds and performing arts tax revenue. General Purpose The General Purpose capital projects include those for General Governmental, Police and Fire Protection, and Park Improvements. In aggregate, they represent $7.7 million or 6.5% of the total Capital Budget and 9.3% of the taxsupported capital projects for fiscal year 200304. In fiscal year 2004-05, they represent $12.3 million or 7% of the total Capital Budget and 10.1% of tax-supported capital projects. General Governmental projects account for $2.8 million or 37.1% in fiscal year 2003-04 and $3.0 million or 24.3% in fiscal year 2004-05 of the General Purpose Capital Budget, with funding provided for a variety of purposes. Police Protection accounts for $1.0 million or 10.4% in fiscal year 2003-04 and $6.7 million or 54.7% in fiscal year 2004-05 of the General Purpose Capital Budget. These amounts provide for the construction of a new Property and Evidence Storage Facility/Substation. Park Improvements represent $1.9 million or 24.5% in fiscal year 2003-04 and $2.4 million or 19.0% in fiscal year 2004-05 of the total General Purpose Capital Budget. These amounts provide $1.9 million for the completion of the North Side Multigenerational Complex and $1.1 million for improvements to the Cole and Rotary Park playgrounds. Fire Protection accounts for $1.9 million or 24.8% of the fiscal year 2003-04 General Purpose Capital Budget for the conversion of radios to the 800 MHz frequency and the purchase of land for a fire station in the southeast quadrant. Funding for General Purpose capital projects General Purpose – Sources of Funds ($ Millions) FY 03-04 FY 04-05 General Obligation Bonds $3.8 $9.0 Other Operating Funds 2.7 3.3 Transit Tax 0.7 0.0 Capital Projects Fund Total $7.7 $12.3 primarily comes from General Obligation Bonds and Other Operating Funds. Transportation The Transportation Capital Budget includes projects for Street Improvements, and Street Lighting and Traffic Signals. In total, Transportation projects represent $11.2 million or 9.5% in fiscal year 2003-04 and $6.3 million or 3.6% in fiscal year 2004-05 of the total Capital Budget. The majority of Transportation capital funding is for Street Improvements, which represent $10.3 million or 91.6% in fiscal year 2003-04 and $5.4 million or 85.1% in fiscal year 2004-05 of the total Transportation Capital Budget. These amounts provide continued funding for local and major street renovation and reconstruction. The remaining funding is for Street Lighting and Traffic Signals, which combined represent $1.0 million or 8.4% in fiscal year 2003-04 and $1.0 million or 14.9% in fiscal year 2004-05 of the total Transportation Capital Budget. These amounts provide funding for street light upgrades, new signals, and the undergrounding of overhead utility lines. The Transportation Transportation – Sources of Funds ($ Millions) FY 03-04 FY 04-05 General Obligation Bonds $3.9 $6.3 Improvement District Bonds 6.3 0.0 Other Operating Revenue 0.9 0.0 Total $11.1 $6.3 Capital Budget is funded from General Obligation Bonds, Improvement District Bonds, and Other Operating Revenue. Capital Improvements Program Summary Program Enterprise Program Water Wastewater Golf Cemetery Subtotal Enterprise Special Purpose Program Transit Performing Arts Rio Salado 2003-04 Funded 2004-05 Funded Additional Needs 2005-06 2006-07 $7,933,000 27,722,201 50,000 1,400,000 37,105,201 $20,858,000 $20,983,000 13,164,394 10,112,620 50,000 50,000 0 0 34,072,394 31,145,620 62,122,070 1,863,320 200,000 77,324,792 26,107,768 526,269 88,018,672 22,228,912 4,435,545 86,096,440 0 4,090,000 64,185,390 103,958,829 114,683,129 794,300 1,900,000 200,000 6,715,950 0 200,000 1,873,000 50,000 Total 6-Year Program $92,414,680 105,235,536 1,860,000 2,395,000 201,905,216 3,243,110 0 875,000 0 0 125,000 316,805,084 50,200,000 10,251,814 90,186,440 4,118,110 125,000 377,256,898 12,522,814 0 200,000 150,000 0 250,000 1,490,000 127,330 250,000 3,672,000 2,134,484 250,000 25,345,064 4,161,814 1,350,000 2,335,000 50,000 1,060,000 50,000 9,560,000 50,000 310,000 50,000 310,000 50,000 15,448,000 300,000 0 930,000 167,000 725,000 345,243 225,000 447,000 7,656,543 0 930,000 175,000 725,000 521,445 225,000 402,000 12,279,395 200,000 1,648,750 175,000 225,000 356,552 225,000 707,000 17,370,116 0 1,777,150 175,000 725,000 340,224 225,000 402,000 13,654,374 0 1,062,750 175,000 225,000 310,956 225,000 402,000 4,628,036 0 1,062,750 175,000 725,000 102,082 225,000 402,000 9,108,316 200,000 7,411,400 1,042,000 3,350,000 1,976,502 1,350,000 2,762,000 64,696,780 Transportation and 10,262,482 5,395,498 5,771,061 5,542,878 4,837,804 3,775,398 35,585,121 Traffic Signals/Street Total Transportation 945,000 11,207,482 945,000 6,340,498 945,000 6,716,061 995,000 6,537,878 995,000 5,832,804 995,000 4,770,398 5,820,000 41,405,121 Total General/ 18,864,025 18,619,893 24,086,177 20,192,252 10,460,840 13,878,714 106,101,901 Subtotal Tax Supported 83,049,415 122,578,722 138,769,306 110,378,692 14,578,950 14,003,714 483,358,799 TOTAL PROGRAM $19,355,000 32,789,500 1,490,000 770,000 54,404,500 2008-09 $2,308,000 7,900,209 50,000 0 10,258,209 Total Special Purpose General Purpose Program Police Fire Storm Drains Park Improvements Recreation Public Works General Governmental Community Services Development Services Financial Services Information Technology Municipal Arts Program Neighborhood Program Public Works Total General Purpose Transportation Program $20,977,680 13,546,612 170,000 225,000 34,919,292 2007-08 $117,968,707 $176,983,222 $175,874,507 $144,451,086 $45,724,570 $24,261,923 $685,264,015 Capital Improvements Program Fund Balances Program Enterprise Water/Wastewater Golf Cemetery Subtotal Enterprise Special Purpose Transit Performing Arts Rio Salado Subtotal Special Purpose General Purpose Police Protection Fire Protection Storm Drains Park Improvements General Governmental Subtotal General Purpose Transportation Transp. & R.O.W. ImproveTraffic Signals/Street Lighting Subtotal Transportation Total Program Program Enterprise Water/Wastewater Golf Cemetery Subtotal Enterprise Special Purpose Transit Performing Arts Rio Salado Subtotal Special Purpose General Purpose Police Protection Fire Protection Storm Drains Park Improvements General Governmental Subtotal General Purpose Transportation Transp. & R.O.W. ImproveTraffic Signals/Street Lighting Subtotal Transportation Total Program Estimated Fund Bal. Transfers from Other Funds $5,405,000 0 0 5,405,000 $10,000,000 0 0 10,000,000 10,497,500 0 2,201,500 12,699,000 Outside Revenue Bond Proceeds Appropriation Estimated Fund Bal. $474,292 0 0 474,292 $24,050,000 170,000 225,000 24,445,000 $34,524,292 170,000 225,000 34,919,292 $5,405,000 0 0 5,405,000 17,655,070 400,000 0 18,055,070 6,467,000 0 0 6,467,000 38,000,000 1,463,320 0 39,463,320 62,122,070 1,863,320 200,000 64,185,390 10,497,500 0 2,001,500 12,499,000 (50,000) 0 555,400 0 314,600 820,000 0 0 200,000 805,000 1,242,243 2,247,243 0 0 0 0 1,097,000 1,097,000 794,300 1,900,000 0 1,118,000 0 3,812,300 794,300 1,900,000 200,000 1,923,000 2,839,243 7,656,543 (50,000) 0 555,400 0 (185,400) 320,000 2,046,000 64,300 2,110,300 $21,034,300 0 945,000 945,000 $31,247,313 0 0 0 $8,038,292 10,262,482 0 10,262,482 $77,983,102 10,262,482 945,000 11,207,482 $117,968,707 2,046,000 64,300 2,110,300 $20,334,300 Estimated Fund Bal. 06-30-04 Transfers from Other Funds Outside Revenue Bond Proceeds $5,405,000 0 0 5,405,000 $10,000,000 0 0 10,000,000 $494,500 0 0 494,500 $41,650,000 1,490,000 770,000 43,910,000 $52,144,500 1,490,000 770,000 54,404,500 $5,405,000 0 0 5,405,000 10,497,500 0 2,001,500 12,499,000 23,260,792 2,300,000 0 25,560,792 24,064,000 0 0 24,064,000 30,000,000 23,807,768 0 53,807,768 77,324,792 26,107,768 526,269 103,958,829 10,497,500 0 1,475,231 11,972,731 (50,000) 0 555,400 0 (185,400) 320,000 0 0 200,000 130,000 1,873,445 2,203,445 0 0 0 0 1,105,000 1,105,000 6,715,950 0 0 2,255,000 0 8,970,950 6,715,950 0 200,000 2,385,000 2,978,445 12,279,395 (50,000) 0 555,400 0 (185,400) 320,000 2,046,000 0 0 5,395,498 5,395,498 2,046,000 64,300 2,110,300 $20,334,300 0 0 $37,764,237 0 0 $25,663,500 945,000 6,340,498 $113,029,216 945,000 6,340,498 $176,983,222 64,300 2,110,300 $19,808,031 Estimated Fund Bal. Appropriation 06-30-05 CIP Project Listing n Water JGMWTP: 30 MGD Plant Expansion $68,950,105 This project will provide the increased water treatment capacity needed to meet the projected growth resulting from in-fill development, development of remaining vacant land, and redevelopment of existing parcels. JGMWTP: Waterline Improvements $4,500,000 This project provides for replacing existing 42”diameter and 30” diameter pipes that have nearly reached their useful lives with 4500 l.f. of 60” diameter and 8600 l.f. of 42” diameter pipe to accommodate the increased future flows from the 03-04 Source of Funds 04-05 Source of Funds 03-04 Source of Funds 04-05 Source of Funds W/WW Fund Balance W/WW Fund Balance GO Bonds GO Bonds 10,000,000 2,250,000 2,250,000 10,000,000 Waterline Upgrades & Extensions $3,358,435 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. Utility Services & Warehouse Building $2,917,000 This project provides for design and construction of new facilities on the site of the Kyrene Water Reclamation Facility to house the staff of the Utility Services workgroup and Water User Department Warehouse. 03-04 Source of Funds 03-04 Source of Funds GO Bonds 04-05 Source of Funds 108,435 GO Bonds 650,000 04-05 Source of Funds GO Bonds 292,000 Apache Blvd. Corridor Waterline Improvements $2,600,000 This project will replace 50+ year old lead-jointed cast iron pipes with new ductile iron pipe that meets City codes and specifications. New Production Wells $2,266,140 This project provides for two (2) new wells to be brought into production over a 2-year period. These wells would provide an additional 8.7 MGD of production capacity, and coupled 03-04 Source of Funds 04-05 Source of Funds 03-04 Source of Funds 04-05 Source of Funds GO Bonds GO Bonds GO Bonds GO Bonds 1,350,000 1,250,000 311,140 1,330,000 Kyrene Booster Zone $2,000,000 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 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. 03-04 Source of Funds 03-04 Source of Funds 04-05 Source of Funds GO Bonds GO Bonds GO Bonds 04-05 Source of Funds 2,000,000 250,000 250,000 CAP Capital Charge $1,398,000 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 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. 03-04 Source of Funds 04-05 Source of Funds 03-04 Source of Funds 04-05 Source of Funds GO Bonds Development Development GO Bonds 233,000 233,000 150,000 150,000 STWTP: Capital Equipment Replacement $750,000 This project provides a funding mechanism to facilitate replacement of equipment at the South Tempe Water Treatment Plant (STWTP). Update Integrated Master Plan (IMP) $600,000 In 1999-2000 the Water Utility Department completed the first master planning effort for water, wastewater, stormwater, and flood irrigation. This project provides funding to facilitate the first update to the IMP on the recommended 3-year cycle. 03-04 Source of Funds 03-04 Source of Funds 04-05 Source of Funds GO Bonds 150,000 04-05 Source of Funds GO Bonds 300,000 n Wastewater Compound Meter Replacement $175,000 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. 91st Avenue WWTP (Wastewater Treatment Plant) $62,224,554 This project represents Tempe’s share of all activities at the 91st Avenue WWTP including: capacity expansion projects, equipment replacement, modifications and additions to meet regulatory requirements, process enhancements and rehabilitation of jointly owned 03-04 Source of Funds GO Bonds 175,000 03-04 Source of Funds Excise Bonds 9,446,936 GO Bonds 1,922,320 04-05 Source of Funds 04-05 Source of Funds GO Bonds 9,895,000 Excise Bonds 3,319,500 KWRF Expansion $33,187,356 This project provides funding to renovate the Kyrene Water Reclamation Facility (KWRF) to a 9 MGD membrane treatment Rural Road Influent Line to KWRF $2,958,000 This project upgrades the 30” diameter sewer that diverts flow from Rural Road to the Kyrene Water Reclamation Facility (KWRF) to a 42” 03-04 Source of Funds Excise Bonds 1,277,356 03-04 Source of Funds 04-05 Source of Funds Excise Bonds 15,955,000 04-05 Source of Funds Excise Bonds 2,958,000 Sewer Reconstruction $2,500,000 This project provides a recurring funding source to replace sewer lines that break during normal operation. SAI Diversion Structure $900,000 This project provides for the refinement of an existing design and construction of a diversion structure. This request will be jointly 03-04 Source of Funds 03-04 Source of Funds Excise Bonds 575,708 Development Fees 324,292 04-05 Source of Funds Excise Bonds 317,500 Development Fees 182,500 n 04-05 Source of Funds Golf Rural Road Sewer Replacement $162,000 This project provides funding to upgrade the 21” diameter sewer that conveys flow from Bel de Mar north on Rural Road to Guadalupe to a 36” diameter pipe. $1,560,000 Rolling Hills Irrigation System Replacement This project provides funds for the replacement of the irrigation system and for the replacement of turf with desert landscaping to reduce water consumption. 03-04 Source of Funds 03-04 Source of Funds Excise Bonds 120,000 04-05 Source of Funds Development Fees 162,000 n Golf Course Improvements $300,000 04-05 Source of Funds Excise Bonds 1,440,000 Cemetery Double Butte Cemetery Improvements and $2,395,000 This ongoing project provides funds for small annual renovation and improvement projects at both golf courses. This project provides funding for improvements and expansion of the Double Butte Cemetery based on the completed master plan as 03-04 Source of Funds Excise Bonds 50,000 03-04 Source of Funds Excise Bonds 225,000 n 04-05 Source of Funds Excise Bonds 50,000 04-05 Source of Funds Excise Bonds 770,000 Transit CP & EVLRT Rail Planning, Design & $282,727,000 Local Participation in Regional Transit $15,680,000 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. This project provides the local match for design and construction of a regional transit maintenance center in the east valley to serve transit contractors working for the Regional Public Transportation Authority, and other local cities. The center would provide adequate resources for 03-04 Source of Funds Excise Bonds 38,000,000 Transit Tax 16,640,000 FTA Grant 5,044,000 03-04 Source of Funds Federal Grants 480,000 04-05 Source of Funds Excise Bonds 30,000,000 FTA Grant 19,964,000 Transit Tax 16,159,000 04-05 Source of Funds Transit Tax 200,000 Transit Center $7,158,400 This project funds transit improvements, including the construction of two transit centers. Municipal Arts Program–Transit $3,136,684 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. 03-04 Source of Funds 04-05 Source of Funds 03-04 Source of Funds Transit Tax Transit Tax Transit Tax 400,000 5,476,200 04-05 Source of Funds 615,070 Transit Tax 765,592 Western Canal Multi-Use Path, Phase 2 $2,000,000 This project involves design and construction of a 1.5 mile segment of concrete off–street pathway that will include lighting, landscaping and art elements along the Western Canal from Baseline Road to the Ken McDonald Golf Course. Western Canal Multi-Use Path, Phase 3 $1,450,000 This project involves design and construction of a 1.5 mile segment of paved off– street pathway that will include lighting, landscaping and art elements along the Western Canal from Arizona Mills Mall to Baseline Road. 03-04 Source of Funds 03-04 Source of Funds 04-05 Source of Funds Federal Grants Western Canal Multi-Use Path, Phase 1 02-03 Source of Funds 1,6000,000 $1,250,000 Federal Grants Rio Salado S. Bank Multi-Use Path – Hardy/ 1,250,000 $943,000 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 Ken This project involves design and construction of a .5 mile long 12 foot wide path including lighting and landscaping on the south bank of the Rio Salado Town Lake between Hardy and Priest 03-04 Source of Funds 04-05 Source of Funds 03-04 Source of Funds Federal Grants Federal Grants 1,250,000 n 04-05 Source of Funds 943,000 Performing Arts College Ave: Apache/US 60 $60,000 This project will improve pedestrian facilities along College Avenue from Apache to the Superstition Freeway. Performing Arts Center $47,500,000 This project will produce the Tempe Center for the Arts located on the south shore of Tempe Town Lake. 03-04 Source of Funds 03-04 Source of Funds 04-05 Source of Funds Excise Bonds Excise Bonds 04-05 Source of Funds Transit Tax 60,000 n 1,463,320 23,807,768 Rio Salado Performing Arts Park $2,700,000 This project provides for developing plans and construction documents for an “Arts Park” to connect the Tempe Visual and Performing Arts Center with the Tempe Beach Park to the east. US Army Corps Match Money $954,635 This project provides the required balance of City of Tempe match and operating funds for the US Army Corps of Engineers Habitat Restoration Project. 03-04 Source of Funds 03-04 Source of Funds 04-05 Source of Funds 04-05 Source of Funds Fund Balance Performing Arts 400,000 Performing Arts 351,269 2,300,000 Rio Salado Ancillary Construction $525,000 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. Rio Salado Consultant Studies $375,000 This project provides funding to retain and administer consultant studies and participate in agreements to design improvements and monitor the Rio Salado Project. 03-04 Source of Funds 04-05 Source of Funds 03-04 Source of Funds Fund Balance Fund Balance Fund Balance 100,000 100,000 04-05 Source of Funds 100,000 Fund Balance 75,000 n n Police Apache Boulevard Property Facility/Police $19,883,064 Fire Fire Station for Southeast Quadrant $2,861,814 This project funds the construction of a new Substation and Property & Evidence Storage Facility to meet the Police Department’s projected needs for the next 10 years. This project will provide funding to build a two bay fire station in the southeast quadrant. 03-04 Source of Funds 04-05 Source of Funds 03-04 Source of Funds GO Bonds GO Bonds GO Bonds 794,300 6,715,950 n 04-05 Source of Funds 600,000 Storm Drains Radio Replacement for Conversion to 800 MHz $1,300,000 This project provides for the City of Tempe’s share of the infrastructure costs of converting the Fire Department’s radios to 800 MHz radio frequency, as required by the Federal Communications Commission. 03-04 Source of Funds 04-05 Source of Funds Storm Drains $1,350,000 This project provides for the construction of minor storm drain extensions to relieve localized problems for replacement and/or upgrades associated with various stormwater retention facilities. GO Bonds W/WW Fund n 1,300,000 03-04 Source of Funds 04-05 Source of Funds 200,000 W/WW Fund 200,000 Park Improvements/Recreation North Side Multi-Generational Center $1,895,000 This request provides funding for the construction of the North Tempe Multi–Generational Center. This facility will be similar to the Westside and the Escalante Facility. Neighborhood Park Improvements $1,500,000 This ongoing project provides for the renovation and redevelopment of neighborhood parks with playground equipment, picnic equipment, landscaping, concrete replacement/installation, and sand. 03-04 Source of Funds 03-04 Source of Funds 04-05 Source of Funds GO Bonds 1,895,000 GO Bonds 04-05 Source of Funds 250,000 GO Bonds 250,000 Cole & Rotary Park Playgrounds $1,075,000 This project provides funding for improvements to playgrounds at Cole & Rotary Parks. These improvements were promised by Council in exchange for the impacts on these parks caused by the construction of an accessible pedestrian/bicycle bridge over US 60 by the Arizona Department of Transportation. Sports Facility Relamping $360,000 This project provides for the continued funding of a maintenance program for our sports facilities’ lighting needs. 03-04 Source of Funds 03-04 Source of Funds Transit Tax GO Bonds 04-05 Source of Funds 675,000 400,000 GO Bonds 04-05 Source of Funds 60,000 GO Bonds 60,000 Kiwanis Park Pump Station Replacement $310,000 This project provides funding to adequately water the turf, trees and landscaping throughout Kiwanis Park. Mitchell School Acquisition $260,000 This project provides for the annual payment for the acquisition of the Mitchell Park site. 03-04 Source of Funds 03-04 Source of Funds GO Bonds 04-05 Source of Funds 04-05 Source of Funds 310,000 Transfer from n 130,000 Transfer from 130,000 Park Improvements/Public Works Pyle Adult Recreation Center $48,000 This project provides funding for modifications and improvements to enhance services at the recreation center. Various Park Landscaping/Improvements $300,000 This project provides funding to improve the softball, baseball, and multi-use sports fields. 03-04 Source of Funds 03-04 Source of Funds GO Bonds 04-05 Source of Funds 48,000 GO Bonds 04-05 Source of Funds 50,000 GO Bonds 50,000 n General Governmental AWA 1st Street Redevelopment $4,911,000 City PC Software Environmental Upgrade $2,000,000 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 This project provides funding to upgrade the City’s software from Windows 95/97 to Windows 2000. 03-04 Source of Funds 03-04 Source of Funds Transfer from Other 04-05 Source of Funds 730,000 Transfer from Municipal Arts Program 730,000 $1,976,502 Fund Balance 04-05 Source of Funds 500,000 Other Reserve City Facilities Rehabilitation 500,000 $1,800,000 This project provides for the various Municipal Arts projects as determined by the Municipal Arts Commission and the City Council. This project provides for the rehabilitation and repair of City owned properties. This rehabilitation includes roofing repairs, facility painting, structural modifications, lighting improvements, 03-04 Source of Funds 04-05 Source of Funds 03-04 Source of Funds W/WW Fund W/WW Fund 345,243 Neighborhood Improvement Program 521,445 $1,350,000 Other Revenue 04-05 Source of Funds 300,000 Other Revenue Digital Infrastructure 300,000 $1,350,000 This project provides funding for small projects in Tempe neighborhoods. Such projects would include landscaping, security This project provides funding to upgrade and enhance the telecommunications network infrastructure providing increased 03-04 Source of Funds 03-04 Source of Funds Other Revenue 04-05 Source of Funds 225,000 Other Revenue Downtown Public Parking 225,000 $1,200,000 Other Revenue 04-05 Source of Funds 225,000 Other Revenue Leased Office Space 225,000 $1,042,000 This project provides funding for operations and lease payments on private parking facilities which the City has leased or purchased parking rights for use as public parking in the downtown. This project provides 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 03-04 Source of Funds 03-04 Source of Funds Transfer from Other 04-05 Source of Funds 200,000 Transfer from Other Historic Properties Preservation 200,000 $240,000 Transfer from 04-05 Source of Funds 167,000 Transfer from HVAC Equipment Replacement 175,000 $225,000 This project provides funding to preserve the structural and aesthetic This project will provide funding to replace heating, ventilation, 03-04 Source of Funds 03-04 Source of Funds Other Revenue 04-05 Source of Funds 65,000 Other Revenue 35,000 Other Revenue n Energy Upgrade and Retrofit $192,000 04-05 Source of Funds 50,000 Other Revenue 35,000 Transp. & R.O.W. Local and Major Street Reconstruction $10,189,421 This project provides funding to improve energy efficiency throughout the city and reduce power utility bills. This project will provide for the reconstruction or resurfacing of local and major streets throughout the City in accordance with the 03-04 Source of Funds 03-04 Source of Funds Other Revenue 04-05 Source of Funds 32,000 Other Revenue 32,000 G.O. Bonds 04-05 Source of Funds 200,000 GO Bonds 1,768,547 Playa del Norte / Miller Road Widening I.D. $7,182,900 This project provides funding for the acquisition of right-of-way and the construction of Miller Road south of Curry Road and through the Playa del Norte Redevelopment Project to connect to Rural Road. Local Street Renovation $5,664,847 This project will provide for sealing local streets throughout the City in accordance with the City’s Pavement Program. 03-04 Source of Funds 03-04 Source of Funds 04-05 Source of Funds G.O. Bonds G.O. Bonds I.D. Bonds G.O. Bonds 04-05 Source of Funds 5,622,900 1,560,000 200,000 1,094,161 Major Street Renovation $5,802,708 This project will provide for the sealing of arterial and collector streets throughout the City in accordance with the City’s Pavement Program. Minor Concrete Improvements $1,950,000 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 to close small gaps at various 03-04 Source of Funds 04-05 Source of Funds 03-04 Source of Funds 04-05 Source of Funds G.O. Bonds G.O. Bonds G.O. Bonds G.O. Bonds 265,821 1,577,230 325,000 325,000 Playa del Norte / Rural Road Widening I.D. $1,640,300 This project provides funding for the widening of Rural Road and the creation of a signalized intersection in conjunction with the Playa del Norte Redevelopment Project. Neighborhood Transportation Management $1,000,000 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 03-04 Source of Funds 03-04 Source of Funds G.O. Bonds I.D. Bonds 04-05 Source of Funds 935,000 705,300 04-05 Source of Funds G.O. Bonds 200,000 City Facilities Parking Lots $719,945 This project will provide for the sealing, resurfacing, and reconstruction of City parking lots in accordance with the City’s Pavement Program. Bridge Maintenance $600,000 This project provides funds for maintenance and rehabilitation of bridges located throughout Tempe as identified in the City’s Bridge Inspection Report. 03-04 Source of Funds 04-05 Source of Funds 03-04 Source of Funds 04-05 Source of Funds G.O. Bonds G.O. Bonds G.O. Bonds G.O. Bonds 88,461 215,560 100,000 100,000 Various Street Landscaping $450,000 This project will provide funding to continue improvement of various street rights-of–way and public properties by installation of upgraded landscaping. Major Street Renovation $5,802,708 This project provides ongoing preventative maintenance of major arterial and collector streets throughout the City in accordance with the City’s Pavement Program. 03-04 Source of Funds 04-05 Source of Funds 03-04 Source of Funds 04-05 Source of Funds G.O. Bonds G.O. Bonds G.O. Bonds G.O. Bonds 75,000 75,000 265,821 1,577,230 Minor Street and Alley Improvements $240,000 This project provides funding for the improvement or dust control of minor streets and alleys throughout the City, including paving unpaved streets or upgrading of substandard minor streets to City Rural Road/Western Canal Drainage $145,000 The project provides funds to modify drainage, landscape, and replace the masonry wall on the west side of Rural Road north of the Western Canal. 03-04 Source of Funds 04-05 Source of Funds 03-04 Source of Funds G.O. Bonds G.O. Bonds 40,000 40,000 G.O. Bonds 145,000 04-05 Source of Funds n Traffic Signals/ Street Lighting Utility Undergrounding $1,950,000 New Signals/ Modular Upgrades $1,920,000 This project will provide for the undergrounding of overhead utility lines. This project provides for the installation of new traffic signals as warranted or for the conversion of existing signals to modular standards. 03-04 Source of Funds 04-05 Source of Funds 03-04 Source of Funds 04-05 Source of Funds HURF FB G.O. Bonds HURF FB GO Bonds 300,000 Streetlight Upgrades/ New Installs 300,000 $1,800,000 320,000 Installation of ADA Pedestrian Push Buttons 320,000 $150,000 This project provides for the installation of new street lights at various locations as well as the upgrading of streetlights from mercury vapor luminaries to high pressure luminaries. This purpose of this project is to convert existing or install new accessible pedestrian push buttons at traffic signal controlled intersections. 03-04 Source of Funds 04-05 Source of Funds 03-04 Source of Funds 04-05 Source of Funds HURF FB G.O. Bonds HURF FB G.O. Bonds 300,000 300,000 25,000 25,000 Relationship Between Operating and Capital Budgets The City of Tempe prepares a separate Capital The following table shows the estimated impact of the Budget from the Operating Budget, but the two Capital Budget on the Operating Budget is $69.7 million budgets are closely linked. The Capital in FY 2003-04 and $85.2 million in FY 2004-05. This Improvements Program (CIP), as distinguished includes debt service costs incurred from long-term from the Operating Budget, is a multi-year financial financing of capital projects approved this year and in plan for the acquisition, expansion, or rehabilitation prior years, operating and maintenance costs directly of infrastructure, capital assets, or productive related to new capital projects, and “pay-as-you-go” capacity of City services. Capital projects typically financing of capital projects. apply to: (1) expenditures that take place over two or more years, requiring continuing appropriations As part of the FY 2003-05 Capital Improvements beyond a single fiscal year; (2) funding with debt Program, departments were asked to identify those because of significant costs to be shared by current and future FY 2003-05 Operating Budget Impacts beneficiaries; (3) systematic Fiscal Year acquisition over an extended period of time; and (4) scheduled replacement Special Purpose or maintenance of specific elements of Performing Arts Performing Arts Center $30,000 $333,000 physical assets. Total Special Purpose 30,000 346,632 Revenues for the Capital Budget Enterprise derive primarily from General Water Kyrene Booster Zone 22,565 22,565 Obligation bond sales, long and shortterm loans, development fees, and $46,915 $62,640 some current revenues. The Capital Total Enterprise Budget, unlike the Operating Budget, Total Program $76,915 $409,27 is a six-year plan that is updated every two years. Only those projects scheduled during capital projects that have an impact on the operating the first two years of the plan are financed and budget. Operating impacts include those costs adopted as part of the City’s Biennial Budget. associated with supplies and services, electricity, and maintenance. The property tax rate will remain at $1.35 per $100 assessed valuation. No property tax The table above summarizes the projected impact of increase is necessary to fund debt service the capital improvement plan on the City’s operating requirements of the FY 2003-05 Capital Budget. budget for FY 2003-04 and FY 2004-05. Total operating impacts from the Special Purpose Program are estimated at $30,000 in 2003-04 and $346,632 in Total Impact of Capital Budget 2004-05, with the majority ($30,000) and ($330,000) associated with miscellaneous fees and services for the 2003-04 2004-05 Performing Arts Center. The remainder provides for Existing Debt $24,569,738 $34,523,888 landscape maintenance for the Western Canal MutiNew Debt Use Path. Enterprise Special Revenue Transportation General Purpose O&M by Project Total 3,094,709 8,019,167 1,213,025 1,507,941 76,915 3,764,142 3,986,121 523,107 1,433,661 409,272 $69,728,808 $85,157,428 Operating budget impacts from Water projects funded in the Enterprise Capital Program total $46,915 in fiscal year 2003-04 and $62,640 in fiscal year 2004-05. These amounts funds supplies, electricity, contracted services, and equipment and machinery repair for the Kyrene Booster Zone Project and the construction of Capital Budget, Debt Service and Property Tax Rate: Ten Year Historical Trends Fiscal Year Budgeted Capital Debt Service Net Improvements Outstanding Requirements Secondary Program Principal Debt P&I Assessed Value % Change in Secondary Assessed Property Tax Rate ($) Primary Secondary Total 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 85,541,430 205,950,000 26,675,235 1,456,361,617 7.4 .53 .82 1.35 2002-03 130,638,313 252,480,000 23,996,164 1,556,492,294 6.9 .52 .83 1.35 2003-04 (est.) 117,968,707 375,212,960 39,191,569 1,688,452,415 8.5 .55 .80 1.35 2004-05 (est.) 176,983,222 455,043,401 43,555,527 1,755,990,512 4.0 .55 .80 1.35 Summary: (1) The increase in the Capital Budget from $35 million in FY 1996-97 to $80 million in FY 1997-98 is principally due to the addition of the Transit and Rio Salado capital programs; the increase from $86 to $177 million between FY 200102 and FY 2004-05 primarily comes from the addition of light-rail construction within the Transit program, an expanded Water/Wastewater capital program, and the building of the Performing Arts Center; and (2) the City decreased the property tax rate from $1.40 to $1.35 in FY 2000-01, with no change planned in FY 2003-04 or FY 200405. 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. § § § 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. Debt service schedules will be based upon level annual principal and interest payments. Capital improvement operating budget impacts will be coordinated with the development of the Operating Budget. 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.) Bonded Debt Limits Summary, July 1, 2003 and July 1, 2004 FY 2003-04 6% Bond Limit 1 Outstanding Bonded Debt Previously Issued by City $101,307,145 $337,690,483 $105,359,431 $351,198,103 (61,165,000) (120,905,000) (57,667,000) (113,005,000) 0 0 0 (5,940,000) (12,550,000) (200,000) (1,795,000) 0 0 0 0 (13,060,000) (18,985,000) (115,000) (2,255,000) 0 $34,202,145 $202,240,483 $34,632,431 $216,838,103 Proposed Bonds to be Sold in FY 2003-05 Water/Wastewater Storm Drains Park Improvements All Others Debt Margin Available Under Arizona law , 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 2 1 2 20% FY 2004-05 6% 20% 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 FY 2003-04 is based upon an estimated secondary assessed value of $1,688,452,415, compared to the FY 2002-03 secondary assessed value of $1,556,492,294. FY 2004-05 is based upon an estimated secondary assessed value of $1,755,990,512. Article 9, Section 8 – Arizona Constitution Debt Service Schedule FY 2003-04 Original Issue General Purpose Existing Debt: 1993A General Obligation 1994 General Obligation 1995 General Obligation 1997 General Obligation 1998 General Obligation 1998A General Obligation 1999 Certificates of Participation 2000A $17.310 Excise Tax 2001A General Obligation 2002A General Obligation 2002R General Obligation Total Existing Debt 2003 Planned New Debt: General Obligation 2004 Planned New Debt: General Obligation Total General Purpose Streets Existing Debt: 1993A General Obligation 1994 General Obligation 1995 General Obligation 1997 General Obligation 1998 General Obligation 1998A General Obligation 2001A General Obligation 2002A General Obligation 2002R General Obligation Total Existing Debt 2003 Planned New Debt: General Obligation 2004 Planned New Debt: General Obligation Total Streets Performing Arts Existing Debt: 2002 Excise Tax 2004 Planned New Debt: Excise Tax Total Performing Arts Outstanding 7-1-03 Direct Principal Direct Interest 3,850,000 4,000,000 5,600,000 4,000,000 4,035,000 10,500,000 5,110,000 7,743,500 3,300,000 4,330,000 3,250,000 55,718,500 2,110,000 2,865,000 4,160,000 3,215,000 3,230,000 8,525,000 3,335,000 6,635,000 3,115,000 4,195,000 2,890,000 44,275,000 775,000 175,000 260,000 165,000 30,000 405,000 495,000 255,000 100,000 145,000 330,000 3,135,000 108,150 42,000 216,325 173,732 152,665 394,950 155,940 352,326 158,300 186,244 124,443 2,065,075 10,460,000 10,460,000 316,337 523,000 5,600,000 5,600,000 71,778,500 60,335,000 160,604 3,611,941 308,000 2,896,075 Fiscal Agent 2003-04 Total Payments Requirements 35,000 35,000 883,150 217,000 476,325 338,732 182,665 799,950 650,940 607,326 258,300 331,244 489,443 5,235,075 839,337 200,000 235,000 668,604 6,743,016 4,800,000 3,500,000 9,400,000 4,500,000 3,390,000 9,500,000 6,700,000 3,670,000 2,755,000 4,475,000 2,500,000 6,950,000 3,620,000 2,715,000 7,720,000 6,330,000 3,555,000 2,465,000 1,465,000 150,000 435,000 185,000 25,000 370,000 205,000 120,000 275,000 232,195 36,638 361,350 195,618 128,343 357,650 321,623 157,925 106,225 1,697,195 186,638 796,350 380,618 153,343 727,650 526,623 277,925 381,225 48,215,000 40,330,000 3,230,000 1,897,567 5,127,567 8,860,000 8,860,000 267,949 443,000 710,949 6,000,000 8,860,000 172,076 330,000 502,076 63,075,000 58,050,000 3,670,025 2,670,567 6,340,592 15,500,000 15,500,000 555,000 738,015 1,293,015 47,500,000 63,000,000 47,500,000 63,000,000 1,759,494 2,314,494 2,612,500 3,350,515 150,000 150,000 4,521,994 5,815,009 Original Issue Outstanding 7-1-03 Direct Principal Direct Interest Fiscal Agent 2003-04 Total Payments Requirements Rio Salado (CFD) Existing Debt: 2003 Rio Salado Refunding 39,275,000 39,275,000 1,340,000 1,749,742 110,000 3,199,742 39,275,000 39,275,000 1,340,000 1,749,742 110,000 3,199,742 40,000,000 40,000,000 1,147,173 2,200,000 150,000 3,497,173 40,000,000 40,000,000 1,147,173 2,200,000 150,000 3,497,173 1,400,000 520,000 120,000 29,675 3,000 152,675 170,000 170,000 4,875 9,350 1,500 15,725 1,570,000 690,000 124,875 39,025 4,500 168,400 8,655,000 8,285,000 2,795,000 429,353 3,224,353 1994 General Obligation 6,500,000 4,655,000 280,000 67,988 347,988 1995 General Obligation 11,300,000 8,355,000 520,000 434,375 954,375 1997 General Obligation 6,000,000 4,830,000 240,000 261,004 501,004 1998 General Obligation 5,330,000 4,270,000 35,000 201,855 236,855 1998A General Obligation 17,500,000 14,210,000 680,000 658,375 1,338,375 2001A General Obligation 14,000,000 13,215,000 430,000 671,388 1,101,388 2002A General Obligation 14,000,000 13,560,000 460,000 602,163 1,062,163 2001R General Obligation 5,040,000 4,540,000 490,000 195,808 71,000 756,808 Total Existing Debt 88,325,000 75,920,000 5,930,000 3,522,309 71,000 9,523,309 2003 Planned New Debt: General Obligation 25,500,000 25,500,000 771,186 1,275,000 General Obligation 12,750,000 12,750,000 365,661 701,250 125,000 1,191,911 Excise Tax Obligations 35,600,000 35,600,000 1,020,984 1,958,000 100,000 3,078,984 Total Water/Wastewater Fund 162,175,000 149,770,000 8,087,831 7,456,559 296,000 15,840,390 TOTAL ALL ISSUES 440,873,500 411,120,000 20,296,339 20,362,483 945,500 41,604,322 Total Rio Salado (CFD) Transit 2004 Planned New Debt: Excise Tax Total Transit Golf Enterprise Existing Debt: 1993 Tempe Municipal Prop. 2004 Planned New Debt: Excise Tax Obligations Total Golf Enterprise Water/Wastewater Enterprise Existing Debt: 1993A General Obligation 2,046,186 2004 Planned New Debt: FY 2004-05 Original Issue General Purpose Existing Debt: 1993A General Obligation 1994 General Obligation 1995 General Obligation 1997 General Obligation 1998 General Obligation 1998A General Obligation 1999 Certificates of Participation 2000A $17.310 Excise Tax 2001A General Obligation 2002A General Obligation 2002R General Obligation Total Existing Debt 2003 Planned New Debt: General Obligation 2004 Planned New Debt: General Obligation 2005 Planned New Debt: General Obligation Total General Purpose Streets Existing Debt: 1993A General Obligation 1994 General Obligation 1995 General Obligation 1997 General Obligation 1998 General Obligation 1998A General Obligation 2001A General Obligation 2002A General Obligation 2002R General Obligation Total Existing Debt 2003 Planned New Debt: General Obligation 2004 Planned New Debt: General Obligation 2005 Planned New Debt: General Obligation Total Streets Rio Salado (CFD) Existing Debt: 2003 Rio Salado Refunding Total Rio Salado (CFD) Outstanding 7-1-04 Direct Principal Direct Interest Fiscal Agent 2004-05 Total Payments Requirements 3,850,000 4,000,000 5,600,000 4,000,000 4,035,000 10,500,000 5,110,000 7,743,500 3,300,000 4,330,000 3,215,000 55,683,500 1,335,000 575,000 3,900,000 3,050,000 3,200,000 8,120,000 3,335,000 6,635,000 3,015,000 4,050,000 2,560,000 39,775,000 440,000 180,000 275,000 175,000 30,000 425,000 520,000 265,000 110,000 150,000 345,000 2,915,000 69,400 30,188 199,425 162,830 151,375 372,675 134,160 339,895 152,300 181,169 112,068 1,905,485 35,000 75,000 509,400 240,188 484,425 337,830 181,375 797,675 654,160 604,895 262,300 331,169 492,068 4,895,485 10,460,000 10,460,000 332,154 507,183 105,000 944,337 5,600,000 5,600,000 169,437 299,167 14,150,000 85,893,500 14,150,000 69,985,000 384,661 3,801,252 849,000 3,560,835 4,800,000 3,500,000 9,400,000 4,500,000 3,390,000 9,500,000 6,700,000 3,670,000 2,755,000 48,215,000 4,475,000 2,500,000 6,950,000 3,620,000 2,715,000 7,720,000 6,330,000 3,555,000 2,465,000 40,330,000 430,000 160,000 455,000 190,000 25,000 385,000 220,000 125,000 285,000 2,275,000 158,945 26,513 333,075 183,384 127,268 337,300 309,323 153,725 95,913 1,725,446 588,945 186,513 788,075 373,384 152,268 722,300 529,323 278,725 380,913 4,000,446 8,860,000 8,860,000 281,347 429,603 710,950 6,000,000 6,000,000 181,540 320,536 502,076 6,000,000 6,000,000 163,107 360,000 523,107 69,075,000 61,190,000 2,900,994 2,835,585 5,736,579 39,275,000 39,275,000 39,275,000 39,275,000 1,365,000 1,365,000 1,722,942 1,722,942 30,000 10,000 468,604 200,000 380,000 110,000 110,000 1,433,661 7,742,087 3,197,942 3,197,942 Original Issue Outstanding 7-1-04 Direct Principal Direct Interest Fiscal Agent 2004-05 Total Payments Requirements Performing Arts Existing Debt: 2002 Excise Tax 2004 Planned New Debt: Excise Tax Total Performing Arts Transit 2004 Planned New Debt: Excise Tax 2005 Planned New Debt: Excise Tax 15,500,000 15,500,000 585,000 708,273 1,293,273 47,500,000 63,000,000 47,500,000 63,000,000 1,856,266 2,441,266 2,515,728 3,224,001 4,371,994 5,665,267 40,000,000 40,000,000 1,210,268 2,136,905 150,000 3,497,173 44,000,000 44,000,000 1,196,121 2,640,000 150,000 3,986,121 84,000,000 84,000,000 2,406,389 4,776,905 300,000 7,483,294 1,400,000 520,000 125,000 23,015 3,000 151,015 170,000 170,000 5,144 9,082 1,500 15,726 1,490,000 1,490,000 40,505 89,400 3,000 132,905 3,060,000 2,180,000 170,649 121,497 7,500 299,646 Existing Debt: 1993A General Obligation 8,655,000 8,285,000 880,000 289,603 1,169,603 1994 General Obligation 6,500,000 4,655,000 295,000 49,088 344,088 1995 General Obligation 11,300,000 8,355,000 545,000 400,575 945,575 1997 General Obligation 6,000,000 4,830,000 250,000 245,052 495,052 Total Transit Golf Enterprise Existing Debt: 1993 Tempe Municipal Prop. 2004 Planned New Debt: Excise Tax Obligations 2005 Planned New Debt: Excise Tax Obligations Total Golf Enterprise Water/Wastewater Enterprise 1998 General Obligation 5,330,000 4,270,000 40,000 200,350 240,350 1998A General Obligation 2001A General Obligation 17,500,000 14,000,000 14,210,000 13,215,000 710,000 455,000 620,975 645,588 1,330,975 1,100,588 2002A General Obligation 14,000,000 13,560,000 480,000 586,063 2001R General Obligation 5,040,000 4,540,000 515,000 177,433 71,000 763,433 88,325,000 75,920,000 4,170,000 3,214,727 71,000 7,455,727 25,500,000 25,500,000 809,745 1,236,441 125,000 2,171,186 General Obligation 12,750,000 12,750,000 385,773 681,139 1,066,912 Excise Tax Obligations 35,600,000 35,600,000 1,077,138 1,901,846 2,978,984 General Obligation 19,100,000 19,100,000 519,225 1,146,000 1,665,225 Excise Tax Obligations 22,550,000 22,550,000 613,012 1,353,000 1,966,012 Total Existing Debt 1,066,063 2003 Planned New Debt: General Obligation 2004 Planned New Debt: 2005 Planned New Debt: Total Water/Wastewater Fund 203,825,000 191,420,000 7,574,893 9,533,153 196,000 17,304,046 TOTAL ALL ISSUES 548,128,500 511,050,000 20,660,443 25,774,918 993,500 47,428,861 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 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 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 5 -'9 4 9 ' Fiscal Year 6 -'9 9' 5 7 -'9 9' 6 8 9 0 -'9 -'9 -'0 7 8 9 9 9 9 ' ' ' Primary Tax Levy Primary Secondary 1 2 3 -'0 -'0 -'0 0 1 2 0 0 0 ' ' ' Secondary Tax Levy Total 4 -'0 0' 3 5 -'0 0' 4 Tax Rate/ $100 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 6,879,783 11,615,100 18,414,400 1.35 2001-02 7,169,352 11,695,228 18,864,580 1.35 2002-03* 7,291,549 12,897,095 20,188,644 1.35 2003-04* 8,628,551 13,554,896 22,176,447 1.35 2004-05* 8,880,197 13,682,500 22,562,697 1.35 * Amounts reflect estimated receipts. Citywide Overview Total Operating Budget and Debt Service Budget Data 2001-02 Budget 2002-03 Revised Operating Budget $234,015,370 $232,846,185 Cost Per Capita % Change (cost per capita) $1,468 $1,461 (0.5%) $247,565,261 $1,545 5.8% $256,761,144 $1,595 3.2% Debt Service* Cost Per Capita % Change (cost per capita) * Tax-Supported 11,224,317 $70 11,518,082 $72 2.6% 13,083,608 $82 13.0% 13,478,666 $84 2.5% 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget Total Operating Revenue by Source Source General Fund Debt Service Fund Transportation/Transit Funds CDBG/Section 8 Funds Rio Salado Fund Performing Arts Fund Enterprise Funds Total 2001-02 Actual 2002-03 Revised $124,179,570 $121,347,593 $121,825,963 $123,539,542 12,469,683 13,532,251 14,209,096 14,356,300 43,864,795 7,576,041 43,984,846 11,480,214 45,488,162 10,817,663 46,476,983 10,817,663 1,302,852 5,189,104 56,772,176 $251,354,221 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget 877,663 856,800 896,750 5,471,540 5,428,500 5,533,300 58,559,768 58,055,364 58,506,335 $255,253,875 $256,681,548 $260,126,873 Staffing Summaries Citywide: Full-Time Authorized Positions Source Total Personnel Employees/1,000 Population % Change (Employees/1,000 Population) 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget 1,722 1,692 1,643 1,643 10.8 10.6 10.3 10.2 (1.9%) (2.8%) 1.0% 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. Transportation now consumes the greatest share of program expenditures. For FY 2003-04, Transportation represents the majority of resources consuming 30% of the budget and reflecting the commitment to construct the transit light rail project. Environmental Health constitutes 25% of total program expenditures. This program reflects funding for capacity expansions for water and wastewater. For FY 2004-05, Transportation comprises 29% of the total program budget. Again, this is principally due to funding for transit light rail. Environmental Health reflects 26% of the budget, largely driven by Thousands 500 & Per Capita (Thousands) & & & & & & & & & 170 150 130 400 110 300 90 70 200 50 30 100 10 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 General Services Development Services Public Safety 2002 2003 2004 2005 Historically, the majority of resources have been earmarked for Environmental Health and Public Safety. In the new biennium, Transportation will receive the most funding, reflecting the commitment to con- Environmental Health Community Services Transportation & Per Capita Program (thousands) FYE 96 FYE 97 FYE 98 FYE 99 FYE 00 FYE 01 FYE 02 FYE 03 General Services 20,925 25,881 25,096 25,138 27,024 28,427 44,517 37,819 40,947 41,566 Development Services 15,698 20,172 29,563 37,949 20,483 21,842 35,036 21,958 20,203 20,443 Public Safety 47,943 44,271 49,853 50,509 58,040 63,479 66,277 66,618 67,427 72,844 Environmental Health 53,224 53,542 64,665 64,472 72,022 69,586 73,406 127,686 Community Services 26,166 32,027 32,982 32,138 43,320 36,232 37,070 37,544 Transportation 21,736 20,032 44,186 67,905 62,624 50,508 63,251 67,055 108,633 124,042 185,692 195,925 246,345 278,111 283,513 270,074 319,557 358,680 365,534 433,744 Total FYE 04 FYE 05 92,473 111,785 35,850 63,065 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 2003-04, the total per capita operating cost is $2,282. In this fiscal year, for every $1 of expenditure, 30¢ is earmarked for Transportation, 25¢ for Environmental Health and the remainder for Public Safety, Community Services, and Development Services. In FY 2004-05, the total per capita operating cost is $2,693, with Transportation and Environmental Health accounting for 55¢ of every $1 of expenditure. In the two fiscal years, Transportation and Environmental Health represent the greatest areas of expense. The increase in Transportation is primarily due to construction of a light rail transit corridor. Environmental compliance modifications and additional treatment plant capacity continue to impact enterprise operations resulting in increasing wastewater costs. FY 2003-04 General Services FY 2004-05 Community Services Transportation Environmental Health Environmental Health Public Safety Community Services Transportation General Services $258 Development Services Public Safety Development Services Per Capita Expenditures Program General Services FY 2003-04 $256 Percentage 11% FY 2004-05 $258 Percentage 9% Development Services 126 6% 127 5% Public Safety 421 18% 452 17% Environmental Health 577 25% 694 26% Community Services 224 10% 392 14% Transportation 678 30% 770 29% $2,282 100% $2,693 100% Total Operating Expenditures Program By Fund Summary In both years of the biennium, Transportation represents the greatest expense, primarily attributed to the engineering and construction of the light rail transit corridor. Environmental Health, the second greatest expense, reflects capacity expansion projects and water/wastewater improvements. Fund General General Services $25,427,607 Rio Salado Development Services Public Safety EnvironCommunity mental Health Services Transportation FY 2003-04 $7,350,932 $64,732,798 $1,492,827 1,104,185 Total $22,821,800 $121,825,963 376,436 1,480,621 HURF 8,082,560 8,082,560 Transit 27,221,366 27,221,366 Debt Service 13,083,608 13,083,608 Performing Arts 6,215,657 6,215,657 Golf 2,279,870 2,279,870 Solid Waste Water Utilities CDBG/Section 8 Total Capital TOTAL General 301,595 10,592,902 10,592,902 45,663,455 45,965,050 10,817,664 10,817,664 38,812,810 19,272,781 64,732,798 57,749,184 31,693,763 35,303,925 247,565,261 2,134,243 930,000 2,694,300 34,724,292 4,156,320 73,329,552 117,968,707 $20,202,781 $67,427,098 $92,473,476 $35,850,083 $108,633,477 $365,533,968 FY 2004-05 $7,577,884 $66,128,476 $1,538,028 $23,336,837 $123,539,540 376,436 1,493,950 $40,947,053 $24,958,317 Rio Salado 1,117,514 HURF 8,220,667 8,220,667 Transit 32,155,626 32,155,626 Debt Service 13,478,666 13,478,666 Performing Arts 6,378,147 6,378,147 Golf 2,464,592 2,464,592 Solid Waste Water Utilities 310,277 CDBG/Section 8 10,515,727 10,515,727 47,386,287 47,696,565 10,817,664 10,817,664 Total 38,747,260 19,513,062 59,440,042 32,556,012 40,376,293 256,761,144 Capital 2,818,445 930,000 52,344,500 30,509,037 83,665,290 176,983,222 $111,784,542 $63,065,049 $124,041,583 $433,744,366 TOTAL $41,565,705 $20,443,062 $72,844,426 Program By Department Summary Department General Services Development Services Public Safety Environmental Community Transportation Health Services Total FY 2003-04 Mayor & Council City Manager Community Relations City Clerk City Court Human Resources City Attorney Financial Services Diversity Program Internal Audit Development Svcs. Economic Dev/Rio Police Fire Community Services Water Utilities Public Works TOTAL DEPT Non-Departmental Debt Service Contingency TOTAL Capital ImproveTOTAL $374,066 269,047 2,618,742 669,770 15,840,390 1,000,000 $374,066 269,047 2,618,742 669,770 3,077,668 Public Works represents 28% 2,000,755 of the total General Services 2,472,744 program, while Police com5,678,553 prises 71% of the total Public 430,513 412,235 17,664,321 1,780,218 46,266,000 15,389,129 17,805,901 17,805,901 27,134,575 7,904,453 31,357,520 57,015,043 25,710,354 31,357,520 201,059,280 4,652,168 5,983,409 3,497,173 38,404,580 449,232 3,449,232 57,749,184 34,724,292 31,693,763 4,156,320 35,303,925 247,565,261 73,329,552 117,968,707 $92,473,476 $35,850,083 $108,633,477 $365,533,968 3,077,668 2,000,755 2,472,744 3,990,063 430,513 412,235 676,033 1,688,490 16,552,267 1,104,185 1,112,054 46,266,000 15,389,129 5,163,066 19,077,034 4,652,168 13,083,608 2,000,000 1,616,329 19,272,781 38,812,810 2,134,243 19,272,781 930,000 $40,947,053 $20,202,781 64,732,798 64,732,798 2,694,300 $67,427,098 27,134,575 10,973,675 40,908,795 FY 2004-05 Mayor & Council City Manager Community Relations City Clerk City Court Human Resources City Attorney Financial Services Diversity Program Internal Audit Development Svcs Economic Dev/Rio Police Fire Community Svcs Water Utilities Public Works TOTAL DEPT Non-Departmental Debt Service Contingency TOTAL Capital ImproveTOTAL $378,595 272,501 2,676,742 454,343 3,164,527 2,033,308 2,622,146 4,060,887 439,402 423,772 768,137 Community Services comprises 70% of the total Community program budget, while Water Utilities comprises 66% of the total Environmental pro- 1,735,780 16,716,083 1,117,514 1,148,645 47,325,529 15,638,421 18,486,419 5,285,106 19,414,939 4,740,702 13,478,666 1,112,952 1,679,466 19,513,062 38,747,260 2,818,445 19,513,062 930,000 $41,565,705 66,128,476 66,128,476 6,715,950 27,346,461 10,905,110 41,135,996 8,104,680 26,591,099 32,443,767 32,443,767 17,304,046 1,000,000 5,964,913 7,483,294 449,232 59,440,042 52,344,500 32,556,012 30,509,037 $20,443,062 $72,844,426 $111,784,542 $63,065,049 $378,595 272,501 2,676,742 454,343 3,164,527 2,033,308 2,622,146 5,796,667 439,402 423,772 17,864,728 1,885,651 47,325,529 15,638,421 18,486,419 27,346,461 58,418,129 205,227,340 4,740,702 44,230,919 2,562,182 40,376,293 256,761,144 83,665,290 176,983,222 $124,041,582 $433,744,366 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 2003-04 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 solid waste. Water, sewer and solid waste rates will continue phased-in increases. Rate reviews for each of the utility services will continue annually. Local Taxes Sales Tax Tempe voters 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 2003-04 tax rate is $1.35/$100 of assessed valuation, unchanged from the prior year. The primary tax rate is $0.55 and the secondary tax rate is $0.80. Utility Charges for Services Water/Sewer Water rates increased by 2% effective November 1, 2001 and November 1, 2002, while sewer rates increased by 3% and 2% respectively. Rates will be adjusted again 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 were last adjusted in July of 1997 to address irrigation rehabilitation needs. Solid Waste A fee adjustment to solid waste rates is proposed for January 1, 2004. Our last fee adjustment of 9.5% for residential rates and 5.0% for commercial rates was implemented January 1, 2003. Utility Charges for Services (monthly) 1 Local Taxes 1 Fiscal Year Sales Tax Property Tax Water Sewer Solid Waste 2002-03 1.8% $1.35 $20.78 $12.17 $12.75 2003-04 1.8% $1.35 $21.29 $12.45 $13.96 Charges reflect rates effective July 1. Personnel Summary: Ten Year History The number of full-time employees for fiscal year 2003-04 and 2004-05 totals 1,643, a 5.2% decrease from the FY 2002-03 budget. Total employees per 1,000 population for 2003-04 is estimated at 10.25, a 3.4% decrease from the previous fiscal year, and 10.20 in 2004-05, a 0.5% decrease from fiscal year 2003-04. This decrease is a result of a citywide incentivized budget reduction plan, whereby the City eliminated funding for approximately 125 positions in FY 2002-03 through FY 2004-05. Full-time Employees Per 1,000 Population 2000 12 10 1500 8 1000 6 The total number of full-time employees has increased from 1,416 to 1,643 from 1996 to 2005 for a 16% increase. During that same period the number of employees per 1,000 population rose by 11%. 500 4 2 0 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Fiscal Year Full Time Employees Per 1,000 Population Fiscal Year-End Full- Time Employees Employees Per 1,000 Population 1996 1,416 9.21 1997 1,460 9.41 1998 1,488 9.45 1999 1,556 9.71 2000 1,628 10.27 2001 1,661 10.36 2002 1,722 10.80 2003 1,692 10.61 2004 1,643 10.25 Comprehensive Financial Plan The following section summarizes the comprehensive financial plan which served as the cornerstone for the financial action 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 Comprehensive Financial Plan Overview Financial Overview Forecast Methodology Forecast and Major Revenue Assumptions Major Expenditure Assumptions and Economic Outlook General Fund Transit Fund Transportation Funds Enterprise Funds Water/Wastewater Fund Solid Waste Fund Golf Fund Rio Salado and Community Facilities District Funds Financial Action Plan Comprehensive Financial Plan Overview Introduction n The City's unrestricted fund balance in the General Fund totaled $35.1 million as of June 30, 2002. This balance represents 28.3% of FY 2001-02 total General Fund revenue (25% is the working guideline used by the City as an optimum fund balance level). n Self-insurance reserve of $9.6 million (considered adequately protected from potential liability claims). n 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. Restricted debt service reserves of 12.1 million, sufficient to absorb debt obligations over the next five years. n Water/Wastewater fund balance of $71.7 million provides necessary coverage for operating and capital expenses and critical strategic flexibility over the next several years. Forecast models are presented along with trends, forecasts, and fund balances for each of the major funds. n The City enjoys bond ratings of: "AAA" --Fitch, "AA+" --Standard and Poor's "Aa1" --Moody's 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 three-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. Study Approach Operating funds examined include the: • • • • • • • General Fund Transportation Fund Transit Fund Water/Wastewater Fund Solid Waste 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: (B) Previously, 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. For the current biennium (FY 2003-05), the General Fund shows a balanced budget with revenues equaling expenses. (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 three 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 91 Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant, increased sewage processing capacity, along with compliance required improvements. st In the near term, we expect rate adjustments to occur in the wastewater operation, with the goal to bring wastewater into full cost recovery and to ensure that all customers are charged equitably based on discharge volume and strengths. (F) Continued close monitoring of the Solid Waste 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. . Financial Overview The following financial overview provides a summary of revenues, expenditures, and historical budget trends. The FY 2003-04 total budget of $365.5 million provides for a $247.5 million operating budget and a $118.0 million capital budget. The operating budget includes $135.0 million of general governmental operations, $58.8 million of enterprise operations (water/wastewater, solid waste, and golf) and $53.8 million of special revenue operations (transportation, transit, redevelopment, and housing). Summary overviews of appropriations and revenues provide a base reference for the fund specific forecast models that follow. A ten year history of budget trends is depicted Ten Year Budget Trends Millions ($) 400 Operating Capital 300 200 100 0 Fiscal Operating Capital Total FY 2003-04 $247,565,261 $117,968,707 $365,533,968 2002-03 232,846,185 95,318,794 328,164,979 2001-02 234,015,370 85,541,430 319,556,800 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 Major funding sources include $86.7 million in local taxes (sales and property), $32.5 million of intergovernmental revenues, $53.1 million of enterprise revenues, and $62.6 million of special revenues (Transit, Highway User, Lottery, Community Development Block Grant and Section 8 Housing). Total budgeted revenues for FY 2003-04 are $256.7 million, with operating revenues of $108.8 million and the remainder from bond proceeds and other CIP funding. General Governmental revenues combine for $136.0 million of the total operating revenues. Enterprise and special revenues represent the remainder of total operating revenues, most of which derives from water/ wastewater service charges and user fees. -04 03 FY 03 02- FY -02 01 FY 01 00- FY 99 98- FY -98 97 FY 97 96- FY -96 95 FY 95 94- 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). 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. had a widespread impact on many funds. The primary categories of sales (based on FY 199900 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 economic downturn. n Population Population in Tempe is assumed to increase by 0.02% in FY 2002-03, with the rate of growth gradually increasing over the forecast period to 0.05% annual growth by FY 2005-06. State population growth is assumed to average 2.7% Thousands Tempe Population 180 n Tempe Taxable Sales Taxable sales in Tempe had steadily increased from FY 1995-96 through FY 2000-01, indicative of continued development in Tempe and the strong local economy. As the table below shows, taxable sales in FY 2000-01 were $1.6 billion (40%) higher than total Tempe Taxable Sales Billions 6 5 4 5.6 5.3 5.0 4.8 5.2 5.0 4.2 4.0 3 160 159 154 140 142 120 100 107 80 60 40 64 Population increased from 64,000 in 1970 to 159,000 in 20 0 1970 1980 1990 1995 2003 per year over the next three years. 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 2 1 0 FY -96 95 FY -97 96 FY -98 97 FY -99 98 FY 00 99- FY 01 00- FY -02 01 FY -03 02 taxable sales in FY 1995-96. In the forecast, General Fund retail sales steadily increased until the nationwide economic slowdown in FY 2001-02 through FY 2002-03. The City immediately addressed this fiscal issue by streamlining both operations and personnel. Sales that generate tax revenue for the City, 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 state-shared 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 affected our FY 2001-02 revenues. Our long-range revenue forecasts reflect these economic assumptions and the estimated impact of the 2000 census. 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 2004 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 Building Permits 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 2,532 2,038 1,984 1,882 1,717 1,429 500 1,148 FY -97 96 FY FY -98 97 -99 98 FY FY -00 99 -01 00 FY FY -02 01 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. 1,313 0 -96 95 distribution formulas will not change may prove to be overly optimistic as the state is faced with the task of balancing its budget. -03 02 FY assumed a level of growth equivalent to the projected rate of population growth. 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 locallydistributed funds will bear a proportionate share of the expected revenue reduction. This last state-share cut affected FY 2001-02 revenues and resulted in a $3.5 million reduction in state-shared revenues for Tempe. The forecast reflects this loss and its impact on subsequent years. In FY 1999-00, Tempe's secondary assessed valuation was up by 12.9%, following 10.6% growth the prior year. Consistent with the City's Debt Management Plan, the forecast 1600 1400 1200 1000 $1,099 800 600 $888 $1,240 $1,370 $1,473 $1,520 $993 $913 400 200 0 FY -96 95 FY -97 96 FY -98 97 FY -99 98 FY -00 99 FY -01 00 FY -02 01 FY -03 02 assumes a 5.0% annual increase in assessed valuation in FY 2003-04, with assessed value growth gradually slowing over the period of the forecast to 4.0% 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. n The temptation to tap state-shared revenues may persist over the next five years. Therefore our assumption that state revenue Assessed Valuation Millions 1800 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 2.0% for the Major Expenditure Assumptions and Economic Outlook n Salaries and Wages On the expenditure side, we have assumed no salary and wage market adjustment in FY 2003-05. A 3.5% market adjustment has been incorporated in the FY 2005-06 projection. 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 $875,000 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 will have a profound effect on future decision-making options. n Fringe Benefits Health insurance costs continue to rise up to 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 fluctuate from 2.66% in FY 2002-03, to 1.44% for the later year of the forecast. Although we recognize there will be inflationary increases, we have not factored them into the biennial budget as the City has entered into a cost containment phase. n Supplemental Limits As a result of the economic downturn, City revenue streams have been affected. For this biennial budget forecast no new programs as our focus is to maintain basic services. 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. But with, the prolonged economic downturn, the City’s flexibility was minimized to fund operational impacts associated with new programs. n State Expenditure Limitation The City's FY 2003-04 total financial program is estimated at $365.5 million, including capital improvements. In 1996 and 2002, Tempe citizens approved budget overrides 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 1979-80 increased to $235,207,684 for FY 2003-04. Economic Outlook Following the mild recession in mid 1990 to 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 no economic growth for the next year or two, but gradually increasing thereafter. The consensus among state economic forecasters is for moderate growth in the Arizona economy in late 2004. 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. General Fund: Projected Revenue and Expenditures 150,000 ($000) 140,000 130,000 120,000 110,000 100,000 90,000 80,000 Actual 70,000 Projected 60,000 50,000 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 Revenue 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 Expenditures 96/97 Actual 97/98 Actual 98/99 Actual 99/00 Actual 00/01 Actual 01/02 Actual 02/03 Revised 03/04 Projected 04/05 05/06 Projected Projected Local Taxes 57,195 64,014 64,682 68,567 72,207 66,344 65,980 68,607 71,060 72,734 Intergovernmental 26,670 29,026 32,625 36,055 37,490 33,927 34,485 32,199 31,983 33,187 3,693 4,119 2,738 2,958 2,731 2,020 1,862 1,871 1,881 1,890 3,508 3,762 3,915 4,204 4,259 4,457 4,286 4,807 5,081 5,107 Business Licenses 3,269 937 3,700 947 4,440 1,100 4,778 605 4,490 1,081 4,577 1,091 4,577 1,087 4,950 1,087 4,975 1,087 5,000 1,087 Interest Income Franchise Fees 5,217 1,019 5,764 1,368 5,596 1,221 5,940 1,281 7,211 2,045 6,529 2,135 4,100 2,163 3,083 2,231 3,174 2,313 3,276 2,371 2,957 1,630 2,022 2,246 4,415 3,098 2,199 2,223 2,223 2,223 104,463 114,331 118,33 126,635 135,929 124,179 120,740 121,059 123,777 126,876 Revenue ($000) Building & Planning Cultural and RecreaFines, Fees and Other Revenue Total Revenue Expenditures Personal Services 61,704 64,646 71,247 79,005 86,338 95,095 98,532 96,246 99,470 105,214 Materials and Sup- 5,250 5,543 5,955 6,324 7,446 6,821 6,221 6,095 6,095 6,175 Fees and Services 11,597 14,013 15,477 15,268 16,750 17,208 16,514 16,065 16,068 16,291 750 729 903 955 1,122 891 888 733 733 743 2,096 2,307 2,276 2,598 2,693 3,265 3,893 3,916 3,986 4,057 3,703 2,478 2,396 2,687 3,723 2,592 2,428 1,100 1,100 1,116 0 0 0 0 1,000 2,500 1,900 2,500 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 0 0 0 1,850 (8,478) 119,243 (5,617) 123,860 (5,596) 121,059 (5,574) 123,777 (5,602) 132,344 Travel and Training Non-Dept/Loan Capital Outlay Contingency Maintenance Of Internal Services/ Total Expenditures Designated for Capi- 1,850 1,850 (4,654) 82,297 (9,533) 82,031 (8,341) (10,063) (7,565) 91,763 98,625 112,357 22,165 32,300 26,575 28,009 23,572 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,936 (3,120) 0 0 (5,469) Net Operating Note: Actuals reflect budget basis figures represented in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. 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 million to $6 million each year and kept the General Fund fiscally sound for almost a decade. That expectation has been confirmed, while improvements in retail sales and commercial development have also bolstered General Fund revenue. Annual operating surpluses declined as revenue growth slowed resulting from a predicted downturn in the economy. In addition, our share of locally-distributed state income, sales and vehicle license tax revenues declined in FY 2001-02. Tempe’s declining percentage of statewide population has a direct impact on our state shared revenues, as it is the methodology for allocating monies to Cities. 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 state budget-balancing decisions may affect local revenues. 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 FY 2003-05 forecast assumes no new programs and streamlining of operational and personnel costs. Fund Balance The General Fund's unreserved fund balance has grown from $23.2 million just eight years ago to $35.1 million for FYE 2002. Over the next several years, we anticipate some drawdown of fund bala nces primarily for "payas-you-go" capital financing, bringing the FYE 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 Unreserved $14,121,709 23,196,449 28,590,826 30,639,891 34,682,895 38,201,087 38,615,537 36,985,072 35,125,797 General Fund balances in line with the financial policy of 25% of General Fund revenues. Transit Fund: Projected Revenue and Expenditures 40,000 ($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 01-02 Revenue 96/97 Actual 97/98 Actual 98/99 Actual 99/00 Actual 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 Expenditures 00/01 Actual 01/02 Actual 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 Revised Projected Projected Projected Revenue ($000) Transit Tax 10,429 23,212 24,542 26,384 27,310 25,230 25,326 26,028 26,858 27,449 Lottery Transfer In 0 340 334 325 319 300 298 292 286 280 ASU-Flash Transit 0 316 532 1,407 2,485 4,571 353 375 386 409 Interest Income 0 931 1,375 1,936 4,229 3,475 1,969 1,262 1,262 1,300 11 1 4 23 1 10 5,470 5,953 6,105 6,256 26,787 30,076 34,344 33,586 33,415 33,910 34,897 35,694 Miscellaneous Revenue Total Revenue 10,440 24,800 Expenditures ($000) Personal Services 133 512 807 1,110 1,282 1,482 1,820 1,913 1,986 2,099 12 99 60 29 29 27 37 38 39 40 1,580 3,926 7,563 11,927 15,515 18,343 19,501 20,818 21,762 22,064 7 23 28 53 37 20 56 59 61 63 13 95 61 170 3 9 0 0 52 34 Debt Service 0 73 6,837 4,748 4,772 2,443 0 7,428 7,500 7,500 Internal Service Charges 3 15 23 588 621 504 211 237 266 294 Indirect Cost Allocations 0 484 213 154 181 235 243 247 253 256 1,749 5,228 15,592 18,779 22,440 23,063 21,868 30,740 31,918 32,350 101 9,680 2,975 9,272 11,547 3,170 2,979 3,344 8,590 9,892 8,220 2,025 0 0 0 0 Materials and Supplies Fees and Services Travel and Training Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Designated for Capital Net Operating Surplus/ 8,909 10,523 2,994 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 20-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. By FY 2006-07 there will be operating impacts to the Transit Fund resulting from the construction of a lightrail system. In FY 1997-98, 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 $32.3 million. FYE 97 Unreserved $8,552,661 98 18,437,544 99 19,946,528 00 20,958,629 01 02 29,318,960 40,943,760 Transportation Funds: Projected Revenue and Expenditures 14,000 ($000) 13,500 13,000 12,500 12,000 11,500 Actual 11,000 10,500 10,000 Projected 9,500 9,000 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 Revenues 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 Expenses 96/97 Actual 97/98 Actual 98/99 Actual 99/00 Actual 00/01 Actual 01/02 Actual 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 Revised Projected Projected Projected State Lottery Proceeds 9,810 1,144 9,684 1,020 10,781 1,001 11,074 976 11,225 958 9,854 900 10,000 902 10,060 884 10,110 866 10,110 849 Maintenance of ASU Flash 1,850 243 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 0 0 0 1,850 0 23 13,070 (340) 14 12,228 (334) 0 13,299 (325) 0 13,575 (319) 0 13,713 (300) 149 12,453 (298) 0 10,604 (292) 0 10,652 (286) 0 10,691 (280) 0 12,529 2,850 551 1,611 291 4,726 356 2,903 509 1,455 351 4,534 356 3,001 446 1,324 369 4,603 356 3,141 523 1,434 254 4,000 356 3,270 578 1,506 539 4,722 356 3,419 448 1,545 159 4,502 356 3,672 486 1,594 300 2,450 356 3,889 486 1,594 300 2,250 356 4,037 486 1,594 300 2,100 356 4,037 496 1,619 306 3,750 356 1,377 460 473 1,467 1,586 618 776 724 737 756 752 940 13,162 630 11,211 935 12,500 978 12,273 1,152 12,742 1,278 12,482 1,023 10,604 1,040 10,652 1,062 10,690 1,062 12,378 (93) 1,017 799 1,302 971 (29) 0 0 0 151 Revenue ($000) Highway User Lottery Transfer to Other Revenue Total Revenue Expenditures ($000) Personal Services Materials and Supplies Fees and Services Capital Outlay Debt Service Loan Repayment Transit Routes/ Internal Service Chgs Indirect Cost Total Expenditures Net Operating Note: Actuals reflect budget basis figures represented in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. 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. The results of the 2000 U.S. Census 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. One approach now in place to minimize operating deficits is to limit debt service payments to established caps ($2.2 million in FY 2003-04, to $3.4 million by FY 2005-06). 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-you-go 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. FYE 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 Unreserved $3,686,673 3,300,576 3,326,715 4,092,879 5,792,212 7,592,808 8,444,881 9,254,027 Water/ Wastewater Fund: Projected Revenue and Expenditures 60,000 ($000) 55,000 50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 Actual 30,000 Projected 25,000 20,000 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 Revenue 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 Expenses 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Revised Projected Projected Projected 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 Revenue ($000) Charges for Service-Water 26,151 26,993 25,086 27,152 26,428 28,242 26,010 26,228 26,543 26,675 17,519 18,422 17,671 15,751 3,727 3,881 3,427 3,234 15,908 2,044 16,044 2,044 16,124 1,500 Charges for ServiceInterest Income 13,744 16,955 15,021 1,990 2,697 2,912 Land and Facility Rental 498 490 490 495 500 515 520 520 520 520 Loan Repayment 413 397 380 624 342 321 624 624 624 624 Other Miscellaneous Rev. 116 665 210 213 1,777 664 61 61 61 61 49,729 51,351 50,840 46,200 45,385 45,836 45,504 Total Revenue 42,913 48,198 44,098 Expenses ($000) Personal Services 7,024 7,031 7,332 7,623 7,777 8,887 8,919 9,414 9,764 10,313 Materials and Supplies 2,046 2,625 2,242 1,995 1,632 1,704 2,198 2,238 2,285 2,318 Fees and Services 9,153 9,063 7,714 7,890 8,961 8,872 8,677 8,881 9,775 9,457 Travel and Training 67 65 78 79 90 111 107 109 111 113 7,960 8,021 8,143 8,605 8,135 8,181 9,868 11,666 13,356 14,434 553 753 1,187 3,096 (1,630) 1,875 2,750 2,747 2,745 2,742 Internal Service Charges 3,909 1,732 3,835 2,457 3,751 1,585 3,831 2,517 3,967 1,488 4,212 2,485 4,995 1,455 6,847 1,595 8,410 1,744 9,870 1,891 Indirect Cost Allocations 1,904 1,960 1,715 2,133 2,684 2,157 2,339 2,381 2,431 2,466 37,770 33,104 38,484 41,308 45,878 50,620 53,602 10,545 10,721 557 Depreciation Expense Share of 91st Avenue Debt Srvc Intrst/Fiscal Total Expenses 34,349 35,810 33,749 Designated for Capital 0 0 894 6,387 3,871 3,500 Fund Balance Applied 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,564 12,388 9,456 5,572 14,376 8,855 Net Operating Surplus/ 2,938 0 (11,038) 1,953 0 (15,506) (8,655) 0 0 Water/ Wastewater Fund Trend/Forecast The water and sewer rate increases approved by the Council over the past few years had the intended effect of eliminating, at least in the short-term, a projected deficit condition in the Water/Wastewater Fund. The primary intent of the sewer rate adjustments 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 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 91 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 91 Avenue costs. st st As the long range forecast predicts, the Water/ Wastewater Fund may enter a deficit condition by the end of FY 2003-04 as the growth in treatment costs outpace revenue growth. Should this occur, a drawdown of fund balances will be applied to cover the deficit. For the purpose of this 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 the Water/Wastewater Capital Improvements Program will continue to be utilized to help offset higher debt service costs. Unreserved Retained Earnings 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 $18.2 million at FYE 92 before being built back up to $55.7 million by FYE 01. The increase in the FYE 02 fund balance is due mainly to the change in reporting requirements under GASB 34. Over the period of this forecast, healthy fund balances should be retained, notwithstanding the impact of compliance driven contingencies. With $45.9 million in projected FY 2003-04 expenses, the $71.7 million fund balance provides 127% coverage to operating expenses FYE 92 Unreserved $18,217,298 93 20,667,194 94 21,671,776 95 24,383,051 96 33,746,270 97 36,796,384 98 41,020,060 99 55,159,498 00 56,434,920 01 55,717,922 02 71,701,351 Solid Waste Fund: Projected Revenue and Expenditures ($000) 11,000 10,000 9,000 Actual 8,000 7,000 Projected 6,000 5,000 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 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual 8,493 8,822 9,132 9,407 9,595 9,771 10,138 10,440 10,440 10,516 Sludge Disposal 143 218 223 123 92 208 75 90 90 91 Interest Income 95 123 126 100 71 36 12 8 8 9 107 101 0 193 24 11 80 65 65 66 8,838 9,264 9,481 9,823 9,782 10,026 10,305 10,604 10,604 10,681 2,589 2,596 2,769 3,029 3,206 3,332 3,288 3,422 3,561 3,770 166 203 440 342 322 341 169 172 176 178 2,877 2,905 2,882 2,875 3,192 3,244 3,042 3,097 3,161 3,207 890 897 915 1,206 1,390 869 900 920 928 936 48 42 137 137 137 137 137 0 0 0 1,587 1,529 1,388 1,617 1,749 1,680 1,762 1,834 1,913 1,984 571 763 550 708 661 706 547 557 568 576 8,728 8,935 9,082 9,913 10,658 10,310 9,845 10,001 10,307 10,652 111 329 399 (90) (876) (284) 460 Revised Projected Projected Projected Revenue ($000) Charges for Services Other Revenue Sources Total Revenue Expenses ($000) Personal Services Materials and Supplies Fees and Services Depreciation Loan Repayment-Interest Internal Service/Adj. Indirect Cost Allocations Total Expenses Net Operating Surplus 603 296 29 Solid Waste Fund Trend/Forecast With the FY 1999-00 shortfall in this fund, solid waste rates were modified to fully recover the cost of the solid waste operation and replacement obligations. Since then, rate increases have been implemented each fiscal year, with the latest increase to industrial, commercial, and residential rates occurring on January 1, 2003. These rate increases appear to be having the intended effect of eliminating, at least in the short-term, a projected deficit condition in the Solid Waste Fund. Solid waste 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 A planned drawdown of unreserved retained earnings began in FY 1999-00. With environmental mandates always present, this enterprise operation will require as much financial flexibility as possible for contingent compliance driven costs. FYE 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 Unreserved $1,672,646 1,442,692 1,542,782 1,135,131 1,623,386 1,979,294 2,168,155 1,162,872 451,358 20,065 Golf Fund: Projected Revenue and Expenditures ($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 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 Expenditures 96/97 Actual 97/98 Actual 98/99 Actual 99/00 Actual 00/01 Actual 01/02 Actual 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 Revised Projected Projected Projected 1,990 1,982 1,942 1,838 1,774 1,800 1,809 1,818 1,827 1,836 243 250 284 229 350 231 232 233 235 236 66 76 86 92 33 19 10 4 1 0 7 0 (20) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,305 2,309 2,292 2,160 2,157 2,050 2,051 2,055 2,063 2,072 Personal Services 792 790 834 888 941 983 1,055 1,100 1,167 1,239 Materials and Supplies 146 140 188 229 214 215 215 215 219 222 Fees and Services 296 396 326 320 355 407 407 407 413 418 Depreciation 279 305 354 313 374 374 348 370 395 423 Debt Service Interest 64 61 55 49 44 39 30 23 23 23 Internal Service Charges 96 102 134 150 223 135 149 165 180 196 Revenue ($000) Greens Fees Pro Shop and Restaurant Interest Income Other Revenue Sources Total Revenue Expenses ($000) Indirect Cost Allocations Total Expenses Net Operating Surplus/ 151 187 229 237 291 278 283 289 293 297 1,824 1,981 2,120 2,185 2,442 2,431 2,486 2,569 2,689 2,818 481 328 173 (285) (381) (435) (514) (627) (746) (26) Note: Actuals reflect budget basis figures represented in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. 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. The Golf Fund has been experiencing a deficit condition since FY 1999-00. 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 1998-99 through 1999-00 proved to be good years as the fund ended FY 2001-02 with a balance of $791,701. This balance will provide some flexibility in funding current and future capital improvements. FYE 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 Unreserved $139,693 54,780 50,000 351,158 896,542 1,397,897 1,638,174 1,538,156 893,591 791,701 Rio Salado and Community Facilities District Funds 14,000 12,000 Actual 10,000 8,000 Projected 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 Revenue 96/97 Actual Revenue ($000) General Fund Allocation Sales Tax Transient Lodging Tax Interest Revenue Sale of Real Estate Bond Forfeiture Other Revenue CFD Revenue Total Revenue 4,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,500 97/98 Actual 7,000 461 63 42 0 0 0 0 7,566 98/99 Actual 8,600 685 85 65 0 0 24 592 10,050 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 Expenditures 99/00 Actual 7,260 583 109 473 888 300 33 173 9,819 00/01 Actual 6,270 734 60 628 267 0 38 166 8,164 01/02 Actual 4,815 693 89 451 0 0 36 171 6,254 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 Revised Projected Projected Projected 0 639 98 452 0 0 32 177 1,398 0 656 108 389 0 0 32 269 1,454 0 676 108 334 0 0 32 413 1,564 0 691 110 287 0 0 32 1,082 2,202 Expenditures ($000) Personal Services 54 104 374 540 535 410 571 608 631 667 Materials and Supplies 0 1 21 16 10 22 27 27 28 28 Fees and Services 0 95 102 176 427 481 683 683 683 693 Travel and Training 0 0 8 46 6 12 15 15 15 7 Contributions 0 0 123 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Capital Outlay 24 0 6 146 43 32 23 0 0 0 Purchase of Land 3,577 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internal Service Charges 0 1 63 96 79 106 125 134 144 154 CFD Administrative Credit 0 0 (62) (440) (420) (431) (431) (439) (448) (455) CFD Operating and Maintenance 0 449 258 1,940 1,833 2,708 2,690 2,714 2,804 2,830 Total Expenditures 3,655 648 892 2,520 2,511 3,340 3,703 3,743 3,857 3,925 Designated for Capital Projects 4,074 4,025 7,614 9,511 3,150 6,633 1,990 0 0 0 Net Operating Surplus/ (Deficit)* (3,228) 2,893 1,544 (2,212) 2,503 (3,719) (4,295) Note: Actuals reflect budget basis figures represented in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.(2,289) (2,293) (1,723) Rio Salado and Community Facilities District Funds Trend/Forecast Rio Salado’s single largest revenue source was the General Fund allocation (1/3 of any surplus). With the downturn in the economy, General Fund expenditures now equal revenue collections, resulting in a loss of this revenue stream to the Rio Salado Fund. This has been a direct negative affect and is depicted in the 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 $5.2 million in FY 1998-99. The variations depicted in the unreserved fund balances from FY 1996-97 to FY 2001-02 is due to planned drawdowns to fund capital and land purchase costs. FYE 97 Unreserved $1,138,546 98 4,480,474 99 5,220,120 00 1,282,512 01 5,032,088 02 2,062,140 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 or decreasing the growth in personnel and associated costs. We recommend a continued annual evaluation of an appropriate General Fund supplemental limit, with consideration given to our long-range revenue and expenditure forecasts and how various supplemental scenarios will affect our long-term financial condition. 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 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 $0.05 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 of departmental base budgets, with the size of modifications linked directly to financial 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 long-term 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 le gal 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 91 Avenue Plant. We recommend a financial plan that minimizes sudden spikes in rates and controls expenditure growth. st 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. 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. Revenue Information The following section summarizes assumptions, trends, major influences, restrictions and composition of the City’s revenue sources. Revenue Information Contents Total Revenues Total Revenue by Source Components of Total Revenue Comparative Revenue by Source General Governmental Revenues: Ten Year Historical Trends City Sales Tax. City Property Tax. Transient Lodging Tax Salt River Project In-Lieu Tax State-Shared Sales Tax. State-Shared Vehicle License Tax. State-Shared Income Tax Charges for Services/Recreation and Social Services Charges for Services/Development Related Fines and Forfeitures Interest Earnings Special Revenues: Ten Year Historical Trends Transit Tax Performing Arts Tax Highway User Tax Local Transportation Assistance Fund Community Development Block Grant/Section 8 Housing Grant Enterprise Revenues: Ten Year Historical Trends Water and Wastewater User Fees Total Revenue Total revenue for the biennial budget is estimated at $365.5 million for FY 2003-04 and $433.7 for FY 2004-05, reflecting $256.7 million in operating revenue and $109.0 million from Bond Proceeds, Fund Balances and Other Funding Sources in FY 2003-04 and $260.1 million in operating revenue and $173.6 million from Bond Proceeds, Fund Balances and Other Funding Sources in FY 2004-05. The FY 200304 operating revenue total represents 1.3% growth over revised FY 2002-03 operating revenues, with minimal total revenue growth in FY 2004-05 at 1.9% over FY 2003-04. The 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 2003-04 Bonds/CIP Fund Balance 29.8% Other 6.7% Transportation 17.7% Enterprise 22.6% Operating Revenues 70.2% General Governmental 53.0% FY 2004-05 Bonds/CIP Fund Balance 40.0% Other 6.6% Transportation 17.9% Enterprise 22.5% Operating Revenues 60.0% General Governmental 53.0% TOTAL REVENUES 2003-04 2004-05 OPERATING REVENUES General Governmental Local Taxes, Licenses and Permits, and Debt Intergovernmental $86,747,724 32,466,160 $88,241,674 32,027,500 Charges for Services 6,988,051 7,519,651 Miscellaneous 9,833,124 10,107,017 Transportation/Transit Performing Arts 45,488,162 5,428,500 46,476,983 5,533,300 CDBG/Section 8 Housing 10,817,663 10,817,663 856,800 58,055,364 $256,681,548 896,750 58,506,335 $260,126,873 $1,602 $1,615 77,971,520 113,032,768 8,049,874 22,906,948 22,831,026 37,677,777 $365,533,968 $433,744,366 $2,281 $2,694 Rio Salado Special Revenue Enterprise TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES Operating Revenue Per Capita Bond/Note Proceeds CIP Other Funding Fund Balances TOTAL REVENUES Total Revenues Per Capita Total Revenue by Source Local Taxes Intergovernmental 15% User Charges Bonds 21% Local Taxes All Other 6% Intergovernmen tal User Charges CIP– Other Funding 9% All Other 5% Bonds 26% CIP– Other Funding 2003-04 2004-05 Where the Money Comes From 2001-02 Local Taxes Local Sales Taxes Transit Tax Other Local Taxes Performing Arts User Charges Water/Wastewater Solid Waste 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 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 $59,991,774 25,229,927 21,860,441 4,999,984 $59,855,000 25,326,325 22,783,862 5,187,140 $61,325,000 26,027,864 24,984,847 5,239,000 $62,350,000 26,858,153 25,469,197 5,343,800 40,866,138 9,943,891 6,595,146 1,993,308 42,904,834 10,212,834 6,323,998 2,259,650 43,279,764 10,530,000 6,856,251 2,191,800 43,730,735 10,530,000 7,298,551 2,281,100 33,926,741 10,455,043 7,576,041 34,785,000 10,569,500 11,480,214 32,466,160 11,578,169 10,817,663 32,027,500 11,580,200 10,817,663 9,006,700 9,073,207 4,413,086 1,072,525 79,811,000 33,000,000 (9,504,800) $358,560,075 6,265,200 9,081,468 4,947,485 1,090,877 77,971,520 8,049,874 22,831,026 $365,533,968 6,265,200 9,304,904 5,154,793 1,115,077 113,032,768 22,906,948 37,677,777 $433,744,366 14,018,561 8,209,320 4,615,379 1,072,526 25,900,000 40,283,000 (7,055,000) $310,482,221 * Includes Federal and State Grants and Residential Development Tax and Fees. Components of Total Revenue -FY 2003-04 2003-04 Total Revenue $365,533,968 Operating Revenue $256,681,548 Capital Revenue $108,852,420 General Governmental Special Revenue Enterprise Bond/Note Proceeds CIP– Outside Revenues Other Fund Balances $136,035,059 $62,591,125 $58,055,364 $77,971,520 $8,049,874 $22,831,026 Local Taxes/ Licenses & Permits/Debt $86,747,724 Transit Water/Wastewater Excise Bonds Federal Funds $33,618,393 $45,384,864 ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ Intergovernmental Highway User Revenue Solid Waste $32,466,160 $10,986,169 $10,603,700 ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ Charges for Services CDBG/ Section 8 Housing $6,988,051 $10,817,663 ______________________ ______________________ Interest $2,600,000 Golf $57,486,520 ______________________ Enterprise G.O. Bonds $12,750,000 ______________________ Tax-Supported G.O. Bonds $6,667,000 ______________________ Land Sale $908,582 ______________________ Development Fees Rio Salado $856,800 ______________________ ______________________ Fines and Forfeitures Performing Arts Tax $4,947,485 $5,428,500 ______________________ ______________________ Other Lottery Funds General Governmental, the largest operating revenue category, is the chief operating fund of the City. These revenues support basic functions of the City, which include Police, Fire, Community, and Development Services. Components of Total Revenue -FY 2004-05 2004-05 Total Revenue $433,744,366 Operating Revenue $260,126,873 Capital Revenue $173,617,493 General Governmental Special Revenue Enterprise Bond/Note Proceeds CIP– Outside Revenues Other Fund Balances $137,895,842 $63,724,696 $58,506,335 $113,032,768 $22,906,948 $37,677,777 Local Taxes/ Licenses & Permits/Debt $88,241,674 Transit Water/Wastewater Excise Bonds Federal Funds $34,611,083 $45,835,835 $78,617,768 $21,064,000 ______________________ ______________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ Intergovernmental Highway User Revenue Solid Waste Enterprise G.O. Bonds Land Sale $32,027,500 $11,000,000 $10,603,700 $19,100,000 $1,348,448 ______________________ ______________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ Charges for Services CDBG/ Section 8 Housing Golf Tax-Supported G.O. Bonds Development Fees $7,519,651 $10,817,663 ______________________ ______________________ Fines and Forfeitures $5,154,793 Performing Arts Tax ______________________ ______________________ Interest Rio Salado $5,533,300 $2,600,000 $896,750 ______________________ ______________________ Other Lottery Funds The large increase in Capital Revenue is primarily due to the issuance of bonds to support the City’s Transit and Wastewater Plant expansion projects. Comparative Revenue by Source Revenue Source General Fund Local Taxes City Sales Tax 2001-02 Actual 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget 57,754,994 57,300,000 58,500,000 59,500,000 7,135,100 1,454,927 1,811,060 7,251,511 2,000,000 1,531,200 8,543,551 2,250,000 1,704,200 8,787,597 2,250,000 1,732,700 68,156,081 68,082,711 70,997,751 72,270,297 16,544,791 16,885,000 14,316,739 13,474,200 12,148,438 5,233,512 12,300,000 5,600,000 12,549,421 5,600,000 12,953,300 5,600,000 33,926,741 34,785,000 32,466,160 32,027,500 Building & Trades/Planning & Zoning 1,993,308 2,259,650 2,191,800 2,281,100 Cultural and Recreational Registration Fees 3,494,159 3,301,339 3,687,600 4,017,400 310,353 240,990 425,608 273,900 240,640 473,119 284,200 392,451 432,000 295,200 462,451 463,500 4,471,110 4,288,998 4,796,251 5,238,551 1,371,706 1,335,000 1,375,000 1,375,000 724,646 338,176 2,180,851 669,000 223,300 2,185,786 715,000 375,000 2,482,485 715,000 375,000 2,689,793 4,615,379 4,413,086 4,947,485 5,154,793 1,072,526 1,072,525 1,090,877 1,115,077 410,346 428,862 450,000 500,000 6,529,452 3,004,627 9,944,425 3,233,700 2,783,061 6,445,623 2,600,000 2,285,639 5,335,639 2,600,000 2,352,224 5,452,224 124,179,570 121,347,593 11,695,227 774,456 12,897,095 635,156 13,554,896 654,200 13,682,500 673,800 12,469,683 13,532,251 14,209,096 14,356,300 Primary Property Tax Transient Lodging Tax Franchise Fees Total Local Taxes Intergovernmental Revenue State Income Tax State Sales Tax Vehicle License Tax Total Intergovernmental Recreation Admission Charges Library Fines and Fees Other Cultural and Rec Fees Total Cultural and Recreational Fines, Fees and Forfeitures Traffic Fines Criminal Fines Parking Fines Other Fines, Fees and Forfeitures Total Fines, Fees and Forfeitures Business/Non-Business Licenses Other Revenue Sources SRP Payment in Lieu of Taxes Interest Income Other Miscellaneous Revenue and Loan Total Other Revenue Total General Fund 121,825,963 123,539,542 Debt Service Secondary Property Tax SRP Payment in Lieu of Taxes Total Debt Service Comparative Revenue by Source Revenue Source 2001-02 Actual 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget Transit Fund Transit Tax 25,229,927 25,326,325 26,027,864 26,858,153 Lottery Transfer In 300,138 297,500 291,600 285,700 ASU-Flash Transit 344,654 352,776 375,440 386,252 Interest Income 3,298,605 1,969,100 1,261,900 1,261,900 Federal and State Funding 4,226,452 4,933,930 5,442,257 5,569,142 9,976 535,715 510,932 535,636 33,409,752 33,415,346 33,909,993 34,896,783 9,854,766 9,965,400 10,986,169 11,000,000 900,415 901,600 883,600 865,900 (300,138) (297,500) (291,600) (285,700) 0 0 0 0 10,455,043 10,569,500 11,578,169 11,580,200 692,756 475,000 490,000 510,000 Transient Lodging Tax 89,097 80,000 85,000 90,000 Primary Property Tax 34,252 40,038 78,000 92,600 451,064 253,800 154,600 154,600 35,683 28,825 49,200 49,550 1,302,852 877,663 856,800 896,750 4,999,984 5,187,140 5,239,000 5,343,800 189,120 284,400 189,500 189,500 Total Performing Arts 5,189,104 5,471,540 5,428,500 5,533,300 Total CDBG/Section 8 Housing Funds 7,576,041 11,480,214 10,817,663 10,817,663 Residential Service 4,940,451 5,500,000 5,700,000 5,700,000 Commercial Service 3,993,028 3,987,834 4,100,000 4,100,000 756,467 600,000 600,000 600,000 46,035 50,000 40,000 40,000 Sludge Disposal 207,910 75,000 90,000 90,000 Interest Income 36,254 12,000 8,300 8,300 Other Miscellaneous Revenue 44,718 80,400 65,400 65,400 10,024,863 10,305,234 10,603,700 10,603,700 Miscellaneous Revenue Total Transit Fund Transportation Funds Highway User Revenue Tax State Lottery Proceeds Lottery Transfer to Transit Other Revenue Total Transportation Funds Rio Salado Fund City Sales Tax Interest Income Miscellaneous Revenue Total Rio Salado Fund Performing Arts Performing Arts Tax Interest Income Solid Waste Fund Charges for Services Roll-Off Service Recycling Total Solid Waste Fund 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 Golf Fund Greens Fees Pro Shop and Restaurant Revenue Interest Income Total Golf Fund Total Revenue - All Funds 2001-02 Actual 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget 17,372,621 6,209,198 293,401 561,115 24,436,335 18,718,000 6,269,627 279,500 742,500 26,009,627 18,905,180 6,300,975 279,500 742,500 26,228,155 19,188,758 6,332,480 279,500 742,500 26,543,238 9,486,942 5,417,312 386,582 15,290,836 9,956,846 5,683,394 111,000 15,751,240 10,056,414 5,740,228 111,000 15,907,642 10,106,199 5,826,331 111,000 16,043,530 3,482,096 515,000 623,967 243,072 44,591,306 1,773,817 350,219 31,970 2,156,006 3,233,700 2,044,100 2,044,100 520,000 520,000 520,000 623,967 623,967 623,967 61,000 61,000 61,000 46,199,534 45,384,864 45,835,835 1,825,000 210,000 20,000 2,055,000 251,354,221 255,253,875 1,850,000 210,000 6,800 2,066,800 1,850,000 210,000 6,800 2,066,800 256,681,54 260,126,87 City Sales Tax Restrictions Current rate of 1.8% can be increased only by electorate. Fiscal Year Amount Percent 1994-95 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 60,100,000 4.9 1999-00 59,967,700 (0.2) 2000-01 63,602,106 6.1 2001-02 57,754,994 (9.2) 2002-03 est. 57,300,000 (0.08) 2003-04 est. 58,500,000 2.1 2004-05 est. 59,500,000 1.7 1 Proceeds are pledged as security for bond payments due under various bond security agreements. Revenues from a voter- approved 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 During 1995, Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 22 required revenue from taxpayer-assessed taxes to be recognized in the accounting period in which they become susceptible to accrual. This resulted in 13 months being recorded in FY 94-95. 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. In FY 1993-94, voters approved a 0.2% increase from 1.0% to 1.2%. Additional increases of 0.5% (September 1996) and 0.1% (January 2001), are devoted to transit and performing arts needs and are not reflected in the amounts above. FY 2002-03 decrease reflects the impact of a national downturn in the economy. Our projections reflect a modest increase and assume the economy will recover in late FY 2003-04. Major Influences: Taxable Sales, Population, and Consumer Price Index City Sales Tax $ Millions 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 57.3 49.6 48.5 60.1 63.6 60.0 57.8 57.3 58.5 50.5 20.0 10.0 0.0 -95 94 19 -96 95 19 -97 96 19 -98 97 19 -99 98 19 -00 99 19 -01 00 20 Fiscal Year -02 01 20 . est -03 2 0 20 st. 4e 3-0 0 20 st. 5e 4-0 0 20 59.5 City Property Tax Restrictions Fiscal Year 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 est. 2003-04 est. 2004-05 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. Amount 11,315,869 12,297,510 12,808,631 13,832,004 15,172,288 16,561,936 18,414,400 18,864,580 20,188,644 22,176,447 22,562,697 Percent (4.1) 8.7 4.2 8.0 9.7 9.2 11.2 2.4 7.0 9.8 1.7 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 2003-04 will total $1.35 per $100 assessed valuation, consisting of $0.55 per $100 of primary assessed valuation for operating and maintenance costs and $0.80 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 0.05 in FY 2000-01 to $1.35. For the biennial budget period, assessed valuation growth is expected to peak and decline in accordance with the County’s biennial valuation methodology. Major Influences: Development, Assessor Appraisal Methodology, State Policy, Population Growth, and Policy Regarding Property Tax Rates City Property Tax $ Millions 24.0 22.0 20.0 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 22.2 10.0 8.0 6.0 11.3 12.3 12.8 13.8 15.2 18.4 16.6 18.9 20.2 4.0 2.0 0.0 -95 94 19 -96 95 19 -97 96 19 -98 97 19 -99 98 19 -00 99 19 -01 00 20 Fiscal Year -02 01 20 . est -03 2 0 20 . est -04 3 0 20 . est -05 4 0 20 22.6 Transient Lodging Tax Restrictions Current rate of 3% can be increased only by electorate. Fiscal Year Amount Percent 1994-95 1,160,235 20.2 Proceeds are restricted with 2 of the 3% pledged to the Tempe Convention and Visitors Bureau (TCVB). Excess unrestricted proceeds are for 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. 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 1,725,597 6.2 2001-02 1,454,927 (15.7) 2002-03 est. 2,000,000 37.5 2003-04 est. 2,250,000 12.5 2004-05 est. 2,250,000 0.0 The tax originated in June of 1988 at 2% with half (or 1%) dedicated to TCVB. In FY 2001 voters approved an additional 1%,increasing the tax from 2% to 3%, with the entire 1% dedicated to TCVB. Account: 4002 Assumptions The tax is imposed on businesses within the city, who charge for lodging for any period of not more than 30 consecutive days. The increase in our revenue projection is reflective of a voter approved 1% increase rather than an increase in lodging structures or occupants. It is anticipated that occupants and lodgings will remain relatively Transient Lodging Tax $ Thousands 2,400 2,200 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 79.3%* 80.3%* 3,185 3,185 79.8%* 72.8%* 66.3%* 67.8%* 67.9%* 3,505 3,823 4,504 4,720 4,720 57.6%* 60.9%* 4,720 4,720 68.0%* 68.0%* 5,000 5,000 200 0 -95 94 19 -96 95 19 -97 96 19 *Percent Occupied/Number of Rooms -98 97 19 -99 98 19 -00 99 19 -01 00 20 Fiscal Year -02 01 20 . est -03 2 0 20 . est -04 3 0 20 st. 5e 4-0 0 20 Salt River Project In–Lieu Tax Restrictions No restrictions on usage. Fiscal Year Amount Percent 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 1,120,200 0.9 2001-02 1,184,802 5.8 2002-03 est. 1,064,018 (10.2) 2003-04 est. 1,104,200 3.8 2004-05 est. 1,173,800 6.3 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 increase in FY 2003-05 reflects estimated assessed property value increases. Major Influences: Real Property Value and State Policy (assessment ratio) Salt River Project In-Lieu Tax $$Thousands Thousands 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 30.0%* 29.0%* 28.0%* 27.0%* 26.0%* 25.0%* 25.0%* 25.0%* 25.0%* 25.0%* 25.0%* 1,358 1,323 1,264 1,199 1,144 1,111 1,120 1,041 1,064 1,104 1,174 200 0 -95 94 19 -96 95 19 -97 96 19 -98 97 19 -00 99 19 -99 98 19 Fiscal Year *Percents represent the assessment ratio on SRP real property. -01 00 20 -02 01 20 st. 3e 0 02 20 st. 4e 0 03 20 st. 5e 0 04 20 State-Shared Sales Tax Restrictions Proceeds are pledged as security for bond payments under various bond security agreements. Excess proceeds are restricted to usage. Account: 4204 Fiscal Year 1994-95 Amount 10,937,700 Percent 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 13,551,400 15.5 2000-01 14,400,000 3.2 2001-02 12,148,438 (15.6) 2002-03 est. 12,300,000 1.2 2003-04 est. 12,549,421 2.0 2004-05 est. 12,953,300 3.2 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 $320 million for FY 2003-04) on the basis of their population to total state population. Distributions beginning in FY 2003-05 are based on the 2000 Census. Prior to 2000, Tempe accounted for 4.5% of the state’s population (stateshared 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 in FY 2001-02. Projected modest increases, over the biennium, is reflective of the strength of the state’s 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 6.0 4.0 200.1* 219.9* 230.3* 245.0* 256.1* 252.8* 310.0* 323.3* 315.0* 320.0* 330.2* 10.9 11.5 10.9 11.5 11.7 13.5 14.4 12.1 12.3 12.5 13.0 2.0 0.0 -95 94 19 -96 95 19 -97 96 19 -98 97 19 -99 98 19 -00 99 19 -01 00 20 Fiscal Year -02 01 20 . est -03 2 0 20 *Total state-shared sales tax revenue pool for distribution to cities and towns ($ in millions). . est -04 3 0 20 . est -05 4 0 20 State-Shared Vehicle License Tax Restrictions Fiscal Year No restrictions on usage. Must be expended for public purpose. Amount Percent 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 5,900,000 7.3 2001-02 5,233,512 (11.3) 2002-03 est. 5,600,000 7.0 2003-04 est. 2004-05 est. 5,600,000 5,600,000 0.0 0.0 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. Distributions beginning in FY 2003-05 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 vehicle license tax revenue in FY 2001-02. In FY 2002-03, the strength of the state’s economy has offset the effect of the Census, but the City’s near build-out of residential space will have a leveling effect on future revenues. Major Influences: Population (relative to State), State Policy and Auto Sales State-Shared Vehicle License Tax $$Millions Millions 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 5.9 5.5 4.0 2.0 4.2 3.9 5.2 4.7 4.4 5.6 5.6 1.0 0.0 -95 94 19 -96 95 19 -97 96 19 -98 97 19 -99 98 19 -00 99 19 -01 00 20 Fiscal Year -02 01 20 . est -2 03 0 20 st. 4e 0 03 20 . est -05 4 0 20 5.6 State-Shared Income Tax Restrictions Fiscal Year Percent 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 17,890,338 5.0 2001-02 16,544,791 (7.5) 2002-03 est. 16,885,000 2.1 2003-04 est. 14,316,739 (15.2) 2004-05 est. 13,474,200 (5.9) 1994-95 Proceeds are pledged as security for bond payments due under various bond security agreements. Excess proceeds are unrestricted as to usage. 1 Amount 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 1999-00 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 decrease in FY 2003-05 is in accordance with historical trends and driven by statewide population and personal Major Influences: Personal Income, Corporate Net Profits, Population (relative to State) and State Policy State-Shared Income Tax $$ Millions Millions 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 13.6%* 13.6%* 13.6%* 15.0%* 15.0%* 15.8%* 15.0%* 15.8%* 15.8%* 15.0%* 15.0%* 205.6 218.6 257.8 291.2 340.3 377.7 398.5 421.9 436.2 365.0 343.0 6 4 2 0 -95 94 19 -96 95 19 -97 96 19 -98 97 19 -99 98 19 -00 99 19 -01 00 20 Fiscal Year -02 01 20 st. 3e 2-0 0 20 . est -04 03 0 2 st. 5e 4-0 0 20 * Percent of state income tax collections distributed to cities and towns/Total state-shared tax revenue pool ($ in mil- 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 Amount Percent 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 4,258,777 11.0 2001-02 4,471,110 5.0 2002-03 est. 4,288,998 (4.1) 2003-04 est. 4,796,251 11.8 2004-05 est. 5,238,551 9.2 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 FY 1997-98 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 Millions 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 2.5 3.4 3.1 2.7 3.8 3.3 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.8 1.0 0.0 5 4-9 199 -96 95 19 7 6-9 199 -98 97 19 -99 98 19 -00 99 19 -01 00 20 Fiscal Year -02 01 20 st. 3e 2-0 0 20 st. 4e 0 03 20 st. 5e 4-0 0 20 5.2 Charges for Services/Development Related Restrictions Proceeds are pledged as security for bond payments due under various bond security agreements. Excess proceeds are unrestricted as to usage. Accounts: 4102-4112 (Building & Trade Permits) 4401-4405, 4411-4413 (Engineering Fees) Fiscal Year Amount Percent 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 2,730,681 (7.7) 2001-02 1,993,308 (27.0) 2002-03 est. 2,259,650 13.4 2003-04 est. 2,191,800 (3.0) 2004-05 est. 2,281,100 4.1 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. Much of the increase in FY 2002-03 is due to a fee/rate increase. In the long term, revenue trends reflect planned City developments. Major Influences: Population, Tax Laws, Economy and Development Charges for Services/Development Related $$Millions Millions 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2,291* 2,038* 1,984* 2,532* 1,882* 1,717* 1,429* 1,261* 1,313* 1,274* 1,325* $275.4 $248.5 $406.8 $492.4 $302.8 $317.1 $121.2 $262.3 $199.6 $193.6 $201.5 0.0 -95 94 19 -96 95 19 -97 96 19 8 7-9 199 * Number of building permits/Valuation ($ in mil- -99 98 19 -00 99 19 -01 00 20 Fiscal Year -02 01 20 . est -03 02 0 2 . est -04 03 0 2 . est -05 04 0 2 Fines and Forfeitures Restrictions Fiscal Year No restrictions on usage. Accounts: 4601-4609, 4612-4625 Amount Percent 1994-95 2,918,357 16.3 1995-96 3,234,571 10.8 1996-97 3,162,253 2.2 1997-98 3,636,208 15.0 1998-99 3,856,034 6.1 1999-00 4,709,700 22.1 2000-01 4,489,939 (4.7) 2001-02 4,615,379 2.8 2002-03 est. 4,413,086 (4.4) 2003-04 est. 4,947,485 12.1 2004-05 est. 5,154,793 4.2 Assumptions The fines and forfeitures revenues to the City derive from fines related to parking, traffic, criminal, animal control, defensive driving school, adult diversion, domestic violence, and false alarms, plus revenues from public defender reimbursements, forfeitures, and boot fees. Much of the FY 2001-02 increase is related to Council– approved increases in false alarm fines and alarm system registration fees and a police selective neighborhood traffic enforcement unit. Projected biennial increases are based on enhanced collection efforts and rate changes. Major Influences: Population (Demographics), Crime Rate and Internal Policy (Enforcement, Number of Police Officers) Fines and Forfeitures $$Millions Millions 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 4.71 2.00 2.92 3.23 3.16 3.64 4.49 4.62 3.86 4.41 4.95 1.00 0.00 -95 94 19 -96 95 19 -97 96 19 -98 97 19 -99 98 19 -00 99 19 -01 00 20 Fiscal Year -02 01 20 . est -03 2 0 20 . est -04 3 0 20 . est -05 4 0 20 5.15 Interest Earnings Restrictions: No restrictions on usage. Enterprise Funds General Governmental Fiscal Year 1994-95 Amount 1,854,923 Percent 24.7 Amount 3,644,455 Percent 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 20.3 2000-01 4,021,601 2.3 7,210,945 3.1 2001-02 3,550,320 (11.7) 6,529,452 (9.5) 2002-03 est. 3,265,700 (8.0) 3,233,700 (50.5) 2003-04 est. 2,059,200 (36.9) 2,600,000 (19.6) 2004-05 est. 2,059,200 0.0 2,600,000 0.0 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. Through FY 2000-01 expenditure controls and rate adjustments in the Enterprise Funds, particularly the Water/Wastewater Fund have produced higher cash balances and greater interest income. Revenue growth, resulting from the strong economy, bolstered cash balances in the General Fund as well. FY 2001-02 saw 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. Over the next biennial period, projections are flat as both interest rates and the pool of available funds to invest 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 6.5 5.5 6.0 5.8 5.5 4.0 3.2 5.3 4.8 3.6 2.0 1.9 3.9 3.0 2.8 2.1 1.9 4.0 3.6 2.6 2.6 2.1 2.1 3.3 0.0 -95 94 19 -96 95 19 -97 96 19 8 7-9 199 -99 98 19 0 9-0 199 -01 00 20 Fiscal Year -02 01 20 . est -03 2 0 20 . est -04 3 0 20 . est -05 4 0 20 Transit Tax Restrictions Fiscal Year 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 Percent 1996-97* 10,429,431 - 1997-98 23,212,252 122.6 1998-99 25,300,000 9.0 1999-00 26,384,500 4.3 2000-01 27,310,246 3.5 2001-02 25,229,927 (7.6) 2002-03 est. 25,326,325 0.4 2003-04 est. 26,027,864 2.8 2004-05 est. 26,858,153 3.2 *Collections over a 6 month period 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. Although the estimate for FY 2003-04 and FY 2004-05 mirrors our trend for overall City sales tax growth, it does slightly deviate due to nuances resulting from rebates and tax incentives. Major Influences: Taxable Sales, Population and Consumer Price Index Transit Tax $$Millions Millions Transit Tax effective January 1, 1997 32.00 28.00 Transit Tax effective January 1, 1997 24.00 20.00 16.00 12.00 8.00 10.43 0.00 4.00 23.21 25.30 26.38 27.31 25.23 25.33 26.03 26.8 0.00 0.00 -95 94 19 -96 95 19 -97 96 19 -98 97 19 -99 98 19 -00 99 19 -01 00 20 Fiscal Year -02 01 20 st. 3e 0 02 20 st. 4e 0 03 20 st. 5e 0 04 20 Performing Arts Tax Restrictions Amount Percent Change 2000-01* 1,900,000 - 2001-02 4,999,984 - 2002-03 est. 5,187,140 3.7 2003-04 est. 5,239,000 1.0 2004-05 est. 5,343,800 2.0 Fiscal Year Represents a portion of the City sales tax dedicated by public vote for a Performing Arts center and related activities. *Collections over a 6 month period 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. Although the estimate for FY 2003-04 and FY 2004-05 mirrors our trend for overall City sales tax growth, it does slightly deviate due to nuances resulting from rebates and tax incentives. Major Influences: Taxable Sales, Population, and Consumer Price Index Performing Arts Tax $ Millions 6.00 5.00 4.00 Performing Arts Tax effective January 1, 2001 3.00 2.00 1.90 1.00 5.00 5.19 5.24 5.34 0.00 -95 94 9 1 -96 95 9 1 -97 96 9 1 * Collections over a 6 month period -98 97 9 1 -99 98 9 1 -01 00 0 2 Fiscal Year -02 01 0 2 st. 3e 0 02 20 st. 4e 0 03 20 st. 5e 0 04 20 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 Amount Percent 1994-95 9,449,774 5.4 1995-96 10,238,951 8.4 1996-97 9,788,235 (4.4) 1997-98 9,684,269 (1.1) 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 10,000,000 11,041,100 11,213,830 9,854,766 3.3 10.4 1.7 (12.1) 2002-03 est. 9,965,400 1.1 2003-04 est. 10,986,169 10.2 2004-05 est. 11,000,000 0.1 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 reductions 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%. The strength of the state’s economy combined with continued population increases has offset the effect of the Census and modest increases are projected over the biennium. Highway User Tax $ Millions 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 237.9* 215.3* 225.6* 240.8* 255.3* 265.5* 281.0* 291.0* 294.1* 313.5* 316.6* 9.45 10.24 9.79 9.68 10.00 11.04 11.21 9.85 9.97 10.99 11.00 2.00 0.00 -95 94 19 -96 95 19 7 6-9 199 -98 97 19 -99 98 19 -00 99 19 Fiscal Year -1 00 20 -2 01 20 st. 3e 2-0 0 20 st. 4e 3-0 0 20 st. 5e 4-0 0 20 * Percent of state income tax collections distributed to cities and towns/Total state-shared tax revenue pool ($ in mil- 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. Fiscal Year Amount Percent 1994-95 1995-96 1,107,750 1,089,151 1.4 (1.7) 1996-97 1,081,122 (0.7) 1997-98 1,019,776 (5.7) 1998-99 950,000 (6.8) 1999-00 976,000 2.7 2000-01 957,785 (1.9) 2001-02 900,415 (6.0) 2002-03 est. 901,600 0.1 2003-04 est. 883,600 (2.0) 2004-05 est. 865,900 (2.0) 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 $31 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 1,108 1,089 1,081 1,020 976 950 958 900 902 884 400 Declining revenue reflects lower statewide Lottery revenue and Tempe’s slower population growth 200 0 -95 94 19 -96 95 19 -97 96 19 8 7-9 199 -99 98 19 0 9-0 199 -01 00 20 Fiscal Year 2 1-0 200 . . est est 04 -03 2 3 0 0 20 20 . est -05 4 0 20 866 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. Community Development Block Fiscal Year Amount Percent Section 8 Amount Percent 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 2,967,700 24.2 4,985,700 7.8 2001-02 2,148,750 (27.6) 5,427,291 8.9 2002-03 est. 5,553,570 158.5 5,926,644 9.2 2003-04 est. 3,291,230 (40.7) 7,526,433 27.0 2004-05 est. 3,552,230 7.9 7,265,433 (3.5) 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 12.0 Section 8 Housing Grant 10.0 5.9 8.0 6.0 7.5 7.3 3.3 3.5 5.0 3.8 3.9 4.0 3.8 3.7 5.4 4.6 4.1 5.6 2.0 2.9 2.7 2.0 1.6 2.4 3.0 2.4 2.1 0.0 -95 94 19 -96 95 19 -97 96 19 -98 97 19 -99 98 19 -00 99 19 -01 00 20 Fiscal Year -02 01 20 . est -03 2 0 20 . est -04 3 0 20 . est -05 4 0 20 Water/Wastewater Revenues User Fees Restrictions Water/Wastewater is a self-supporting, enterprise operation. Fiscal Year 1994-95 1995-96 Amount 33,107,522 32,895,352 Percent 14.5 (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 45,349,960 (2.0) 2001-02 44,591,306 (1.7) 2002-03 est. 46,199,534 3.6 2003-04 est. 45,384,864 (1.8) 2004-05 est. 45,835,835 1.0 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. FY 2003-04 decrease reflects a reduction in interest income due to the drawndown of funds available to invest. In the second year of the biennium, the slight increase is due to an approved rate increase. 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 32.90 34.98 37.93 45.35 44.59 46.20 45.38 37.54 10.00 0.00 -95 94 19 -96 95 19 -97 96 19 -98 97 19 -99 98 19 -00 99 19 -01 00 20 Fiscal Year -02 01 20 . est -03 2 0 20 . est -04 3 0 20 . est -05 4 0 20 45.84 Solid Waste 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. Fiscal Year Amount Percent 1994-95 8,038,917 14.5 1995-96 8,484,046 5.5 1996-97 8,636,576 1.8 1997-98 9,039,504 4.7 1998-99 9,256,680 2.4 1999-00 9,840,100 6.3 2000-01 9,758,199 (0.8) 2001-02 10,024,863 2.7 2002-03 est. 10,305,234 2.8 2003-04 est. 10,603,700 2.9 2004-05 est. 10,603,700 0.0 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 2003 to address projected shortfalls in the Solid Waste 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. FY 2002-03 and FY 2003-04 increases are reflective of an approved rate increase. In the second year of the biennium, as the City approaches build-out (Tempe is a landlocked city), Solid Waste revenue growth should level. Major Influences: Population, Internal Policy, and Commercial Market/Competition Solid Waste Fees $ Millions 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 $11.75 3/98 $12.75 11/02 $13.96 01/03 4.00 2.00 Monthly residential rate changes are indicated in the FY when rates were modi0.00 5 4-9 199 6 5-9 199 7 6-9 199 -98 97 19 -99 98 19 0 9-0 199 1 0-0 200 Fiscal Year -02 01 20 . est -03 02 0 2 . est -04 03 0 2 . est -05 04 0 2 Golf Course Fees Restrictions Revenues are used to defray costs of operating the Rolling Hills and Ken McDonald golf courses. Rolling Hills Fiscal Year 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 est. 2003-04 est. 2004-05 est. Amount 824,968 1,016,217 1,051,586 994,964 997,000 882,082 840,000 767,285 790,000 810,000 810,000 Ken McDonald Percent 0.9 23.2 3.5 (5.4) 0.2 (11.5) (4.8) (8.7) 3.0 2.5 0.0 Amount 1,086,521 1,156,946 1,294,228 1,237,961 1,246,000 1,060,418 1,018,500 1,006,532 1,035,000 1,040,000 1,040,000 Percent 0.9 6.5 11.9 (4.4) 0.7 (14.9) (4.0) (1.2) 2.8 0.5 0.0 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 minimal 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 2600 2400 2200 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 -95 94 19 -96 95 19 -97 96 19 -98 97 19 -99 98 19 -00 99 19 Ken McDonald -01 00 20 Fiscal Year -02 01 20 st. 3e 0 02 20 st. 4e 0 03 20 st. 5e 0 04 20 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 Issues Management/Strategic Budgeting Strategic Issues: Goals and Strategy/Action Plan Per Capita Performance Budget Performance Budget Summary Performance Benchmarking Mayor and Council City Manager Internal Audit Diversity Program Community Relations Administration/Mayor’s Office and Council Staff Government Relations Neighborhood Services Communication and Media Relations Economic Development City Clerk City Court Human Resources Tempe Learning Center City Attorney Financial Services Administration, Accounting, Budget, Risk Management, Central Services, and Tax & License Information Technology Development Services Administration and Planning & Code Compliance Housing Services (Section 8, CDBG & HOME) Community Design and Development Building Safety and Permits Police Office of the Chief Patrol Support Services Investigations Fire Administration and Fire Prevention/Personnel Safety Emergency and Medical Services Training and Professional Development Special Operations Support Services Community Services Administration and Parks & Recreation Library Cultural Services Social Services Public Works Administration and Engineering Field Services/Administration and Solid Waste Services Field Services/Facility Management Field Services/Parks and Golf Course Maintenance Fleet Services Transportation Streets and Traffic Operations Water Utilities 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 key goals that each Council Committee wants to City Council 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 Identify and recommend corresponding strategies, action plans, and/ or departmental activities to further bring improvement and/or results Cross-functional Teams Timeframes August Council Advance August September/October Review strategies, action plans, and or departmental activities Staff Coordinators recommended by the cross-functional team/groups with the Executive Executive Team Late October, early November Review strategies/action plans associated with goal with oversight City Council Council Committee for recommendations, and interface to Committee’s Committee Mid/late November Review strategies, action plans, responsibilities, and associated Staff Coordinator December/January Incorporate approved goals, strategies, and action plans into operating and capital improvement budget program and structure Executive Team December/January Hear and consider FY 2003-05 budget requests from departments (based on FY 2003-05 goals and action plans). City Council Executive Team February Evaluate status of FY 2003-05 goals and action plans with management City Council February Evaluate budget requests and allocate budget resources accordingly Executive Team March/April Conduct public sessions on operating and capital improvement City Council April/May Adopt budget program. City Council Review results of goals and action plans established for the fiscal year City Council just completed. Update on goals and strategies established for the Executive Team current biennium (FY 2003-05). Begin process anew for the next June August Council Advance Strategic Issues: Goals and Strategy/Action Plan FINANCE AND DIVERSITY COMMITTEE Status at a Glance 23 Action Items ü Completed ü Ongoing ü On Hold 5 18 0 Goal 1: To oversee the update of the City’s Long-Range Financial Plan Evaluate the plan’s assumptions Completed Evaluate potential cost savings to the City and possible revenue-raising opportunities Ongoing Examine City options for potential future reductions to state-shared revenue Completed Communicate financial plan to Boards/Commissions and public Completed Goal 2: To review the City’s existing financial policies Review level of fund balance and reserves Ongoing Review debt capacity strategies Ongoing Review bond rating impacts Ongoing Review City special event policies Ongoing Review contingency levels Completed Review capital budget policies Completed Review debt policies Ongoing Review investment policy Ongoing Review audit process with agencies with which the City interacts, such as Tempe Community Council or Downtown Tempe Community Ongoing Goal 3: To review the City’s development incentive policy Review use of incentives/basis Ongoing Review other development tools Ongoing Review market-driven economics versus land use management Ongoing Goal 4: To emphasize competitive service delivery throughout the City Further develop performance measures that best measure City program activity, efficiency, and effectiveness Ongoing Do comparison of performance measures with that of other comparable cities Ongoing Conduct periodic reviews of City programs for competitiveness Ongoing Pursue possible sunsetting of programs Ongoing Goal 5: To strengthen diversity within the City and community Redefine the role of the Human Relations Commission Ongoing Provide oversight of the City’s Diversity Action Plan Ongoing TOURISM AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Status at a Glance 16 Action Items ü Completed ü Ongoing ü On Hold 3 13 0 Goal 1: To initiate activities that enhance Tempe’s reputation as an intellectual center Develop strategic new partnerships with ASU to facilitate economic development mission of retaining existing business, attracting new business and diversifying the economy at a higher level Ongoing Attract biotech industry capitalizing on location of International Genomics Consortium in Arizona Ongoing Encourage development of incubator and wet lab space in Tempe Ongoing Enhance livable, walkable, urban environment for attracting/retaining knowledgeable workers Ongoing Examine opportunity for “wireless umbrella” over downtown/ASU Ongoing Goal 2: To focus on tourism development and reposition Tempe as a regional destination for the future Examine impact of attracting youth/amateur sports tournaments by adding new indoor and outdoor facilities Ongoing Investigate opportunities to provide “niche convention space” in Tempe Ongoing Constantly improve on existing events and identify opportunities to bring new events, attractions and business to the City Ongoing Create Tempe video to exchange with sister cities to foster visits and tourism Completed Goal 3: To improve economic development relationships with all cities in metro Phoenix Address legislative issues that have regional economic impact Completed For FY 2002-03 Session Cooperate with neighboring cities to enhance light rail business opportunities Ongoing Support expansion of Phoenix Civic Plaza with resulting opportunities for Tempe Completed Goal 4: To improve sales tax revenues in Tempe Aggressively market Tempe to retailers Ongoing Promote relationships between neighborhoods and neighborhood businesses Ongoing Identify ailing neighborhood shopping centers and develop tools to incentivize revitalization of neighborhood shopping centers and/or designating as redevelopment areas Ongoing Develop accurate demographic and trend information for retailers and make it available on the economic development web page Ongoing RIO SALADO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Status at a Glance 11 Action Items ü Completed ü Ongoing ü On Hold 2 9 0 Goal 1: To examine and modify Rio Salado Finance Plan based on three years worth of experience Re-examine indexing rate and finance rate for capital assessments Completed Re-examine Rio Salado Community Facility District assessment formula Completed Goal 2: To the fullest extent possible, complete desired public developments in the Rio Salado Master Plan Complete the planning, design and construction of grant-funded park projects Ongoing Complete the Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) with the U.S. Corps of Engineers and begin construction on the habitat restoration projects Ongoing Develop a plan for the financing and development of the former Bureau of Land Management property as a recreational destination Ongoing Plan and develop expanded use of the Town Lake, Marina, Beach Park, and the linear park system Ongoing Study options for the development of the site west of the Arts Center to Priest Drive as open space Ongoing Support Arizona State University partnership opportunities on the Town Lake Ongoing Support the Rio Salado Town Lake Foundation efforts to enhance the Rio Salado Project Ongoing Goal 3: To support the development of private projects in Rio Salado Assist private partners with the planning, review and execution of projects in Rio Salado Ongoing Provide intra-city and intergovernmental liaison to overcome land use, utility, planning, and other development challenges within Rio Salado Ongoing CULTURAL AND COMMUNITY PROGRAMS COMMITTEE Status at a Glance 16 Action Items ü Completed ü Ongoing ü On Hold 3 13 0 Goal 1: To examine issues related to Double Butte Cemetery Review Double Butte Cemetery Master Plan Completed Review options to develop an enterprise fund to start the master plan Completed Goal 2: To examine options to relocate Anaheim Angels’ minor league to Diablo Stadium Develop a master plan of existing site Ongoing Examine funding strategies for implementation Ongoing Examine recreational impacts and strategies to mitigate these impacts Ongoing Goal 3: To examine issues related to the development of the Tempe Arts Center (after dire ction from the Council of the Whole) Review various project aspects after direction from the Council of the Whole Ongoing Goal 4: To review golf course operations and strategies to promote continued success Review annual enterprise fund viability Ongoing Determine need and use of current and/or additional facilities Ongoing Review any significant course enhancements or operational changes Ongoing Goal 5: To assure community and neighborhood recreational needs are being met through the development of a strategy to address issues of maintenance and improvements to our parks and athletic fields Develop master plans for various neighborhood parks around the City to help guide long-range i m provements Ongoing Assist neighborhood groups that receive grant funding to improve parks Ongoing Examine potential strategies to address the long-range needs of our neighborhood parks Ongoing Goal 6: To maintain and enhance Tempe’s role in coordinating special events Examine the possibility of providing umbrella insurance options to event sponsors Completed Assist community non-profits to successfully sponsor events and address event issues Ongoing Examine performance, success and economic impact of events Ongoing Goal 7: To complete the design of the North Tempe Multigenerational Center NEIGHBORHOOD ENHANCEMENT AND PEOPLE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COMMITTEE Status at a Glance 17 Action Items ü Completed ü Ongoing ü On Hold 5 12 0 Neighborhood Enhancement scope of work: Goal 1: To identify and facilitate resolutions/discussion of current neighborhood issues/programs presented by residents, the Neighborhood Advisory Commission and City staff Research and discuss neighborhood street issues: noise walls; speeding; cut-through traffic Ongoing Research and discuss neighborhood alley issues: new maintenance program Ongoing Facilitate discussion of neighborhood property issues: party houses; transients in parks; problems with adjacent railroad properties Ongoing Facilitate neighborhood community building; neighborhood recognition (by City): · Annual Residential Beautification awards Completed · Neighbor of the Year (individual/group efforts) Ongoing · Neighborhood of the Year Ongoing Facilitate education of neighborhoods regarding economic development conditions/needs of City Ongoing People Improvement Program scope of work: Goal 1: To collaborate and partner with community groups and organizations to address Tempe’s social service issues Facilitate People Improvement Plan - Inventory of needs and services Completed Provide Human Services Planning update Completed Facilitate poverty issues/outreach (Earned Income Tax Credits; Savings Program for Working Poor) Completed Locate new funding partner for H O Program Ongoing Assess Tempe Community Foundation status Ongoing Complete assessment of aging population Completed Begin assessment of disability/access issues - Fall 2003 Ongoing Update progress on Homeless Task Force recommendations Ongoing Review Community Services fee structure Ongoing Relationship with Tempe St. Luke’s Hospital Ongoing 2 TRANSPORTATION/LIGHT RAIL & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE Status at a Glance 15 Action Items ü Completed ü Ongoing ü On Hold 3 11 1 Goal 1: To participate in planning and development of high-capacity corridor systems review Coordinate with Arizona State University on issues related to light rail, including: station location and design, site planning/connections, right-of-way, and funding Ongoing Coordinate with regional partners on light rail issues, including: funding; cooperation with partners in Central Phoenix/East Valley light rail project corridor; participate in Valley Metro Rail, Inc. and review agenda Ongoing Provide public information and communication regarding milestones and throughout design and construction of light rail project Ongoing Address ancillary issues related to light rail, such as parking replacement, transit-oriented development, and connections with other modes of transportation Ongoing Participate in Scottsdale/Tempe/Chandler North/South Corridor Study Completed Participate in Maricopa Association of Governments High Capacity Study Completed Goal 2: To focus on development of General Plan 2030 and Transportation Plans Develop General Plan 2030, focusing on oversight and adoption issues, including: coordination, public process, affordable housing, density, and election issues Ongoing Develop Comprehensive Transportation Plan, focusing on oversight and adoption issues, including: coordination with General Plan 2030, coordination with MAG Long Range Transportation Plan and Transportation Policy Committee process Completed Develop strategies to encourage reinvestment and revitalization Ongoing Goal 3: To rewrite Zoning Code to facilitate quality development, meet current standards, and promote pedestrian-oriented development Develop and adopt Zoning Code and oversee implementation Ongoing Develop and implement Pedestrian Overlay District as part of Zoning Code rewrite On Hold Goal 4: To identify and coordinate transportation funding opportunities Coordinate regional transportation funding issues, including light rail revenue streams/costs Ongoing Participate in regional half-cent tax extension discussions Ongoing Coordinate local transportation funding issues, including CIP projects resulting from the transportation plan Ongoing Discuss stability of funding sources that are based on population (e.g., HURF, LTAF) Ongoing COMMUNITY/SCHOOLS /ASU PARTNERSHIP COMMITTEE Status at a Glance 17 Action Items ü Completed ü Ongoing ü On Hold 3 14 0 Goal 1: To enhance the relationship and foster partnerships between Tempe schools, Arizona State University and the City of Tempe Establish a joint meeting between the City Council and the School Boards Ongoing Establish and promote Teen Screen Program with the Tempe Union High School District Completed Improve and enhance Pappas School partnerships Ongoing Improve and enhance Kid Zone Partnerships Ongoing Enhance and promote athletic partnerships with the schools Ongoing Promote school and community diversity efforts through partnerships with ASU and the Mexican Cultural Center Ongoing Partner with schools and continue to provide officers on school campuses Ongoing Goal 2: To maximize resources and improve services through the development of community partnerships Re-establish working relationships with Tempe St. Luke’s Hospital Ongoing Work with ASU and Tempe School Districts to enhance partnerships such as transit/transportation opportunities, neighborhood issues Ongoing Promote and enhance the Fire Department’s Urban Survival Program Ongoing Coordinate City and school district lobbying efforts to promote healthy schools and neighborhoods Ongoing Improve and enhance school ground maintenance partnerships and explore other opportunities for partnerships Ongoing Promote the use of Mexican National Identification Cards to access City services (in conjunction with Neighborhood Enhancement and People Improvement Program Council Committee) Completed Explore opportunities to maximize resources and enhance efficiency at the Community Centers Ongoing Goal 3: Enhance communication and information sharing and dissemination through the development of community partnerships Utilize existing forms of communication such as Channel 11 and water bill to promote community, school and higher education partnerships Ongoing Utilize schools to distribute City information to promote City services and encourage community Per Capita Performance Budget The citywide operating budget for FY 2003-04 totals $365.5 million and for FY 2004-05 totals $433.7 million. This represents per capita growth of 5.2% and 1.7%. for 68% f the total departmental budgets in each respective year. Budget increases , in these departments, are primarily due to increased retirement contributions and rising health care costs. In each fiscal year, the City continues to give priority to the areas of Public Works, Public Safety, and Community Services, which accounts Department Mayor & Council City Manager Internal Audit Community Relations Diversity Programs Economic Development/Rio Salado 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 Capital Improvement Projects Total Operating Per Capita 2001-02 Actual 3.12 6.14 1.69 13.32 0 7.56 4.85 19.29 25.23 17.11 30.63 0 94.86 266.27 89.44 115.53 335.96 146.00 $1,177.00 173.94 22.20 28.21 535.52 $1,936.87 2002-03 Budget 3.33 3.48 3.33 15.88 0 9.83 2.93 19.77 22.63 17.51 41.10 0 106.28 283.15 95.31 118.90 345.81 150.97 $1,240.21 153.91 23.73 28.58 819.44 $2,265.87 2002-03 Revised 3.29 3.04 3.29 16.08 2.04 9.51 2.72 19.08 22.03 16.55 41.45 0 119.19 279.35 94.29 113.72 346.50 140.33 $1,232.46 153.91 23.73 28.58 819.44 $2,174.96 2003-04 Budget 2.33 1.68 2.57 16.34 2.69 11.11 4.18 19.21 12.49 15.43 35.44 0 110.25 288.76 96.05 111.13 355.85 169.36 $1,254.87 239.70 29.04 21.53 736.28 $2,281.42 2004-05 Budget 2.35 1.69 2.63 16.62 2.73 11.71 2.82 19.65 12.63 16.28 36.00 0 110.95 293.91 97.12 114.81 362.79 169.83 $1,274.52 274.69 29.44 15.91 1,099.12 $2,693.68 Performance Budget Summary Department Personal Services Mayor & Council City Manager Internal Audit Community Relations Diversity Program Economic Development 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 $288,631 265,819 359,468 1,520,936 230,455 956,707 301,392 2,245,985 1,675,313 2,078,200 4,246,739 6,131,991 5,874,667 36,558,638 12,918,858 12,719,873 21,935,450 9,258,446 $119,567,568 Mayor & Council City Manager Internal Audit Community Relations Diversity Program Economic Development 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 $293,344 267,678 370,518 1,564,512 239,153 987,022 315,258 2,325,189 1,713,732 2,226,804 4,400,403 6,324,661 6,071,205 37,388,504 13,154,619 13,040,180 22,603,103 9,506,250 $122,792,135 $119,567,568 $119,567,568 $122,792,135 $122,792,135 Supplies/Services/ Contributions 2003-04 $110,301 13,100 22,752 900,647 188,331 966,443 324,600 362,529 568,949 283,993 1,379,015 5,021,270 11,005,707 2,845,786 998,682 5,023,704 33,398,609 13,329,937 $76,744,355 38,404,580 2,221,001 3,449,232 123,017,364 117,968,707 240,986,072 2004-05 $110,301 13,100 22,752 911,870 188,331 1,044,304 94,600 362,529 568,949 281,993 1,334,014 5,021,270 10,977,966 2,843,970 998,682 5,383,915 34,312,058 13,384,182 $77,854,786 44,230,919 4,507,731 2,562,182 $129,155,618 176,983,222 $306,138,84 Capital Outlay 46,480 831,500 4,800 294,000 1,917,130 389,400 $3,483,310 Internal Services ($24,866) (9,871) 30,015 197,159 11,727 (142,932) 43,778 469,154 (243,507) 110,551 6,319 (11,984,761) 779,147 6,861,576 1,177,589 62,324 (236,146) 4,156,791 $1,264,047 232,971 $3,483,310 1,497,018 3,483,310 1,497,018 60,900 831,500 4,800 294,000 1,858,270 216,670 $3,266,140 ($25,050) (8,277) 30,502 200,360 11,918 (145,675) 44,486 476,809 (249,373) 113,349 1,350 (12,177,431) 810,756 7,093,055 1,191,120 62,324 (355,304) 4,239,359 $1,314,278 232,971 $3,266,140 $1,547,24 $3,266,14 $1,547,249 Total Budget $374,066 269,048 412,235 2,618,742 430,513 1,780,218 669,770 3,077,668 2,000,755 2,472,744 5,678,553 17,664,321 46,266,000 15,389,129 17,805,901 57,015,043 27,134,574 $201,059,280 38,404,580 4,652,168 3,449,232 $247,565,261 117,968,707 $365,533,968 $378,595 272,501 423,772 2,676,742 439,402 1,885,651 454,344 3,164,527 2,033,308 2,622,146 5,796,667 17,864,727 47,325,529 15,638,421 18,486,419 58,418,128 27,346,461 $205,227,340 44,230,919 4,740,702 2,562,182 $256,761,144 176,983,222 $433,744,366 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 nonprofit organization serving local government. Data for Innovation Group-suggested 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. Mayor and Council Mayor and Council City Clerk City Court Boards and Commissions City Attorney 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 Clerk, City Manager, City Court and City Attorney, as well as, Board and Commission members. 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 2001-02 Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Contributions Expenditure Total Per Capita $235,574 128,694 592 70,397 62,760 $498,017 $3.12 2002-03 Budget $286,321 89,101 0 78,650 76,700 $530,772 $3.33 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel Mayor and Council Total Full 7 7 Perm Temp 2002-03 Revised $280,689 89,101 0 78,650 76,700 $525,140 $3.29 2003-04 Budget Full 7 7 Perm 0 Temp 2003-04 Budget $288,631 33,601 0 (24,866) 76,700 $374,066 $2.33 2004-05 Budget $293,344 33,601 0 (25,050) 76,700 $378,595 $2.35 2004-05 Budget Full 7 7 Perm 0 Temp Goal: To represent the citizens of Tempe and formulate and enact policy as the legislative and policymaking 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 Goal: 2001-02 Actual 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 140 140 140 140 140 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 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 Objective: 1) To supervise City administration; and 2) to oversee citizen boards and commissions. 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 Measures 2001-02 Budget Revised Budget Council appointees reviewed Citizen boards and commissions Goal: 2004-05 Budget 4 4 4 4 4 29 29 29 29 29 To implement an annual survey of citizen satisfaction with City services and resource priorities. Objective: To enhance citizen input into the budget process. 2002-03 Measures 2001-02 Budget Citizen survey Overall City Satisfaction 2004-05 Budget 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget allocation 2004-05 Budget Yes Yes Yes No Yes 97% 97% 97% N/A 98% City Manager 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 2001-02 Actual $1,129,503 111,328 644 (261,425) $980,050 $6.14 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita 2002-03 Budget $543,096 56,400 0 (44,375) $555,121 $3.48 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel City Manager Total Full 4 4 Perm 2002-03 Revised $502,199 26,400 0 (44,375) $484,224 $3.04 2003-04 Budget $265,819 13,100 0 (9,871) $269,048 $1.68 2003-04 Budget Temp Full 0.5 0.5 2 2 Perm 2004-05 Budget $267,678 13,100 0 (8,277) $272,501 $1.69 2004-05 Budget Temp Full 0.5 0.5 2 2 Perm Temp 0.5 0.5 Internal Audit 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. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita 2001-02 Actual $240,632 4,131 2002-03 Budget $467,634 24,932 $466,453 20,101 $359,468 22,752 $370,518 22,752 0 25,553 $270,316 1,545 36,176 $530,287 1,545 36,176 $524,275 0 30,015 $412,235 0 30,502 $423,772 $1.69 $3.33 $3.29 $2.57 $2.63 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel Internal Audit Total Goal: Full 5 5 Perm Temp 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2003-04 Budget Full 4 4 Perm Temp 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Budget Full 4 4 Perm Temp 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. 2001-02 Actual 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget Management advisory services 8 6 10 8 8 Citywide audit plan 1 1 1 1 1 Performance and operational audits 2 2 2 2 2 Internal control review audits 2 3 2 2 2 Contract compliance audits 1 1 1 1 1 Self-assessment projects 0 1 0 1 1 Measures Diversity Program Diversity Program The Diversity Office is responsible for coordinating the City’s response to the Diversity Audit, functions as an ombudsman for City employees, provides administrative support to the Human Resources Commission and coordinates community special events. 2003-05 Highlights: The Diversity Office budget was established in 2002 to support the newly created 2001-02 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita $0 0 0 $0 $0 2002-03 Budget $0 0 0 $0 $0 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel Diversity Total Full 3 3 Perm Temp 2002-03 Revised $128,803 195,631 0 $324,434 $2.04 2003-04 Budget $230,455 188,331 11,727 $430,513 $2.69 2003-04 Budget Full 3 3 Perm Temp 2004-05 Budget $239,153 188,331 11,918 $439,402 $2.73 2004-05 Budget Full 3 3 Perm Temp Goal: To create a fair and equitable work environment for City of Tempe employees. Objective: (1) To develop and implement the Diversity Action Plan; and (2) serve as a Safe Haven for City employees 2001-02 Actual 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget Diversity Action Plan implementation* - - 1 1 1 Employee advocacy groups* - - 1 3 3 Mentoring Program* - - 0 1 1 Management advisory services* - - 30 30 30 Employee Safe Haven people served* - - 225 150 100 Coordination and facilitation of Workshops* - - 2 7 7 Measures * New measure Goal: To develop community related programs and community events to facilitate cultural awareness and diversity within the City of Tempe. Objective: (1) To design and coordinate community diversity celebrations; and (2) create and implement community awareness opportunities. 2001-02 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget Martin Luther King, Jr. Celebration* 0 0 700 8,000 10,000 Fiesta Bowl Thank You Reception* 0 0 250 250 250 Tempe Talks: A Diversity Dialogue* 0 0 65 75 75 Cesar Chavez Celebration* Tempe Talks: A Community Conversation* 0 0 50 250 250 0 0 80 80 80 Mayor’s Early Riser Celebration* 0 0 600 0 0 Beautification Awards* 0 0 250 250 250 Tardeada* 0 0 8,000 8,500 8,500 Boards and Commission Dinner* Fiesta Parade Brunch* 0 0 0 0 500 250 500 250 500 250 Measures *New measure Community Relations Community Relations Mayor & Council Staff Government Relations Neighborhood Services Communication & Media Relations The Community Relations Office is comprised of the Mayor’s Office Staff and Council Office Staff, Government Relations Division, Neighborhood Services Division, and Communication and Media Relations division. The Mayor and Council Office staff provide administrative, technical and clerical support to the Mayor and Councilmembers. The Government Relations Division interacts with the State Legislature, the Maricopa Association of Governments, and other agencies and elected bodies. It also provides support to the Mayor, Council, and City Manager on legislative, transportation and aviation issues. The Neighborhood Services Division helps preserve the integrity of Tempe's residential areas and promotes a sense of community. It provides technical and informational services to neighborhood associations, homeowners associations and affiliate groups. It also supplies clerical support to neighborhood associations. Neighborhood Services helps associations identify and resolve neighborhood problems and determine future goals and priorities. Informed citizen participation is the goal. The Communication and Media Relations Division gathers and distributes information to publicize the city’s objectives, issues and successes. The graphics area assists with layout, design, printing and web coordination needs. The media services area provides electronic and video media assistance, including programming of Tempe 11. The media relations area maintains a liaison with news media organizations. 2003-05 Highlights: The Community Relations Department (CRD) is a new department that was created during the last biennial budget. The CRD was created from positions that were originally in the City Manager’s office. This shifting of reporting responsibilities allowed the elimination of assistant city manager positions and resulted in all department managers reporting to the city manager. The result is a more effective relationship between operating departments and the city manager. The creation of the CRD centralizes functions that specialize in internal and external communication activities. The CRD is comprised of the Mayor and Council staff, Government Relations, Neighborhood Services and Communication and Media Relations. Expenditures by Type 2001-02 Actual 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget Personal Services Supplies and Services Contributions Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita $1,021,443 465,137 468,871 23,977 148,483 $2,127,911 $13.32 $1,677,560 528,190 184,500 0 142,200 $2,532,450 $15.88 $1,598,735 535,290 286,574 0 142,200 $2,562,799 $16.08 $1,520,936 615,543 285,104 0 197,159 $2,618,742 $16.34 $1,564,512 625,542 286,328 0 200,360 $2,676,742 $16.62 2001-02 Actual 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget 769,731 251,699 1,106,481 $2,127,911 472,741 270,553 1,030,446 $2,532,450 575,171 279,272 995,290 $2,562,799 519,061 218,582 1,049,744 $2,618,742 526,173 233,320 1,062,494 $2,676,742 Expenditures by Division Community Relations– Admin; Government Relations Neighborhood Services Communication & Media Relations Expenditure Total 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel Full Perm Temp 2003-04 Budget Full Perm Temp Community RelationsAdmin; Mayor and 2004-05 Budget Full Temp FTE 8 Government Relations 3 2 2 Neighborhood Services 3 2 2 Communication & Media Total Perm 6 21 1.83 18 1.83 18 1.83 Administration/Mayor’s Office and Council Staff The Administration Division coordinates the operations of the Community Relations Department. The Mayor’s Office and Council Staff facilitate communication among the public, city staff, other elected entities and the Mayor and Council. Staff support is also provided for these Council committees: Community/Schools/Higher Education Partnerships, Tourism & Economic Development, Transportation/ Light Rail & Development Services, Finance & Diversity Issues, Neighborhood Enhancement & People Improvement Program, Cultural and Community Programs and the Rio Salado Committee of the Whole. $0 0 0 2002-03 Budget $664,583 31,187 62,940 2002-03 Revised $610,939 39,187 62,940 2003-04 Budget $629,941 132,300 69,114 2004-05 Budget $652,206 132,299 70,250 $0 $0 $758,710 $4.76 $713,066 $4.47 $831,355 $5.19 $854,755 $5.31 2001-02 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel Full Perm 2003-04 Budget Temp Full 0.98 8 Perm 2004-05 Budget Temp Full 0.98 8 Perm Temp Community Relations Admin; Mayor and Total 9 0.98 Government Relations The Government Relations Division is responsible for the following activities: (1) coordination of all state and federal legisla tive 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. $239,828 43,051 17,981 2002-03 Budget $256,387 13,731 18,123 2002-03 Revised $257,743 12,731 18,123 2003-04 Budget $198,227 12,727 23,003 2004-05 Budget $203,736 12,727 23,382 468,872 $769,732 $4.82 184,500 $472,741 $2.97 286,574 $575,171 $3.61 285,104 $519,061 $3.24 286,328 $526,173 $3.27 2001-02 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Internal Services Contributions Expenditure Total Per Capita 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel Government Relations Total Goal: Full 3 3 Perm 2003-04 Budget Temp Full 2 2 Perm 2004-05 Budget Temp Full 2 2 Perm Temp 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 2001-02 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Neighborhood Services The Neighborhood Services Division, created by City Council Resolution in 1987, 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, more than 100 homeowner associations and 5 affiliate groups. It also supplies clerical support to neighborhood associations. The Neighborhood Services Division’s key job is to maintain clear communication lines between neighborhood groups and City government, focusing on identifying, resolving and preventing neighborhood problems. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita 2002-03 Budget 2001-02 Actual $223,965 14,976 200 12,558 $251,699 $1.58 $243,415 15,206 0 11,932 $270,553 $1.70 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel Neighborhood Services Total Full 3 3 Perm Temp 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget $242,134 25,206 0 11,932 $279,272 $1.75 $186,301 13,350 0 18,931 $218,582 $1.36 2003-04 Budget Full 2 2 Perm Temp 2004-05 Budget $190,735 23,350 0 19,235 $233,320 $1.45 2004-05 Budget Full 2 2 Perm Temp 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. 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2001-02 Budget Revised Budget Budget Measures Participating households 36,155 37,000 37,075 37,500 38,000 Percent change 2.8% 2.5% 1.3% 1.31% Grant applications received 57 45 55 60 65 Households awarded grants 12,549 8,000 9216 10,000 11,000 Grant funds awarded $225,000 $225,000 $225,000 $225,000 $225,000 Matching funds received $160,000 $150,000 $146,000 $150,000 $150,000 Mailing sent by office 50,000 60,000 44,000 45,000 47,500 Communication and Media Relations The Communication and Media Relations Division handles all public information and media relations for the City and manages cable channel Tempe 11. 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 the division include media relations, graphic design, public relations, audio-visual and government access cable channel coordination. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita 2001-02 Actual $557,650 407,111 23,777 117,944 $1,106,482 $6.93 2002-03 Budget $513,175 468,066 0 49,205 $1,030,446 $6.46 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel Full Perm 2002-03 Revised $487,919 458,166 0 49,205 $995,290 $6.24 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget $506,467 457,166 0 86,111 $1,049,744 $6.55 $517,835 457,166 0 87,493 $1,062,494 $6.60 2003-04 Budget Temp Full Perm 2004-05 Budget Temp Full Perm Temp Communication & Media 6 0.85 6 0.85 6 0.85 Total 6 0.85 6 0.85 6 0.85 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 11 programming services. 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2001-02 Budget Revised Budget Budget Measures 12 12 12 12 12 Tempe Today water bill newsletter Newsbreak city employee newsletter 50 50 12 12 12 Newspaper advertisements 25 30 20 12 12 Press releases 140 144 139 144 144 Informational publications 85 85 85 85 85 Major publication ads 15 15 15 15 15 Fiesta Bowl media packets 1,000 1,000 1,200 1,600 1,600 12 12 12 12 12 Water bill insert flyers Newsletters for other divisions 8 8 8 8 8 City, Transit & Fire Performance Reports 3 3 3 3 3 Special Projects 10 10 10 10 10 Major event graphic support 10 10 10 10 10 Audio/visual equipment & staging 45 50 98 100 100 Still photography assignments 50 60 56 60 60 175 200 314 300 300 Video productions 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. 2003-05 Highlights: The biennial budget includes funding to develop a retail marketing initiative as well as funding to continue participation in regional economic development efforts. The Rio Salado Fund budget saw a slight decrease from the previous 2001-03 biennial budget. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Contributions Expenditure Total Per Capita Expenditures by Division Economic Development Rio Salado Total Authorized Personnel Economic Development Rio Salado Total 2002-03 Budget $880,605 729,461 25,525 (276,165) 208,346 $1,567,772 $9.83 2002-03 Revised $869,573 692,727 24,250 (276,165) 205,079 $1,515,464 $9.51 2003-04 Budget $956,707 771,478 0 (142,932) 194,965 $1,780,218 $11.11 2004-05 Budget $987,022 847,470 0 (145,675) 196,834 $1,885,651 $11.71 $500,917 703,794 2002-03 Budget $622,002 945,770 2002-03 Revised $619,823 895,641 2003-04 Budget $676,033 1,104,185 2004-05 Budget $768,137 1,117,514 $1,204,711 $1,567,772 $1,515,464 $1,780,218 $1,885,651 2001-02 $701,525 539,235 32,114 (266,813) 198,650 $1,204,711 $7.56 2001-02 2002-03 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 4 8 0.49 12 0.49 2003-04 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 4 8 0.49 12 0.49 2004-05 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 4 8 0.49 12 0.49 Goal: 1) To foster good communication between existing businesses and local government; and crease job opportunities for residents. 2) in- Objective: 1) To retain existing businesses in Tempe; and 2) hold quarterly business round-table meetings with Mayor and City Council. 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Measures 2001-02 Budget Revised Budget Budget Calls on existing Tempe businesses Quarterly business round-table meetings with Mayor and City Council Opportunities to retain Tempe businesses 50 50 120 120 120 3 5 4 5 2 5 4 5 4 5 Objective: To continue to "trigger" development in Tempe, including the Rio Salado project area. 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 Measures 2001-02 Budget Revised Budget New research and development operations 1 1 0 1 New office users 6 6 3 6 New sales tax generator 1 1 1 4 Jobs generated by new companies 2,500 2,500 3,000 3,000 New businesses brought to Tempe 10 10 10 10 2004-05 Budget 1 6 4 3,000 10 Goal: To diversify the Tempe economy. Successful business retentions and expansions Goal: 5 5 5 5 5 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. 2001-02 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget $21,900 $29,000 $24,276 $24,410 $25,000 Boating class revenues* $5,890 $7,250 $3,900 $4,200 $4,500 Rio Salado park permit revenues* Rental charges (vendors)* $321 $4,454 $12,000 $4,500 $2,283 $4,531 $2,450 $4,997 $2,460 $5,188 Measures Boat permit revenues* *New measure 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; administer City primary, general ads special elections; serve as secretary to Tempe Firefighter/Police Public Safety Personnel Retirement boards; and assist the Mayor in the administration of appointing members to serve on various City boards and commissions as established by Council. Expenditure by Type $325,398 415,397 2002-03 Budget $334,664 96,900 2002-03 Revised $303,642 94,600 2003-04 Budget $301,392 324,600 2004-05 Budget $315,258 94,600 200 31,715 0 35,762 0 35,762 0 43,778 0 44,486 $772,710 $4.85 $467,326 $2.93 $434,004 $2.72 $669,770 $4.18 $454,344 $2.82 2001-02 Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel City Clerk Total Full 5 5 Perm Temp 0.58 0.58 2003-04 Budget Full 4 4 Perm Temp 0.58 0.58 2004-05 Budget Full 4 4 Perm Temp 0.58 0.58 Goal: To continue providing an effective microfilming program through the development of a Objective: To maintain a sufficient level of microfilming for various departments in accordance with the State of Arizona Department of Library and Archives. 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Measures 2001-02 Budget Revised Budget Budget Rolls microfilmed 60 65 70 70 80 Percent change 8.3% 7.7% 0.0% 14.3% Goal: To monitor and maintain all council and citywide contracts and agreements, process all ordinances 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. 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Measures 2001-02 Budget Revised Budget Budget Contracts and agreements processed 250 260 269 300 300 Ordinances and resolutions processed Bids advertised and posted 350 130 375 140 383 147 400 150 400 150 Goal: To administer citywide elections. Objective: To administer Mayor/Council election in the spring of 2002. 2002-03 2002-03 Measures 2001-02 Budget Revised Elections Conducted 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget - 2 3 2 - 2002 Primary (18%) 13,614 - - 14,000 - 2002 General (27%) 2002 Special-Bed Tax (21%) 20,056 16,417 - - 20,100 16,500 - Voter Turnout 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. 2003-05 Highlights: The Courts have reduced staffing by 2 positions as part of streamlining efforts. To enhance security, the police/courts building is currently undergoing remodeling that includes a single point of entry as well as the installation of more secure counters in the lobby areas. Finally, the Tempe Municipal Court is presently developing a Mental Health Court for mentally ill offenders, which includes the homeless and Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita 2001-02 $2,137,937 427,271 2002-03 Budget $2,256,332 403,314 2002-03 Revised $2,186,924 362,529 2003-04 Budget $2,245,985 362,529 2004-05 Budget $2,325,189 362,529 515,648 $3,080,856 $19.29 491,602 $3,151,248 $19.77 491,602 $3,041,055 $19.08 469,154 $3,077,668 $19.21 476,809 $3,164,527 $19.65 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel City Court Total Full 35 35 Perm 2003-04 Budget Temp 4.2 Full 33 4.2 33 Perm 2004-05 Budget Temp 4.2 Full 33 4.2 33 Perm Temp 4.2 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. 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Measures 2001-02 Budget Revised Budget Budget Failures to Appear Criminal Arraignments 6,068 6,300 7,916 8,700 9,100 Percent Change 9% 10% 10% 5% Failures to Appear Civil Arraignments 16,112 17,400 21,688 23,800 24,860 Percent Change 4% 25% 10% 5% Arrest warrants issued within 48 hours 6,068 6,300 7,916 8,700 9,100 Percent issued 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Defaults issued within 48 hours 16,112 17,400 21,688 23,800 24,860 Percent issued 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Human Resources Human Resources Manager Administration Classification/ Compensation & Recruitment Employee Benefits & Services TLC The Human Resources Department consists of four divisions: Administration; Classification/ Compensation and Recruitment; Employee Benefits and Services; and the Tempe Learning Center (TLC) which directly and indirectly service all City departments and their respective employees by attracting and retaining a qualified and diverse work force; administering: local, state and federal employment laws; wage and salaries; employee and retiree healthcare benefits; and the deferred compensation program to improve organizational productivity and effectiveness while effectively communicating to employees their rights, responsibilities, benefits, and training opportunities; investigating complaints and grievances; assisting with employee relations issues; and providing mediation services. 2003-05 Highlights: Human Resources experienced a 19% decrease in staffing during the 2002-2003 fiscal year resulting in the loss of two Human Resources Analyst I/II positions and one Human Resources Technician I/II position, yet maintains services by restructuring resources to meet client demands and forging partnerships with other City departments. A comprehensive market review and analysis of the current compensation system was completed without using non-recurring funds that budgeted during 2002-2003 to hire a contract analyst. Improvements identified in the 2002 Compensation Study were not, however, implemented due to the City’s revenue shortfall. Future budgetary appropriations will therefore be required to fund market adjustment recommendations already identified and to study movement that has occurred since the 2002 Compensation Study was completed. Personal Services Materials and Supplies Fees and Services/Travel Internal Services $3,498,999 108,786 936,851 (522,880) 2002-03 Budget $1,901,522 77,417 494,088 1,134,499 Expenditure Total 4,021,756 3,607,526 3,511,834 2,000,755 2,033,308 $25.23 $22.63 $22.03 $12.49 $12.63 Expenditures by Type 2001-02 Per Capita 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel Full Perm Human Resources 18 Total Learning Center Tempe Total Temp 2002-03 Revised $1,791,580 95,417 490,338 1,134,499 2003-04 Budget $1,675,313 82,817 486,132 (243,507) 2004-05 Budget $1,713,732 82,817 486,132 (249,373) 2003-04 Budget Full Perm 0.50 1.0 19 16 0.50 18 2 1.0 19 2 20 0.50 18 Temp 2004-05 Budget Full Perm 19 16 0.50 19 2 0.50 18 0.50 Temp Goal: To attract and retain a diverse and qualified workforce. Objective: A low annual turnover rate of less than 10% of the total workforce. 2002-03 2002-03 Measures 2001-02 Budget Revised Employee Turnover Rate 7.70% 7.0% 7.0% Goal: 2003-04 Budget 8.0% 2004-05 Budget 8.0% 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. 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Measures 2001-02 Budget Revised Budget Budget Total cost per citywide FTE $2,336 $2,132 $2,076 $1,225 $1,245 (9%) (11%) (41%) 2% 99 99 104 107 107 - - 5% 8% - Average number of days to complete an external, competitive 40 40 42 35 35 Average number of days to complete an internal, competitive re- 26 26 16 16 16 Percent change Citywide FTE's served per Human Resources staff Percent change Comparative Benchmark Tempe Learning Center The Tempe Learning Center (TLC) supports the City’s mission, values and strategic initiatives through employee training and development. Working closely with the Diversity Steering Committee, the City’s five-sided employee partnership and guided by the Tempe Learning Center Board, TLC ensures that services are inclusive and meet organizational objectives. In order to prepare Tempe employees for the future and to create a learning organization, TLC provides education and career counseling and administers the tuition reimbursement program. TLC also develops and manages mandatory skills training series for managers and supervisors, educational partnerships for academic -degree and vocational/ technical certifications, and workshops targeting specific training needs. 2003-05 Highlights: During 2003, TLC reclassified a Human Resources Technician II+ position to a Management Assistant I/II position in response to the City’s changing needs and increased demand for educational partnership programs, and training and development programs (i.e., Mandatory Supervisory Training III). 2002-03 Budget $508,217 29,965 58,976 25,380 $622,538 $3.90 2001-02 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita $602,552 45,067 53,240 20,967 $721,826 $4.53 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel Tempe Learning Center Total Full 2 2 Perm Temp 2002-03 Revised 597,971 29,965 58,976 25,380 $712,292 $4.47 2003-04 Budget Full 2 2 Perm Temp 2003-04 Budget $446,044 28,365 54,770 (78,186) $450,993 $2.81 2004-05 Budget $450,751 28,365 54,770 (78,721) $455,165 $2.83 2004-05 Budget Full 2 2 Perm Temp Goal: 1) To facilitate continuous learning throughout the City of Tempe by providing academic, vocational and professional development programs that build leadership skills. Objective: 1) Sponsor professional development programs that include technical professional development opportunities. 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Measures 2001-02 Budget Revised Budget Budget Classes conducted by the TLC programs New employees attending Tempe Essentials Customer Service – Team Building Customized Spanish courses participants Effective Minute Taking* Goal: 3 249 25 107 0 3 150 25 210 0 4 124 30 38 62 4 124 30 38 62 4 124 30 38 62 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 Objective: 1) Increase the number of internal training courses; 2) establish new educational partnership programs to include technical and trade partnerships; 3) implement on-line courses on city specific topics; and 4) initiate special projects to enhance learning opportunities for city employees. 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Measures 2001-02 Budget Revised Budget Budget Internal training courses & workshops/seminars Participants Educational partnership efforts established Participants * New measure 4 15 9 10 15 857 850 922 922 922 5 75 11 75 7 92 7 92 8 92 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 2003-05 Highlights: With several recent retirements, the City Attorney’s Office has undergone a reorganization of the Civil and Criminal Divisions. The Criminal Division will be directly supervised by the City Prosecutor who will report to the City Attorney. The Criminal Division has been reduced by one Administrative Assistant I and by one Assistant City Prosecutor. $2,188,533 2002-03 Budget $2,291,417 2002-03 Revised $2,243,711 2003-04 Budget $2,078,200 2004-05 Budget $2,226,804 Supplies and Services Fees and Services/Travel 39,532 314,353 41,915 330,531 39,415 227,293 41,249 242,744 41,249 240,744 Internal Services 185,619 127,335 127,335 110,551 113,349 $2,728,037 $2,791,198 $2,637,754 $2,472,744 $2,622,146 $17.11 $17.51 $16.55 $15.43 $16.28 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Expenditure Total 2001-02 Per Capita 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel City Attorney City Attorney - Water Total 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget Full 23 3 Perm 0.5 Temp 0.62 Full 21 3 Perm 0.75 Temp 0.62 Full 21 3 Perm 0.75 Temp 0.62 26 0.5 0.62 24 0.75 0.62 24 0.75 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. 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Measures 2001-02 Budget Revised Budget Budget Lawsuits: Pending civil lawsuits 45 65 45 95 60 Forfeiture actions 35 18 37 35 35 Tax hearings 10 10 10 10 10 Lawsuits filed by/against City 27 17 26 75 45 Percent change in caseload (37%) (4%) 188% 73% Goal: To effectively serve as legal counsel for the City and practice preventative law. Objective: To provide legal expertise to cover all major legal issues of the City and issue quality legal Measures Ordinances, resolutions and contracts reviewed/drafted Written and verbal legal opinions Goal: 2001-02 600 2,200 2002-03 Budget 635 2,020 2002-03 Revised 700 2,100 2003-04 Budget 770 2,310 2004-05 Budget 847 2,541 To prosecute misdemeanors effectively and efficiently with an emphasis on serious crimes, and 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. 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Measures 2001-02 Budget Revised Budget Budget Criminal, criminal traffic and DUI cases 8,854 11,500 11,500 12,000 12,000 Per attorney 1,265 1,643 1,700 2,000 2,000 DUI cases (included above) 1,351 1,500 1,580 1,600 1,600 Criminal traffic trials 34 80 53 60 60 Criminal trials (other than traffic) 122 140 176 180 180 Victim contacts 18,443 19,000 16,829 17,000 17,000 Percent of cases going to trial 1.8% 2.0% 1.9% 2.0% 2.0% 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 Customer Services Revenue Collections Payroll The Financial Services Department is comprised of the divisions of Accounting, Budget, Risk Management, Central Services, Tax & License, and Customer Services. The department’s operational functions include all finance, accounting, budget, purchasing, reprographics, business licensing responsibilities, and customer service billing operations. 2003-05 Highlights: Financial Services began the new biennium with 68 full-time positions, having lost 11 positions as a result of a citywide streamlining operation intended to find efficiencies and reduce costs, especially in the General Fund. The Customer Services Division including 16 full-time employees was reorganized under the Financial Services Department. The FY 2003-04 budget included the authorization of 4 additional new positions (2 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Contributions Expenditure Total Per Capita Expenditures by Division Financial Services Administration Accounting Budget Risk Management Central Services Tax and License Customer Services Total 2001-02 $3,441,892 1,728,740 15,626 (340,640) 3,448 $4,849,066 $30.63 2001-02 $139,235 897,574 238,875 1,080,285 1,194,848 1,298,249 0 $4,849,066 2002-03 Budget $4,574,293 2,016,202 31,500 (69,269) 0 $6,552,726 $41.10 2002-03 Revised $4,456,736 2,220,656 0 (69,269) 0 $6,608,123 $41.45 2003-04 Budget $4,246,739 1,379,015 46,480 6,319 0 $5,678,553 $35.44 2004-05 Budget $4,400,403 1,334,014 60,900 1,350 0 $5,796,667 $36.00 2002-03 Budget $248,993 1,065,614 274,350 927,567 1,117,379 1,496,659 1,422,164 $6,552,726 2002-03 Revised $292,313 958,411 286,992 1,114,173 1,094,350 1,410,302 1,451,582 $6,608,123 2003-04 Budget $262,728 914,108 276,148 0 1,076,757 1,460,322 1,688,490 $5,678,553 2004-05 Budget $270,288 909,790 278,419 0 1,095,919 1,506,471 1,735,780 $5,796,667 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel Financial Services-Admin. Accounting Budget Risk Management Central Services Tax and License Customer Services Total Full 3 12 4 4 12 17 16 68 Perm Temp 0.63 0.5 0.62 0.5 1.25 2003-04 Budget Full 2 11 4 3 11 17 20 68 Perm Temp 0.63 0.5 0.62 0.5 1.25 2004-05 Budget Full Perm 2 11 4 3 11 17 20 68 Temp 0.63 0.5 0.62 0.5 1.25 Functions related to Financial Services include Administration, Accounting, Budget, Risk Management, Central Services, Tax & Lic ense, Customer Service, 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; Tax and License receives all City sales tax and licensing revenue and is responsible for issuing sales tax licenses and auditing license holders; and Customer Services is responsible for billing and collecting charges for water, sewer, refuse, 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 Objective: To maintain the Government Finance Officers Association Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. Measures 2001-02 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget Accounting GFOA Certificate of Achievement Compliance with State and Federal 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 Reporting Requirements 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. 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Measures 2001-02 Budget Revised Budget Budget Administration and Budget Fund balance coverage Long-term net-direct debt per capita Goal: 28% $397.73 25% $482.74 28% $482.74 25% $491.07 25% $547.24 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. 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Measures 2001-02 Budget Revised Budget Budget Risk Management General and property liability claims $510,854 $650,000 $650,000 $700,000 $725,000 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: $241,771 $875,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $320 $3.97 $4.08 $4.39 $4.55 $31,340 $33,372 $34,210 $38,888 $40,278 $14,832 $44,924 $57,894 $61,111 $66,666 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 45% of lower cost items through annual contracts; and 2) maintain compliance with the American Bar Association's Model Procurement Code. Measures Central Services Conformity to American Bar Association Model Procurement Code Lower cost purchases made through annual contracts Bid award recommendations accepted by City Council Maintain at least 80% customer department satisfaction 2001-02 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget Conform Conform Conform Conform Conform 40% 40% 40% 45% 45% 95% 95% 100% 95% 95% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% Maintained Maintained Maintained Maintained Maintained Maintain and monitor a city procurement card program Maintained Maintained Maintained Maintained Maintained Maintain an automated bidder registration program and Procurement Comparative Benchmark 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: To maximize the productivity of the Tax and License staff as measured by taxable accounts and 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Measures 2001-02 Budget Revised Budget Budget Tax and License Taxable sales (Millions $) Sales tax license holders (accounts) Taxable sales per capita ($) Taxable sales per Tax and License employee ($) Accounts per Tax and License employee Collections for Auditors and Revenue Collectors ($) Goal: 5,155,027,000 5,946,076,000 5,046,755,000 5,137,597,000 5,240,349,000 13,202 32,333 12,950 36,367 13,427 31,656 13,800 32,065 14,000 32,544 303,237,000 312,951,000 296,868,000 302,212,000 308,256,000 777 682 790 812 824 2,202,000 - 2,383,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 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 10% and reading water meters accurately 99% of the time. 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Measures 2001-02 Budget Revised Budget Budget Customer Services Utility services accounts 40,822 41,100 41,265 41,300 41,300 Percent change 0% 0.2% 0% 0% 0% Utility services accounts per Customer Services employee 2,401 2,418 2,579 2,065 2,065 Percent of calls abandoned 6.91% 5.0% 9.99% 10.00% 10.00% Percent of meters read accurately* 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. 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Measures 2001-02 Budget Revised Budget Budget Cost per utility services account (annual) $32.00 $34.80 $37.00 $39.76 $40.55 Percent change 14.5% (4.3%) 15.7% 7.5% 2.0% Cost per Customer Services employee $75,723 $84,145 $76,603 $82,101 $83,744 * New measure Information Technology Information Technology Manager Assistant Information Technology Manager Assistant Information Technology Manager Application Services Customer Support/ Technical Services Telecommunications Ops & Planning Public Access Systems Data Center & Network Ops Database Administration Project Engineering Criminal Justice Project Mgmnt 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. 2003-05 Highlights: The Biennial Budget includes the elimination of 8.5 FTE: (two Program Consultants, one Sr. Management Assistant, one Support Services Supervisor, one Training Coordinator, 2.5 Programmer Analysts, and one Communications Network Technic ian). Expenditures by Type $6,141,799 2002-03 Budget $ 6,473,752 2002-03 Revised $ 6,438,359 2003-04 Budget $6,131,991 2004-05 Budget $6,324,661 5,240,916 1,140,951 5,114,434 755,810 4,966,355 745,955 5,021,270 831,500 5,021,270 831,500 $(12,523,666) $0 $(12,343,996) $0 $(12,343,996) ($193,327) $(11,984,761) $0 $(12,177,431) $0 2001-02 Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel Administration Full 6 Perm Temp 2003-04 Budget Full 4 Perm Temp 2004-05 Budget Full 4 Application Services 38 37 37 Customer Support 9 8 8 Technical Services 15 14 14 Telecommunications 11 10 10 Total 79 73 73 Perm Temp 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 computer workstations and telephone inventory. Measures Personal computer inventory Percent change Telephone inventory Percent change Cost per computer and terminal workstation Comparative Benchmark 2001-02 2,086 2,865 $4,626 2002-03 Budget 2,094 0.38% 2,891 0.91% 2002-03 Revised 2,207 5.80% 2,899 1.19% 2003-04 Budget 2,227 0.91% 2,925 0.90% 2004-05 Budget 2,247 0.90% 2,945 0.68% $4,690 $4,325 $4,151 $4,187 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, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Occupancy Made Easier (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 on-site 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 low-income 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 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 2002-03 Budget $7,093,343 7,941,454 0 1,180,679 525,870 202,507 $16,943,853 $106.28 2002-03 Revised $6,424,327 10,640,202 93,418 1,180,679 460,526 202,507 $19,001,660 $119.19 2003-04 Budget $5,874,667 10,276,541 4,800 779,147 583,765 145,401 $17,664,321 $110.25 2004-05 Budget $6,071,205 10,265,266 4,800 810,756 583,765 128,935 $17,864,727 $110.95 $266,812 1,465,349 990,721 2002-03 Budget $194,930 1,639,505 1,020,708 2002-03 Revised $180,567 1,549,149 1,090,812 2003-04 Budget $183,222 1,224,167 1,112,054 2004-05 Budget $184,174 1,261,674 1,148,645 1,801,935 6,164,682 1,435,182 3,027,424 $15,152,106 2,687,608 6,051,264 1,631,589 3,718,249 $16,943,853 5,468,374 6,201,285 1,480,728 3,030,744 $19,001,660 3,291,230 7,676,991 1,562,331 2,614,324 $17,664,321 3,291,230 7,676,991 1,611,358 2,690,655 $17,864,727 2001-02 $6,353,691 7,398,042 17,289 882,954 500,130 0 $15,152,106 $94.86 2001-02 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel Administration Full Perm Temp 1 2003-04 Budget Full Perm Temp 1 1.86 Full 17 Code Compliance 14 13 13 Housing Services – CDBG & HOME 5 5 5 Housing Services – Section 8 9 9 9 Community Design & Development 17 11 11 Building Safety & Permits Total 32 95 1.86 29 84 Perm Temp 1 Planning 1.00 1.00 16 2004-05 Budget 1.86 1.00 2.86 16 29 84 1.86 1.00 2.86 Administration and Planning & Code Compliance 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 Specia l 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 obtaining compliance when violations are observed. 2003-05 Highlights: The Planning and Code Compliance Division staffing was reduced by 4 positions during the biennium as part of a citywide streamlining and cost reduction effort. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Contributions Expenditure Total Per Capita 2001-02 $2,104,258 124,462 16,495 295,757 181,910 $2,722,882 $17.05 2002-03 Budget $2,281,175 141,093 0 327,875 105,000 $2,855,143 $17.91 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel Development Services-Admin. Current Planning Code Compliance Total Full 1 17 14 32 Perm Temp 1.86 1.86 2002-03 Revised $2,245,809 140,043 1,800 327,875 105,000 $2,820,528 $17.69 2003-04 Budget $1,967,726 113,743 1,800 301,317 134,857 $2,519,443 $15.72 2003-04 Budget Full 1 16 13 30 Perm Temp 1.86 1.86 2004-05 Budget $2,037,699 113,743 1,800 306,394 134,857 $2,594,493 $16.11 2004-05 Budget Full 1 16 13 30 Perm Temp 1.86 1.86 Goal: To ensure the resources necessary to continue to provide the high level of quality services our 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. Measures 2001-02 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget $1,465,349 $1,731,269 $1,549,149 $1,224,167 $1,261,674 13 9.0 14.0 10.0 10.0 4,991 1,100 900 930 960 (8)% - (19%) 3% 3% 713 122 100 116 120 $293.60 $1,574 $1,721 $1,316 $1,314 N/A 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 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 Goal: To obtain compliance with City codes that relate to nuisances, property enhancements, rental 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 40 days or less. 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised $990,721 8.5 $1,055,316 9 $1,090,812 9 $1,112,054 9 $1,148,645 9 Number of days to resolve code violations Code enforcement cases received Code enforcement cases closed 42 4,780 4,719 43 5,500 5,500 43 5,500 5,500 40 5,600 5,600 40 5,750 5,750 O&M per code enforcement case Cases per inspector per month $209 47 $192 51 $198 51 $199 58 $200 60 Measures Code Enforcement Total O&M costs Total number of Code Inspectors 2001-02 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget Housing Services (Section 8, CDBG & HOME) The Housing Services Division provides the following services: (1) rehabilitation of structures with lowinterest loans; (2) Section 8 rental assistance for the 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. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Contributions Contingencies Expenditure Total Per Capita 2001-02 849,811 6,766,667 697 31,223 318,220 0 7,966,618 $49.87 2002-03 Budget 886,777 7,211,108 0 17,610 420,870 202,507 8,738,872 $54.81 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel Community Development Block City Funded Development Section 8 Housing Total Full Perm Temp 2002-03 Revised 1,060,671 9,941,727 91,618 17,610 355,525 202,507 11,669,659 $73.20 2003-04 Budget 867,993 9,502,920 3,000 0 448,908 145,401 10,968,222 $68.46 2003-04 Budget Full Perm Temp 2004-05 Budget 911,819 9,475,559 3,000 0 448,908 128,935 10,968,221 $68.12 2004-05 Budget Full 4 4 4 1 9 14 1 9 14 1 9 14 Perm Temp 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 Objective: To increase the number of houses rehabilitated using federal Community Development Block Grant and HOME program fundi ng, while maximizing staff productivity and controlling administrative costs. Measures Single family houses rehabilitated: Community Development Block Grant HOME (Home Occupancy Made Easier) Program Funds Households assisted per FTE staff – CDBG O&M expenditures per household assisted - CDBG First-time Homebuyer Program (CAMP) General Fund Households Assisted per FTE Goal: Objective: 2001-02 41 20 11.36 25 25 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 Budget Revised Budget 60 20 15.0 $44,793 30 15 50 20 15.0 $35,954 30 13 2004-05 Budget 60 20 26.0 $40,319 30 15 60 20 26.0 $40,040 30 15 To provide decent, safe and sanitary housing for the City's low and moderate income citizens. To provide rental subsidies and family self-sufficiency guidance to low income people living in private rental housing within Tempe. Measures Households receiving rental subsidies Housing certifications/inspections provided Certifications Inspections Households assisted per FTE staff - Section 8 O&M expenditures per household assisted - Section 8 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 Budget Revised Budget 2004-05 Budget 863 1,022 925 987 1,022 381 1,125 95.9 $7,143 400 1,000 113.6 $4,910 400 1,000 77.1 $6,569 350 1,000 109.7 $7,626 400 1,000 113.6 $7,364 Community Design and Development 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. 2003-05 Highlights: The Community Design and Development Staff was reduced by 6 positions during the biennium as part of a citywide streamlining and cost reduction effort. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel 2001-02 2002-03 Budget $916,938 431,767 86,477 $1,435,182 $8.98 $1,083,037 449,577 98,975 $1,631,589 $10.23 2002-03 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget $932,176 449,577 98,975 $1,480,728 $9.29 2004-05 Budget $863,883 551,202 147,246 $1,562,331 $9.75 2003-04 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE $894,350 567,289 149,719 $1,611,358 $10.01 2004-05 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE Community Design & Total Goal: 17 11 11 To ensure the resources necessary to continue to provide the high level of planning, design and Objective: To monitor and minimize operating and maintenance (O&M) costs associated with the delivery of the Division’s services. Measures O&M costs Planner FTE position 2001-02 2002-03 Budget $1,435,182 $1,939,924 15 15 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget $1,480,728 14 $1,562,331 9 2004-05 Budget $1,611,358 9 Building Safety and Permits 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) recommend codes and ordinances, rules and regulations applicable to construction and property conservation; (2) check plans, specific ations 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, mechanic al, plumbing, engineering, and fire permits related to private development. 2003-05 Highlights: The Building Safety and Permits Division staff was reduced by 3 positions as part of a citywide streamlining and cost reduction effort. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita 2001-02 2002-03 Budget Building Safety & Permits Total 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget $2,482,684 75,146 97 $2,842,354 139,676 0 $2,185,671 108,854 0 $2,175,065 108,675 0 $2,227,337 108,675 0 469,497 $3,027,424 $18.95 736,219 $3,718,249 $23.32 736,219 $3,030,744 $19.01 330,584 $2,614,324 $16.32 354,643 $2,690,655 $16.71 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel 2002-03 Revised Full Perm 32 32 1.00 1.00 Temp 2003-04 Budget Full 29 29 Perm 2004-05 Budget Temp Full 1.00 1.00 29 29 Perm Temp 1.00 1.00 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 20 days; new residential construction 12 days. Measures Plan Check Total O&M Total number of Plan Checkers Building plans submitted O&M per plan check Plans checked per month (weighted) Average plan review time (days): New commercial building New residential construction Goal: 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget $1,465,349 8 1,547 $836 146 $1,639,505 12.0 2,000 $820 167 $1,549,149 9.0 1,500 $1,033 $1,224,167 9.0 1,540 $795 140 $1,261,674 9.0 1,580 $799 145 20 12 15 8 20 12 20 12 20 12 2001-02 To perform on-site inspections of commercial and residential buildings, and to inspect damaged 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. 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2001-02 Budget Revised Budget Budget Measures Building Inspection Total O&M 3,027,424 $3,027,424 $3,718,249 $3,030,745 $2,614,325 Total number of Building Inspectors 10 14.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Number of inspections performed 48,950 70,000 44,000 45,100 46,000 O&M per inspection $62 $43 $85 $67 $57 31.9 33.0 34.9 33.0 33.0 Inspections per inspector per day 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. 2003-05 Highlights: The Police Department, which is considered a basic City service, was held relatively harmless in the biennial budget streamlining of personnel and operating costs process. The Police Department eliminated two non-sworn positions, froze three unfilled positions, and had operating cuts of less than $100,000 of 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget Expenditures by Type 2001-02 Personal Services $32,656,515 $35,803,163 $35,194,003 $36,558,638 $37,388,504 2,882,744 2,896,306 2,900,676 2,845,786 2,843,970 220,708 0 0 0 0 Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Expenditures by Division 6,693,006 6,441,123 6,441,123 6,861,576 7,093,055 $42,452,973 $45,140,592 $44,535,802 $46,266,000 $47,325,529 2001-02 Actual 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget Office of the Chief $3,394,143 $3,414,210 $3,400,518 $3,581,944 $3,614,667 Patrol 18,266,838 18,961,654 18,993,221 19,707,494 20,312,693 8,545,675 9,019,818 8,935,130 9,346,886 9,607,576 12,246,317 13,744,910 13,206,933 13,629,676 13,790,593 $42,452,973 $266.27 $45,140,592 $283.15 $44,535,802 $279.35 $46,266,000 $288.76 $47,325,529 $293.91 Support Services Investigations Total Per Capita Comparative Benchmark 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel Full Office of the Chief Patrol Support Services Investigations Total Sworn Non-Sworn Total 12 218 135 153 518 340 178 518 Perm 1.00 1.00 Temp 3.29 1.70 1.26 6.25 2003-04 Budget Full Perm 12 222 133 148 515 339 176 515 0 1.00 0 1.00 Temp 3.29 1.70 1.26 6.25 2004-05 Budget Full Perm 12 222 133 148 515 339 176 515 0 1.000 0 1.00 Temp 3.29 1.70 1.26 6.25 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. 2002-03 Budget 2001-02 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Full 12 12 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget $970,119 $821,180 $833,759 $1,285,813 $1,309,334 1,431,015 1,379,177 1,352,907 1,362,874 1,361,059 29,851 0 0 0 0 963,158 1,213,853 1,213,853 933,257 944,274 $3,394,143 $3,414,210 $3,400,519 $3,581,944 $3,614,667 $ 21.29 $21.42 $21.33 $22.36 $22.45 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel Office of the Chief Total 2002-03 Revised Perm Temp 2003-04 Budget Full 12 12 Perm 0 Temp 2004-05 Budget Full 12 12 Perm 0 Temp 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 less than 2.11 sworn full-time equivalents (FTE) per 1,000 capita. 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Measures 2001-02 Budget Revised Budget Budget Part 1 Crimes-Property 15,961 15,818 14,706 17,941 19,367 Clearance Rate 14.8% 18.7% 14.8% 18.7% 18.7% Part 1 Crimes-Persons 610 784 955 1,388 1,552 Clearance Rate 61.8% 52.6% 61.8% 61.8% 61.8% Part I Crimes Per 1,000 Capita 104 104 96 121 130 Citizen satisfaction 82 90 90 90 O&M Cost Per Capita 266 283 279 289 294 Sworn FTE’s per Capita (1,000) 2.11 2.11 2.06 2.12 2.11 Percent change 0.0% (2.5%) 2.7% (0.5%) Non-Sworn FTE’s per Capita (1,000) 1.06 1.07 1.04 1.10 1.09 Comparative Benchmark Patrol The Police Patrol Division is responsible for providing basic community policing services to the community. Services provided by this division are as follows: (1) to respond to requests for service; (2) to perform preliminary investigative work at crime scenes; (3) to work with the community to address public safety concerns; (4) conduct vehicle patrol to provide visibility in neighborhoods; (5) to provide police resources for special or unscheduled events that require additional staffing; and (6) to provide crime prevention and community education programs to the public. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita 2001-02 $14,679,601 273,004 139,934 3,174,299 $18,266,838 $114.57 2002-03 Budget $15,750,615 310,836 0 2,900,203 $18,961,654 $118.94 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel Patrol Total Full 218 218 Perm Temp 3.29 3.29 2002-03 Revised $15,771,697 321,320 0 2,900,204 $18,993,221 $119.14 2003-04 Budget $15,844,075 299,772 0 3,563,647 $19,707,494 $123.00 2003-04 Budget Full 222 222 Perm Temp 3.29 3.29 2004-05 Budget $16,339,480 299,772 0 3,673,441 $20,312,693 $126.15 2004-05 Budget Full 222 222 Perm Temp 3.29 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 of 5:00 minutes; and 2) maintain or increase neighborhoods participating in the Crime 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Measures 2001-02 Budget Revised Budget Budget "911" calls answered Percent change Citizen calls for police service Percent change Average response time to emergency calls Operating expenses per citizen calls Neighborhoods with Crime Watch Program Comparative Benchmark 4,883 4,979 4,979 5,077 5,153 - 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 1.5% 131,471 141,492 133,675 135,000 135,000 - 2.0% 1.7% 2.0% 1.5% 5:25 5:30 4:59 4:59 4:59 $138.94 300 $134.01 300 $142.09 300 $145.98 300 $150.46 300 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 Polic e 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. 2001-02 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Material and Supplies Fees and Services/Travel Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita $7,227,644 364,288 142,404 811,339 $8,545,675 $53.60 2002-03 Budget $7,817,810 317,538 102,587 781,883 $9,019,818 $56.58 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel Support Services Total Full 135 135 Perm 1.00 1.00 Temp 1.70 1.70 2002-03 Revised $7,723,980 326,681 102,587 781,882 $8,935,130 $56.05 2003-04 Budget Full 133 133 Perm 1.00 1.00 Temp 1.70 1.70 2003-04 Budget $8,115,669 310,756 99,587 820,874 $9,346,886 $58.34 2004-05 Budget $8,359,427 310,756 99,587 837,806 $9,607,576 $59.67 2004-05 Budget Full 133 133 Perm 1.00 1.00 Temp 1.70 1.70 Investigations The Investigations Division is comprised of Criminal Investigations, Special Investigations, Special Services, and Traffic Investigations. The Investigations Division is responsible for investigating felony, misdemeanor crimes; working in the schools; providing undercover and narcotics investigations, testifying in court, and providing basic services in the Downtown and Rio Salado areas. 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 and Part II crimes against persons and property; (4) investigate and prevent traffic accidents; (5) develop selective enforcement programs against special or increasing crime problems; and (6) provide specialty services including Mounted and K-9 functions. 2001-02 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita $9,779,149 328,969 393,989 1,744,210 $12,246,317 $76.81 2002-03 Budget $11,413,558 325,169 460,999 1,545,184 $13,744,910 $86.22 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel Investigations Total Full 153 153 Perm Temp 1.26 1.26 2002-03 Revised $10,864,566 336,182 460,999 1,545,186 $13,206,933 $82.84 2003-04 Budget $11,313,082 312,685 460,112 1,543,797 $13,629,676 $85.07 2003-04 Budget Full 148 148 Perm Temp 1.26 1.26 2004-05 Budget $11,380,263 312,685 460,112 1,637,533 $13,790,593 $85.64 2004-05 Budget Full 148 148 Perm Temp 1.26 1.26 Goal: To investigate and clear cases assigned to the Criminal Investigations Division. Objective: To effectively manage property caseload per investigator. Measures Property cases assigned Cases per investigator Goal: 2001-02 3,061 117 2002-03 Budget 1,662 128 2002-03 Revised 3,100 117 2003-04 Budget 3,100 117 2004-05 Budget 3,100 117 To investigate and clear cases assigned to the Criminal Investigations Division. Objective: To effectively manage persons caseload per investigator. 2002-03 2002-03 Measures 2001-02 Budget Revised Persons cases assigned 2,233 2,937 2,200 Cases per investigator 170 113 170 2003-04 Budget 2,200 170 2004-05 Budget 2,200 170 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 2003-05 Highlights: During the Biennial Budget, there are two key activities which will take place in the Fire Department. First, is the completion and opening of the new Fire Station 6 at 655 S. Ash Ave. Completion of the facility is scheduled for early September 2003. With the opening of this station, we will close the old station at 1000 E. University Dr. Second, is taking possession of a new 114 foot "Bronto" aerial ladder truck scheduled to arrive in January 2004. 2001-02 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Contributions Expenditure Total Per Capita $11,715,101 1,044,047 176,571 1,313,444 11,089 $14,260,252 $89.44 2002-03 Budget $12,408,529 1,049,255 650,190 1,073,218 13,000 $15,194,192 $95.31 2002-03 Revised $12,298,548 1,003,328 644,957 1,073,218 11,773 $15,031,824 $94.29 2003-04 Budget $12,918,858 985,682 294,000 1,177,589 13,000 $15,389,129 $96.05 2004-05 Budget $13,154,619 985,682 294,000 1,191,120 13,000 $15,638,421 $97.12 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget Comparative Benchmark 2001-02 Expenditures by Division Administration and Fire $2,571,759 $2,565,953 $2,451,419 $2,521,669 $2,559,090 Emergency and Medical 10,116,871 10,636,690 10,431,303 11,013,406 11,207,630 Training and Professional 300,251 321,385 333,235 305,065 307,840 Special Operations 233,060 204,986 354,987 247,814 250,693 1,038,311 $14,260,252 1,465,178 $15,194,192 1,460,880 $15,031,824 1,301,175 $15,389,129 1,313,168 $15,638,421 Support Services and Personnel Total Authorized Personnel Administration and Fire Emergency and Medical Training and Professional Special Operations Support Services Total 2002-03 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2003-04 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 19 17 128 128 3 3 6 159 0 0.5 0.5 3 3 5 156 0 2004-05 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 17 0 128 0 1.00 1.00 3 3 5 156 0 1.00 1.00 Administration and Fire Prevention/Personnel Safety 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. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita 2002-03 Budget $1,561,987 22,622 180,492 800,852 $2,565,953 $16.10 2001-02 $1,447,375 24,481 138,496 961,406 $2,571,758 $16.13 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel Administration Fire Prevention and PersonTotal Goal: Full 8 Perm Temp 11 19 2002-03 Revised $1,484,776 19,032 146,759 800,852 $2,451,419 $15.38 2003-04 Budget $1,477,032 15,000 170,727 858,910 $2,521,669 $15.74 2003-04 Budget Full 6 Perm Temp 11 17 2004-05 Budget $1,501,860 15,000 170,727 871,503 $2,559,090 $15.89 2004-05 Budget Full 6 Perm Temp 11 17 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. Measures Department cost per fire employee Firefighters per capita (10,000) Non-Firefighters per capita (10,000) Companies per capita (10,000) Fire Stations per capita (10,000)/square Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating Operating Expenditures per $100,000 of property protected Percent Change Comparative Benchmark 2001-02 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget 89,406 7.84 2.16 0.056 .31/.13 2 95,261 7.84 2.16 0.056 .38/.15 2 95,744 7.84 2.01 0.056 .38/.15 2 98,020 7.80 2.00 0.056 .37/.15 2 99,608 7.76 1.99 0.056 .37/.15 2 1,051 1,043 (0.76%) 1,032 (0.02%) 911 (11.70%) 926 1.62% 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. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita 2001-02 $9,541,375 433,667 2002-03 Budget $10,087,362 424,503 2002-03 Revised $9,897,029 414,682 2003-04 Budget $10,588,984 395,422 2004-05 Budget $10,783,208 395,422 139,333 2,496 124,825 0 119,592 0 29,000 0 29,000 0 $10,116,871 $63.45 $10,636,690 $66.72 $10,431,303 $65.43 $11,013,406 $68.74 $11,207,630 $69.60 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel Emergency Services Medical Services Total Goal: Full Perm Temp 2003-04 Budget Full Perm 2004-05 Budget Temp Full 125 125 125 3 3 3 128 128 128 Perm Temp 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 inciResponses to special operations inciResponses 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 with Fire/Paramedic Services Comparative Benchmark *Calls do not include alarm processing time 2001-02 Actual 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget 2,430 12,296 141 1,936 2,440 14,900 95 1,810 2,300 12,400 65 2,000 2,400 12,600 75 2,050 2,450 12,900 80 2,100 4:13 5:00 4:30 4:25 4:25 68% 105 75% 121 14.5% 69% 105 (0.2%) 72% 107 1.6% 74% 109 1.9% 99% - - 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. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Fees and Services/Travel Expenditure Total Per Capita 2002-03 Budget $258,184 5,725 57,476 $321,385 $2.02 2001-02 $240,789 6,867 52,595 $300,251 $1.88 2002-03 Revised Temp 2003-04 Budget $250,789 4,000 50,276 $305,065 $1.90 2003-04 Budget Full Perm 2004-05 Budget $253,564 4,000 50,276 $307,840 $1.91 2004-05 Budget Authorized Personnel Full Training/Professional 3 3 3 Total 3 3 3 Goal: Perm 2002-03 Revised $269,934 5,300 58,001 $333,235 $2.09 Temp Full Perm Temp 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. Measures Percentage of companies completing minimum company standards evaluations Percentage of individuals who successfully attain compliance with minimum company standards Percentage of individuals who successfully attain self contained breathing apparatus proficiency compliance 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 Budget Revised Budget 2004-05 Budget 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 98% 100% 100% 100% 98% 98% 100% 100% 100% 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. 2001-02 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Contributions Capital Outlay Expenditure Total Per Capita $127,963 57,629 11,089 36,379 $233,060 $1.46 2002-03 Budget $117,014 34,307 13,000 40,665 $204,986 $1.29 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel Special Operations Total Full 3 3 Perm 2002-03 Revised $271,542 31,007 11,773 40,665 $354,987 $2.23 2003-04 Budget Temp Full 3 3 Perm Temp 2003-04 Budget $205,679 29,135 13,000 0 $247,814 $1.55 2004-05 Budget Full 3 3 Goal: To provide efficient response to emergencies that involve hazardous materials. Objective: To effectively manage the number of first responders. Measures First responders Hazardous materials technicians First responders per technician 2001-02 Actual 102 24 4.3 2004-05 Budget $208,558 29,135 13,000 0 $250,693 $1.56 Perm Temp 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget 102 24 4.3 101 24 4.2 101 24 4.2 101 24 4.2 Support Services 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. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services $357,600 330,414 2002-03 Budget $383,982 324,130 2002-03 Revised $375,267 328,547 2003-04 Budget $396,373 321,122 2004-05 Budget $407,429 321,122 859 349,438 484,700 272,366 484,700 272,366 265,000 318,680 265,000 319,617 $1,038,311 $6.51 $1,465,178 $9.19 $1,460,880 $9.16 $1,301,175 $8.12 $1,313,168 $8.16 2001-02 Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel Support Services Total Goal: Full 6 6 Perm 0.5 0.5 Temp 2003-04 Budget Full 5 5 Perm 1.00 1.00 Temp 2004-05 Budget Full 5 5 Perm 1.00 1.00 Temp To conduct progressive maintenance, inspections, service work, and major and minor repairs of all fire apparatus. Objective: 1) To insure reliability and safety of equipment serviced by Fire Maintenance; and 2) target 100% maintenance completion within the preventive maintenance schedule. 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2001-02 Budget Revised Budget Budget Measures Vehicles maintained Preventive maintenance inspections Percent completed within PM schedule 21 252 100% 21 252 100% 21 252 100% 22 258 100% 23 276 100% 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. Expenditures by Type 2001-02 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget Personal Services $12,707,432 $13,492,965 $12,750,221 $12,719,873 $13,040,180 3,355,721 2,752,772 2,670,394 2,580,378 2,880,378 88,511 39,500 39,500 0 0 2,266,236 2,607,532 2,607,532 2,443,326 2,503,537 Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Contributions Expenditure Total 36,977 62,324 62,324 62,324 62,324 $18,454,877 $18,955,093 $18,129,971 $17,805,901 $18,486,419 $115.53 $118.90 $113.72 $111.13 $114.81 Per Capita Expenditures by Division 2002-03 Budget 2001-02 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget Administration $565,980 $554,498 $541,473 $503,529 $512,125 Parks and Recreation 5,949,287 6,103,483 5,745,333 5,964,800 6,084,365 Library Cultural Services 4,356,351 1,524,732 4,553,244 1,635,508 4,402,875 1,468,617 4,399,697 3,118,015 4,488,484 3,498,918 6,058,525 $18,454,877 6,108,360 $18,955,093 5,971,673 $18,129,971 Social Services Total 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel Full Perm Temp 3,819,859 3,902,526 $17,805,901 $18,486,419 2003-04 Budget Full 2004-05 Budget Perm Temp Full Perm Temp Community Services Admin. and 39 4.25 66.87 37 4.25 67.87 37 4.25 67.87 Library Cultural Services 35 14 7.00 0.50 9.84 8.02 34 14 4.75 1.50 9.84 8.02 34 14 4.75 1.50 9.84 8.02 Social Services 39 17.90 62.10 41 2.15 81.49 41 2.15 81.49 29.65 146.83 126 12.65 167.22 126 Total 127 12.65 167.22 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. 2003-05 Highlights: During FY 2003-2005, Parks & Recreation will: assume management of the lease for the Westside Community Center, coordinate special events for economic development and tourism, redevelop and renovate Tempe Diablo Stadium Complex, coordinate the design and construction for Phase I of the expansion and renovation of Tempe Double Butte Cemetery, complete the design and construct a skateboard park, renovate ramadas and install a new playground at Kiwanis Community Park, construct Phase II of Tempe Sports Complex, develop an Arizona Diamondbacks “Field of Dreams” baseball field in the community and continue to refine the adapted recreation programs and the boating instructional 2002-03 Budget 2001-02 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Contributions Expenditure Total Per Capita Full 3 36 39 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget $4,220,518 1,596,219 $4,506,806 1,287,911 $4,223,137 1,200,405 $4,643,629 1,156,938 $4,741,675 1,156,938 20,530 641,023 36,977 35,000 765,940 62,324 35,000 765,940 62,324 0 605,438 62,324 0 635,553 62,324 $6,515,267 $40.79 $6,657,981 $41.76 $6,286,806 $39.43 $6,468,329 $40.37 $6,596,490 $40.97 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel Administration Parks and Recreation Total 2002-03 Revised Perm 4.25 4.25 Temp 0.52 66.35 66.87 2003-04 Budget Full 3 34 37 Perm 4.25 4.25 Temp 0.52 67.35 67.87 2004-05 Budget Full 3 34 37 Perm 4.25 4.25 Temp 0.52 67.35 67.87 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 Measures O&M cost per capita 2001-02 Actual 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget $36.71 $39.19 $35.10 $36.08 $36.43 $2,087,133 $2,006,543 $1,818,009 $1,910,600 $2,235,600 Cost Recovery 35% 33% 32% 32% 37% Percentage of citizens who have used a City park or recreation program in the past 12 months 78% - - 80% 80% 95% - - 95% 95% Parks & Recreation revenue Percentage of citizens who rate parks and recreation facilities as satisfactory Comparative Benchmark 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) check-out of print and audio-visual materials; (2) reference and reader’s advisory services; (3) children’s story hours, reading incentive programs, lecture and discussion programs, book discussion groups, and class visits; (4) community outreach; (5) inter-library loan service; (6) computer and Internet instructional classes; (7) public access computing; and (8) In-house and remote access to electronic information resources via the library Web site and online public catalog. 2003-05 Highlights: The biennial budget reflects a streamlined process for the delivery of library services to the community. By using self-service technology and processes wherever possible, quality library services and 2002-03 Budget 2001-02 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Full 35 35 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget $2,679,789 858,190 $2,842,764 781,300 $2,696,645 777,050 $2,710,076 772,879 $2,783,770 772,879 1,533 816,839 $4,356,351 $27.27 0 929,180 $4,553,244 $28.56 0 929,180 $4,402,875 $27.62 0 916,742 $4,399,697 $27.46 0 931,835 $4,488,484 $27.87 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel Library Total 2002-03 Revised Perm 7.00 7.00 Temp 9.84 9.84 2003-04 Budget Full 34 34 Perm 4.75 4.75 Temp 9.84 9.84 2004-05 Budget Full 34 34 Perm 4.75 4.75 Temp 9.84 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 Public Computer Usage Percent Change Operating cost per volume circulated Library FTE per 1,000 population Circulation per capita Comparative Benchmark 2001-02 Actual 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget 1,027,642 911,014 1,015,579 1,035,890 1,035,890 151,711 (8%) 167,483 0.5% 147,160 (12%) 147,160 0% 147,160 0% 1,265,451 1,123,650 1,304,680 1,330,774 1,330,774 15% 1.0% 16% 2% 0% 162,181 128,878 162,181 162,181 162,181 36% 3% 26% 0% 0% $3.44 0.34 $4.23 0.28 $3.37 0.32 $3.31 0.29 $3.37 0.29 7.81 6.9 8.0 8.0 8.0 Cultural Services The Cultural Services Division includes four program areas: Tempe Historical Museum, Community Arts Program, Fine Arts Program, and Tempe Center for the Arts. Services include management of the Peterson House, Vihel Center for the Arts, the Tempe Performing Arts Center, exhibits, community arts and cultural classes, grants for arts organizations and schools, and public art. The Division is also overseeing the design and development of the new Tempe Center for the Arts. 2003-05 Highlights: The biennial budget reflects a streamlined approach to services provided through the Cultural Services 2002-03 Budget $1,264,717 181,928 4,500 184,363 $1,635,508 $10.26 2001-02 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita $1,154,841 163,338 36,785 169,768 $1,524,732 $9.55 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel Cultural Services Performing Arts Total Full 12 2 14 Perm 0.5 Temp 8.02 0.5 8.02 2002-03 Revised $1,097,827 181,927 4,500 184,363 $1,468,617 $9.21 2003-04 Budget Full 11 3 14 Perm 1.0 0.5 1.5 Temp 8.02 8.02 2003-04 Budget $2,653,409 257,200 0 207,406 $3,118,015 $19.46 2004-05 Budget $2,731,030 557,200 0 210,688 $3,498,918 $21.73 2004-05 Budget Full 11 3 14 Perm 1.0 0.5 1.5 Temp 8.02 8.02 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 maintain the number of catalogued objects in the permanent artifact collections of the Tempe Historical Museum; and 2) increase public visitation at the Historical Museum and Peterson House Measures Objects catalogued Visitors to Historical Museum and Peterson House Goal: 2001-02 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 15,000 15,000 21,000 19,000 19,000 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) Measures Program enrollment Arts Classes revenues Grants provided to Art Organizations and Schools Participants reached through grants 2001-02 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget 5,308 $123,243 5,500 $124,000 5,500 $124,000 5,500 $124,000 5,500 $138,000 $126,325 215,000 $130,000 220,000 $114,235 204,100 $122,500 210,000 $122,500 210,000 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. 2003-05 Highlights: The biennial budget allows for program restructuring through partnerships and collaborations to ensure Expenditures by Type Personal Services 2001-02 2004-05 Budget $4,732,612 $2,712,759 $2,783,705 737,972 501,633 511,012 393,360 393,360 29,663 0 0 0 0 638,606 728,049 728,049 713,740 725,461 $6,058,525 $6,108,360 $5,971,673 $3,819,859 $3,902,526 $37.93 $38.31 $37.46 $23.84 $24.24 Internal Services Per Capita 2002-03 Revised Total 2003-04 Budget $4,878,678 Capital Outlay Authorized Personnel Social Services/Administration Social Services/ KID ZONE 2002-03 Revised $4,652,284 Supplies and Services Expenditure Total 2002-03 Budget 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget Full Perm Temp Full Perm Temp Full Perm Temp 33 6 39 3.90 14.00 17.90 14.67 47.43 62.10 22 19 41 2.15 15.56 65.93 81.49 22 19 41 2.15 15.56 65.93 81.49 2.15 2.15 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. 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2001-02 Budget Revised Budget Measures Kid Zone Participants 3,294 3,350 3,240 3,350 Escalante Usage contacts* Teen Leadership/Recognition contacts* Care 7 number served* Level of Satisfaction Goal: 2004-05 Budget 3,350 126,596 - 135,512 142,288 149,402 - - 1,090 1,090 1,090 3,539 3,500 3,494 3,400 3,500 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 1) To redirect adult first-time offenders into positive community activities by providing counseling and educational programs; 2) 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) provide screening services for offenders referred by the court to 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 Adult Diversion Program New Probation New Screenings Percent Completion: Adult diversion clients Probation clients Screening services * New measure 846 284 1,066 2002-03 Budget 1,150 200 900 2002-03 Revised 773 305 1,124 2003-04 Budget 850 300 1,000 77% 75% 82% 75% 60% 80% 79% 60% 82% 75% 60% 80% 2001-02 2004-05 Budget 850 300 1,000 75% 60% 80% Public Works Public Works Manager Administration Engineering Field Services Fleet Services Transportation Streets & Traffic Operations Construction Mgt. & Qlty Assurance Solid Waste Fleet Maintenance Studies & Design Traffic Operations Plan Review/ Project Dev Facility Management Auto Parts Transit Street Maintenance Information & Technical Svcs Parks & Golf Course Mtnce Fuel Admin Support & Contract Admin The Public Works Department consists of Administration and Engineering, Field Services, Fleet Services, Transportation, and Streets and Traffic Operations. The Engineering Division provides CIP project implementation, utility management, real estate services, property addressing, right-of-way permitting, project design, and construction management. Field Services consists of Solid Waste, Parks and Golf Course Maintenance, and Facility Management. Field Services is responsible for maintaining all the City’s public parks and 2 golf courses, performing building maintenance and custodial services, and solid waste recycling, collection and disposal. Fleet Services is responsible for the City’s vehicle and equipment acquisition, repair, preventative maintenance, accident damage, fleet road service, utilization and disposal. The Transportation group currently includes two major sections: Study and Design and Transit. Transportation is responsible for traffic engineering design and studies, traffic calming, transit services, long range transportation planning including light rail and public involvement marketing. Streets and Traffic Operations is responsible for pavement marking and striping, traffic signal maintenance and construction, street lighting, alley maintenance, street sweeping, pavement management and street repair and construction. $20,154,146 2002-03 Budget $21,819,341 2002-03 Revised $21,208,160 2003-04 Budget $21,935,450 2004-05 Budget $22,603,103 Supplies and Services 32,190,571 31,614,872 32,446,707 33,398,609 34,312,058 Capital Outlay Internal Services 2,293,867 (1,084,829) 2,577,770 (918,132) 2,471,827 (918,132) 1,917,130 (236,146) 1,858,270 (355,304) 10,574 36,261 32,762 0 0 Expenditures by Type Personal Services 2001-02 Contributions Expenditure Total $53,564,329 Per Capita Expenditures by Division Administration and Engineering $55,130,112 $55,241,324 $57,015,043 $58,418,128 $335.96 $345.81 $346.50 $355.85 $362.79 2001-02 Actual $908,439 2002-03 Budget $2,129,635 2002-03 Revised $2,018,867 2003-04 Budget $1,391,715 2004-05 Budget $1,412,432 10,669,313 4,328,345 10,479,136 4,644,543 10,475,764 4,480,401 10,973,675 4,561,555 10,905,110 4,670,942 8,429,851 8,739,346 8,663,881 8,730,579 8,985,879 2,642 0 156,706 0 0 21,853,331 21,650,346 21,832,396 23,921,015 24,881,072 7,372,408 7,487,106 7,613,309 7,436,504 7,562,693 Field Services: Administration & Solid Waste Facility Management Parks and Golf Course Maintenance Fleet Services Transportation Streets and Traffic Operations Total $53,564,329 $55,130,112 $55,241,324 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel Administration and Engineering Field Services 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget Full Perm Temp Full Perm Temp Full Perm Temp 40 222 1.50 0.49 8.69 34 214 0.50 0.49 8.69 34 214 0.50 0.49 8.69 0.50 33 35 0.50 33 35 Fleet Services Transportation 34 33 Streets and Traffic Operations 53 Total $57,015,043 $58,418,128 382 0.50 0.50 50 2.00 9.68 366 0.50 0.50 50 1.00 9.68 366 1.00 9.68 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 right-of-way. 2003-05 Highlights: Numerous major projects with a combined budget of more than $200 million will be under construction or under design during the next two years. These projects include the Tempe Center for the Arts, North Side Multi-generational Center, Kyrene Water Reclamation Facility Expansion, Johnny G. Martinez Water Treatment Plant Expansion, Light Rail and Transit Center, and Police Property Facility/Police Substation on Apache Boulevard. Managing the design/construction of these projects presents a Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services 2001-02 $2,732,263 420,037 2002-03 Budget $2,867,846 481,267 2002-03 Revised $2,778,969 459,376 2003-04 Budget $2,492,337 435,767 2004-05 Budget $2,557,755 435,767 Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita 508 (2,244,369) $908,439 $5.70 0 (1,219,478) $2,129,635 $13.36 0 (1,219,478) $2,018,867 $12.66 0 (1,536,389) $1,391,715 $8.69 0 (1,581,090) $1,412,432 $8.77 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel Administration Engineering Full 4 36 Total 40 Perm 2003-04 Budget Temp 0.49 Full 3 31 0.49 34 Perm 0 2004-05 Budget Temp 0.49 Full 3 31 0.49 34 Perm 0 Temp 0.49 0.49 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. 2001-02 Actual $71.8M 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget $130.2M $130.6M $117.9M $176.9M Projects budgeted 108 103 98 74 65 Consultants managed 150 150 154 125 120 60 65 68 55 55 Value of projects designed privately $39M $75M $42M $40M $90M Projects committed within 18 months 90% 90% 90% 90% Measures CIP dollars budgeted Projects designed privately Goal: 90% 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 150 new private development permits; and 2) spend 6,240 staff hours inspecting the work for all utility and private development construction activity. Measures Private development permits issued Utility permits issued New private developments Staff hours for inspection Goal: 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised 275 275 230 260 275 2,000 2,000 1,360 1,500 1,650 150 150 120 140 150 6,240 6,240 6,240 6,240 6,240 2001-02 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget To plan for the maintenance, upgrade or replacement of the City’s infrastructure (water, sewer, storm drain, irrigation, pavement, and concrete) to maximize its life and maintain its level of 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. 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised 11.87 11.87 11.87 11.87 13.06 Concrete curbs maintained (linear feet) 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 6.4 Sidewalk maintained (square yards) 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.9 $2.92 $3.38 $3.38 $1.94 $5.16 Measures 2001-02 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget (In millions) Pavement maintained (square yards) Funds required for preventive maintenance Field Services/Administration and Solid Waste Services Solid Waste Services 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 uncontained solid waste from residential customers and transport to transfer station; and (6) repair and maintain 90 and 300 gallon plastic solid waste containers, roll off containers and various sizes of solid waste metal containers. 2003-05 Highlights: Funding is provided to enhance the Alley Maintenance Program in the first year of the biennium. Other plans for the Administration and Solid Waste section include revision of the Solid Waste Code, and Expenditures by Type Personal Services 2002-03 Budget 2001-02 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget $3,724,785 $3,751,235 $3,912,061 $4,220,542 $4,349,801 Supplies and Services 3,431,091 3,220,062 3,109,496 3,236,723 3,236,723 Capital Outlay 1,051,551 1,177,150 1,129,779 782,780 489,950 Internal Services 2,460,138 2,324,428 2,324,428 2,733,630 2,828,636 1,748 6,261 0 0 0 $10,669,313 $10,479,136 $10,475,764 $10,973,675 $10,905,110 $66.92 $65.73 $65.71 $68.49 $67.72 Contributions Expenditure Total Per Capita 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel Field Services Administration Full Perm 7 Temp 2003-04 Budget Full Perm 5 Temp 2004-05 Budget Full Perm 5 Solid Waste 62 0.50 65 0.500 65 0.50 Total 69 0.50 70 0.50 70 0.50 Temp 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 residential customers; 2) divert 24% of residential waste stream, and 3) maintain a high level of citizen satisfaction with solid waste collection and recycling. Measures 2002-03 Budget 2001-02 Residential households serviced 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget 32,542 33,444 33,703 33,720 33,740 Residential contained/recycling $3,373,263 $2,475,178 $3,420,491 $3,650,771 $3,702,751 Residential uncontained/green waste $1,614,483 $2,126,448 $1,584,036 $1,838,644 $1,910,969 Residential contained 39,988 39,384 40,302 40,705 41,112 Residential uncontained 18,443 16,905 18,704 18,893 19,081 Recycling 12,616 13,700 13,278 13,412 13,547 $64.12 $76.32 $63.83 $67.46 $67.74 $87.53 $125.78 $84.68 $97.31 $100.15 17% 24% 24% 24% 24% Citizen satisfaction with trash collection - 97% - - - Citizen satisfaction with recycling - 94% - - - 251 247 253 254 255 Total O&M: (Including Admin. & Support Services) Tons of solid waste collected: Collection cost per ton: Residential contained/recycling Residential uncontained Residential diversion rate (recycling) Residential Contained Solid Waste tons per capita (1,000) Goal: To properly collect and dispose of all solid waste generated by commercial customers and multifamily housing units within the City. Objective: 1) To continue to provide quality and timely collection service to all commercial accounts; and 2) minimize collection cost per ton to $39.27. Measures Commercial accounts serviced per month 2002-03 Budget 2001-02 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget 2,255 2,166 1,975 2,172 2,390 - (3.9%) (12.4%) 10.0% 21.0% $4,132,589 $5,015,557 $3,917,464 $4,323,272 $4,420,062 Tons of solid waste collected 94,264 97,370 93,002 102,279 112,544 Collection cost per ton $43.84 $51.51 $42.12 $42.26 $39.27 Percent change Total O&M–Commercial Comparative Benchmark 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. 2003-05 Highlights: As part of a citywide personnel reduction plan, Facility Management reduced staff by three Custodians and one Facility Technician II. The Custodial section took over the responsibility for cleaning park restrooms. Also, a number of new buildings will be added during the biennium, including Fire Station 2002-03 Budget $2,752,203 2,198,572 0 (306,232) $4,644,543 $29.13 2001-02 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita $2,650,530 2,063,418 11,406 (397,009) $4,328,345 $27.15 2000-01 Revised Authorized Personnel Facility Services Custodial Services Total 2002-03 Revised $2,641,879 2,143,254 1,500 (306,232) $4,480,401 $28.10 2001-02 Budget Full Perm Temp Full Perm 21 36 57 0.49 0.49 19 38 57 0 0.50 0.50 2003-04 Budget $2,851,747 2,097,072 1,500 (388,764) $4,561,555 $28.47 2004-05 Budget $2,926,546 2,097,072 1,500 (354,176) $4,670,972 $29.01 2002-03 Budget Temp Full Perm 19 38 57 0 0.49 0.49 Temp 0.49 0.49 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 preventative maintenance of 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 Measures 2001-02 2002-03 Budget Facility Maintenance Total O&M Full-time Equivalents (FTE’s) Buildings maintained Square feet maintained Percent change O&M per square foot maintained Square feet maintained per FTE $2,892,549 20 72 1,225,525 $2.36 61,276 $3,345,573 21 72 1,225,525 0% $2.73 58,358 Goal: 2002-03 Revised $3,210,738 18.5 78 1,252,285 2.2% $2.56 67,691 2003-04 Budget $3,071,164 18.5 80 1,262,085 0.8% $2.43 68,220 2004-05 Budget $3,130,857 18.5 80 1,262,085 0.8% $2.48 68,220 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 2001-02 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget 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 $1,424,389 39 1,225,525 883,967 62 $1.61 22,666 $1,530,600 39.99 1,225,525 883,957 0% 62 $1.73 22,104 $1,433,805 37.5 1,252,285 907,917 2.7% 66 $1.57 24,211 $1,490,391 37.5 1,262,085 916,917 1.0% 68 $1.62 24,451 $1,540,085 37.5 1,262,085 916,917 1.0% 68 $1.67 24,451 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. 2003-05 Highlights: As part of a citywide personnel reduction plan, the Parks section reduced staff by fifteen positions, a majority of these positions being Groundskeepers. This will result in an evaluation and reorganization of this area to redistribute the workload among existing staff. In addition, this section took over responsibility for cleaning the downtown area, and is anticipating an increase in maintenance needs at the Rio Salado Town Lake due to the number of special events planned. The Parks section plans to $4,116,012 3,320,816 2002-03 Budget $4,723,022 3,247,976 2002-03 Revised $4,523,809 3,371,724 2003-04 Budget $4,611,227 3,209,906 2004-05 Budget $4,755,411 3,226,538 123,802 869,221 182,800 585,548 182,800 585,548 0 909,446 0 1,003,900 $8,429,851 $52.87 $8,739,346 $54.82 $8,663,881 $54.34 $8,730,579 $54.49 $8,985,879 $55.80 2001-02 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel Parks Maintenance Pest Control Baseball Facility Golf Courses Landscape Maintenance Rio Salado Double Butte Cemetery Total Full 50 5 10 22 3 4 2 96 Perm 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget Temp Full Perm Temp Full Perm Temp 5.12 46 5 8 22 1 4 1 87 0 5.12 46 5 8 22 1 4 1 87 0 5.12 0.56 2.42 0 0.50 0.10 0.50 8.20 0.56 2.42 0 0.10 8.20 0.56 2.42 0 0.10 8.20 Goal: To maintain rights-of-way in an attractive and pleasing manner. Objective: 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. Measures Landscape maintained (square feet) Percent change Landscape maintained (acres) Goal: 2001-02 Actual 10,208,333 2002-03 Budget 10,416,666 2002-03 Revised 8,461,990 2003-04 Budget 9,461,990 2004-05 Budget 11,461,990 - 2% (17%) 12% 35% 234 240 225 250 254 To provide recreational facilities for leisure opportunities that are accessible, attractive, enjoyable and Objective: To provide facilities to meet the public’s recreational needs and maintain high standards for all recreational use. 2001-02 1,089 2002-03 Budget 1,089 2002-03 Revised 1,089 2003-04 Budget 1,089 2004-05 Budget 1,089 5.55 5.55 15 15 15 Parks/Special Facilities 19.13 19.13 21.35 21.35 21.57 Golf courses 10.37 10.37 10.37 10.37 10.37 51 51 51 51 52 89,807 90,000 86,000 85,000 85,000 - 0.2% (4.2%) (1.1%) (1.1%) 108,703 113,000 108,000 95,000 95,000 - 4.0% (0.6%) (12.0%) (12.0%) 150 150 150 160 170 Measures Total acres maintained Per employee: Stadium 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 Fleet Services The Fleet Services 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. 2003-05 Highlights: The Fleet Services Division prides itself with the continued efforts and participation of all employees’ talents and ideas to provide efficient and cost effective programs to maintain the fleet. Implementation of an aggressive tire management program, increased warranty tracking, development of motor pools and extended replacement mileage are programs being implemented to meet the challenges of the FY 2003-05 budget cycle. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services 2001-02 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget $2,205,904 $2,070,899 $2,141,686 $2,226,516 1,901,788 1,712,881 2,064,592 1,774,631 1,774,631 930,020 973,100 913,100 679,350 953,420 (4,867,944) (4,891,885) (4,891,885) (4,595,667) (4,954,567) Expenditure Total Authorized Personnel 2002-03 Revised $2,038,778 Capital Outlay Internal Services 2002-03 Budget $2,642 $0 2002-03 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE $156,706 $0 2003-04 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE $0 2004-05 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE Fleet Services 34 0.5 33 0.5 33 0.5 Total 34 0.5 33 0.5 33 0.5 Goal: To maintain the City’s fleet at a low cost. Objective: 1) To contain the growth in maintenance and repair, fuel and capital costs as measured by cost per mile; and 2) adhere to a vehicle replacement policy that results in vehicles without excessive mileage and related higher repair and maintenance costs. Measures 2001-02 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget Cost per mile (maintenance and repair, Police patrol sedans ($) Light duty trucks ($) Solid Waste trucks ($) Vehicle age in miles: Police patrol sedans Light duty trucks Solid Waste trucks Preventive maintenance compliance rate Replacement guidelines for: Police patrol sedans (miles) Light duty trucks (miles) Solid Waste trucks (miles) Goal: 0.49 0.30 2.39 0.45 0.29 2.00 0.40 0.34 2.44 0.44 0.37 2.68 0.48 0.40 2.94 46,488 50,340 42,200 50,000 41,000 42,500 41,000 46,750 41,000 51,425 48,111 100% 55,000 100% 57,550 100% 63,305 100% 69,635 100% 100,000 85,000 140,000 100,000 85,000 140,000 100,000 100,000 140,000 100,000 100,000 140,000 100,000 100,000 140,000 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). Measures Annual vehicle utilization (miles): Police patrol sedans Light duty trucks 2001-02 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget 1,279,044 905,061 1,342,996 875,000 1,382,431 585,479 1,300,000 500,000 1,300,000 500,000 Solid Waste trucks Miles per mechanic hour: Police patrol sedans 664,256 665,000 690,659 650,000 650,000 266 400 469 400 400 Light duty trucks Solid Waste trucks Mechanic utilization rate 430 89 62.2% 500 95 68.0% 760 64 67.8% 700 70 68.0% 700 70 68.0% 56 56 62 62 62 Vehicles per mechanic Comparative Benchmark Transportation The Transportation Division is responsible, through its two sections (Traffic Engineering 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) participate in regional transportation/transit planning and programming; (7) plan, coordinate, benchmark and provide transit services; (8) plan and administer bicycle facilities and encouragement projects; and (9) staff the Transportation Commission which provides oversight over the 1996 dedicated transit tax. 2003-05 Highlights: The Transportation Division, which includes Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, and Transit functions, was reorganized during 2003 and continues to provide high levels of citizen service with limited staff resources. During 2003, the light rail project, in which Tempe is a major partic ipant, received federal approval to enter into final design, keeping the project on track for future milestones including a full funding grant agreement and timely project opening. This project, along with maintenance of basic services such as participation in regional and local planning efforts, provision of traffic engineering services including neighborhood traffic calming and design activities, and provision of customer-friendly bus service, will be a primary focus for the division during this budget cycle. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Contributions Expenditure Total Per Capita 2001-02 $1,913,318 19,157,766 8,869 773,378 0 $21,853,331 $137.07 2002-03 Budget $2,347,442 18,769,416 1,000 502,488 30,000 $21,650,346 $135.80 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel Studies and Design Transit Total Full Perm 6 27 33 0.5 0.5 Temp 2002-03 Revised $2,066,908 19,232,001 1,000 502,488 30,000 $21,832,396 $136.94 2003-04 Budget $2,485,612 20,659,217 74,000 702,186 0 $23,921,015 $149.30 2003-04 Budget Full Perm 7 28 35 0 0.5 0.5 Temp 2004-05 Budget $2,567,711 21,511,474 85,660 716,228 0 $24,881,072 $154.52 2004-05 Budget Full Perm 7 28 35 0 0.5 0.5 Temp 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. 2002-03 Budget 2001-02 Actual Measures Total O&M (bus) $19,507,000 $19,395,471 Total O&M (dial-a-ride) 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget $19,173,560 $20,936,470 $21,901,846 $1,240,000 $1,351,113 $1,018,917 $1,153,602 $1,150,430 6,069,132 4,936,561 5,834,931 5,500,000 5,800,000 380,999 251,370 379,574 380,460 380,460 O&M per vehicle revenue mile (bus) O&M per vehicle revenue mile (dial-a-ride) $3.21 $3.93 $3.29 $3.81 $3.78 $3.25 $5.37 $2.68 $3.03 $3.02 Boardings per vehicle revenue mile (bus) Boardings per vehicle revenue mile (diala-ride) 1.14 1.56 1.57 1.64 1.63 0.12 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.11 44,114 55,899 42,604 42,604 42,604 Vehicle revenue miles (bus) Vehicle revenue miles (dial-a-ride) Annual boardings (dial-a-ride) 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 by 15%; 2) meet the dial-a-ride industry standard of 95% of trips on time (minimum); and 3) meet the industry standard of 85% of trips on time (minimum). Measures Annual boardings (bus) Percent Change On-time performance (bus) On-time performance-(dial-a-ride) 2001-02 6,897,311 91% 92% 2002-03 Budget 7,720,744 10% 95% 85% 2002-03 Revised 9,175,209 33% 95% 95% 2003-04 Budget 10,552,000 (2%) 95% 95% 2004-05 Budget 12,135,000 5% 95% 95% Goal: To provide outstanding customer service to bus and dial-a-ride customers. Objective: 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). Measures Complaints per 100,000 boardings (bus) Complaints per 100,000 boardings (dial-a-ride) Comparative Benchmark 2001-02 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget 10 25 15 25 25 1 8 1 3 3 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 Goal: 2001-02 5 1,800 89% 2002-03 Budget 5 3,500 192% 2002-03 Revised 5 2,000 (57%) 2003-04 Budget 5 2,500 25% 2004-05 Budget 5 3,125 25% To create a physical and social environment that supports mixing of transportation modes through traffic calming efforts. Objective: 1) To increase citizen awareness, respect, and responsibility; 2) process all citizens requests for speed humps; 3) improve environment for bicyclists and pedestrians; and 4) reduce speed limits on arterial streets through education and public awareness efforts. Measures Traffic calming/speed hump studies conducted Speed humps installed Traffic calming projects (other than speed humps) Arterial street pedestrian crossings designed Arterial street pedestrian crossings constructed Public outreach events held 2001-02 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget 50 50 51 50 50 160 150 90 80 80 4 6 6 6 6 - 2 3 2 2 6 2 8 3 12 2 8 2 8 Streets and Traffic Operations The Streets and Traffic Operations Division, through its two sections – Street Maintenance and Traffic Operations – is responsible for the following work programs: 1) pavement marking and striping; 2) traffic signal maintenance and construction; 3) street lighting; 4) street sign fabrication, installation, and maintenance; 5) bus shelter maintenance; 6) alley reconstruction and maintenance; 7) street sweeping; 8) pavement management; 9) CIP project management/contract administration of annual street maintenance programs, including major and local street renovation and minor concrete improvements; 10) street repair; and 11) right-of-way maintenance, including graffiti removal and tree trimming. 2003-05 Highlights: During fiscal year 2001-03, the Streets Maintenance section of Public Works was organizationally realigned from the Field Services division (Streets and Solid Waste section) to the newly formed Streets and Traffic Operations Division. The realignment, subsequent budget and staffing reduction measures, and restructuring of several rights-of-way maintenance programs resulted in a net staffing reduction of 4 FTE’s for the division. In addition to delivering high level transportation related operations and maintenance work programs to the community and traveling public with reduced staff, FY 2003-05 highlights include full implementation of a citywide alley reconstruction program and completion of an automated infrastructure asset management system. Expenditures by Type Personal Services 2001-02 $2,978,456 2002-03 Budget $3,171,689 2002-03 Revised $3,213,636 2003-04 Budget $3,132,299 2004-05 Budget $3,219,335 Supplies and Services 1,904,535 1,984,698 2,069,026 1,983,793 1,983,793 167,713 243,720 243,648 381,000 373,800 2,321,705 2,086,999 2,086,999 1,939,412 1,985,765 $7,372,408 $7,487,106 $7,613,309 $7,436,504 $7,562,693 $46.24 $46.96 $47.75 $46.41 $46.97 Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita 2002-03 Revised Perm FTE Temp FTE Temp FTE 2004-05 Budget Full Time Perm FTE 28 24 0 Traffic Operations 25 26 26 Total 53 50 50 Authorized Personnel Street Maintenance Full Time 2003-04 Budget Full Time 24 Perm FTE 0 Temp FTE Goal: To perform preventative maintenance and/or minor construction on existing streets and alleys 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. Measures 2001-02 Street Maintenance (Construction) Total O&M: Crack filling Utility cut repairs Asphalt milling Miles of cracks filled Street utility cuts repaired (square feet) Asphalt milling (linear feet) Cost per mile of cracks filled Cost per utility cut repaired (square feet) Cost per square foot of asphalt milled Goal: 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget $479,110 $126,025 $210,688 433 $330,928 $140,008 $330,928 348 $510,516 $137,860 $233,420 460 $410,932 $140,617 $42,133 360 $423,260 $147,732 Complete 360 20,000 500,000 $1,106 25,700 535,000 $951 25,700 554,000 $1,109 26,214 100,000 $1,141 26,740 Complete $1,175 $6.30 $5.45 $5.36 $5.36 $5.52 $0.42 $0.62 $0.42 $0.43 Complete To provide safe and well-maintained streets for the citizens of Tempe. Objective: To hold maintenance costs to under $9.00 per curb mile swept. Measures 2001-02 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised Sweeping (Right-of-Way) Total O&M Curb miles of street swept Cost per curb mile swept Total O&M per lane mile Comparative Benchmark $413,080 50,324 $8.20 $924 $330,928 50,324 $6.56 $740 $418,877 50,324 $8.32 $937 2003-04 Budget $424,314 50,324 $8.43 $949 2004-05 Budget $431,001 50,324 $8.56 $964 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 400 crosswalks annually; 2) provide quality traffic signing along streets; 3) assure that traffic signals work as designed at all times by annually rewiring intersections and performing preventative maintenance on all traffic control cabinets twice annually; 4) perform preventative maintenance through the replacement of signs; Measures Lane lines striped annually (linear feet) Crosswalks striped Develop infrastructure management Preventative maintenance of street signs Intersections upgraded (rewired) Traffic control cabinets upgraded Traffic control cabinets preventative maintenance (new cabinets installed in FY Light Emitting Diode (LED) retrofits Street light lamp upgrades* Evaluate structural integrity of streetlights Replace structurally deficient street poles * Eliminated through Budget Reduction Program 2001-02 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget 2,198,352 539 1,800,000 625 2,042,389 431 1,800,000 485 1,800,000 485 45% 6 2 124 35% 6 12 20 25% 32 1 7 20% 20 2 Complete Complete 20 2 Complete 172 80 400 181 200 360 80 400 Complete 100 294 80 0 0 200 360 5 0 0 160 360 Complete 0 0 160 Water Utilities Water Utilities Manager Administration Operations Environmental Services 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. 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: Administration, Operations, Water Resources, and Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Contributions Expenditure Total Per Capita 2001-02 $7,601,705 9,824,719 433,757 5,412,314 5,279 $23,277,774 $146.00 2001-02 Expenditures by Division Water Utilities Administration Environmental Services Total $21,786,518 1,491,256 $23,277,774 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 Budget Revised Budget $7,896,238 $8,500,000 $9,258,446 12,182,925 10,251,518 13,329,437 388,200 17,861 389,400 3,601,538 3,601,538 4,156,791 0 500 500 $24,068,901 $22,371,417 $27,134,574 $150.97 $140.33 $169.36 2004-05 Budget $9,506,250 13,383,682 216,670 4,239,359 500 $27,346,461 $169.83 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 Budget Revised Budget $22,378,115 $20,801,683 $25,503,596 1,690,786 1,569,734 1,630,978 $24,068,901 $22,371,417 $27,134,574 2004-05 Budget $25,692,711 1,653,750 $27,346,461 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel Water Utilities Administration Environmental Services Total Full Perm 109 17 126 0.5 0.5 2003-04 Budget Temp Full Perm 0.49 107 23 130 0.5 0.5 0.49 2004-05 Budget Temp Full Perm 0.49 107 23 130 0.5 0.5 0.49 Temp 0.49 0.49 Goal: To provide a safe and adequate domestic water supply to all citizens in Tempe, while at the same 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. 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Measures 2001-02 Budget Revised Budget Budget Water Treatment Total O&M $11,092,980 $11,691,876 $10,661,196 $12,554,412 $12,787,732 Number of customer accounts 41,000 41,000 41,641 41,642 41,642 Total gallons treated (Million gallons- MG) 18,700 18,810 17,605 18,810 18,810 O&M per 1,000 gallons treated $.59 $.62 $.61 $.67 $.68 Percent Change 5.1% 3.4% 9.8% 1.5% O&M per customer account $270.56 $285.31 $256.03 $301.48 $307.09 Percent Change 5.5% (5.4%) 17.8% 19.9% Goal: To maintain the water distribution system to assure an adequate supply of drinking water to our Objective: 1) To maintain water distribution costs at FY 2001-02 level for FY 2003-04 and FY 2004-05; and 2) retain the same response time. 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Measures 2001-02 Budget Revised Budget Budget Water Distribution Total O&M $4,018,574 $3,298,161 $3,572,024 $3,948,057 $3,917,430 Number of miles of waterline 781 785 838 750 750 O&M per mile of distribution system $5,145 $4,201 $4,263 $5,264 $5,223 Percent Change (18.3%) (17.1%) 23.5% 22.5% Service calls responded to within 30 minutes and repaired in 24 hours 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Goal: To reduce operating and maintenance costs of the wastewater collection system. Objective: To achieve wastewater collection costs that are less than $5,000. 2002-03 2002-03 Measures 2001-02 Budget Revised Wastewater Collection Total O&M $3,672,128 $2,750,278 $3,059,562 Miles of mains in collection system 551 553 501 O&M per mile $3,664 $4,973 $6,107 Percent Change 35.7% 66.7% Comparative Benchmark 2003-04 Budget $3,460,120 500 $6,920 13.3% 2004-05 Budget $3,555,328 500 $7,111 2.8% 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. 2003-05 Highlights: Two full-time Environmental Investigators have been authorized to manage the Phase I Stormwater Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita 2001-02 $988,959 364,116 2002-03 Budget $1,165,516 369,695 2002-03 Revised $1,047,430 366,729 2003-04 Budget $1,064,947 364,935 2004-05 Budget $1,084,694 364,640 6,398 131,783 $1,491,256 $9.35 0 155,575 $1,690,786 $10.61 0 155,575 $1,569,734 $9.85 19,000 182,096 $1,630,978 $10.18 19,000 185,416 $1,653,750 $10.27 2002-03 Revised Authorized Personnel Environmental Services Total Full 17 Perm 0.5 17 0.5 Temp 2003-04 Budget Full 23 Perm 0.5 23 0.5 Temp 2004-05 Budget Full 23 Perm 0.5 23 0.5 Temp Goal: To reduce water pollution by industrial enterprises from discharges into the wastewater collection system. Objective: 1) To inspect each SIU (Significant Industrial User) twice per year; 2) sample each SIU eight days per year; and 3) reduce significant non-compliance with EPA and local regulations to 0%. Measures Number of SIU’s Total inspections Number of sampling visits 2001-02 37 2002-03 Budget 37 2002-03 Revised 37 2003-04 Budget 37 2004-05 Budget 37 92 82 74 76 76 539 504 526 488 488 11% 0% 9.8% 0% 0% Percent of permitted industries in significant non-compliance Goal: 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 Measures Total newsletters Total brochures 2001-02 4 2 2002-03 Budget 4 2 2002-03 Revised 4 2 2003-04 Budget 5 4 2004-05 Budget 5 4 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. 2001-02 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Revised 2003-04 Budget 4,958 10,000 13,739 10,000 10,000 Recycled hazardous waste* 46.0% 25% 13.4% 25% 25% Incinerated hazardous waste* 27.6% 0% 32.0% 0% 0% 46% 25% 13% 25% 25% Measures Amount of hazardous waste generated by City facilities (lbs.):* Reduction of hazardous waste generated * New Measure 2004-05 Budget 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 Budget Resolution Property Tax Ordinance Budget Schedules Estimated Revenues and Expenditures Summary Tax Levy and Tax Rate Information Revenues Other Than Property Taxes Other Financing Sources and Interfund Transfers Summary Expenditures Within Each Fund Summary Budget Basis, Units, and Changes Accounting/Budgetary Basis Budgetary Units Changes to the Budget Financial Structure and Organization Type of Budgeting Level of Revenue and Expenditure Detail Relationship Between Budgeting and Accounting Fund Structure Annexation Progress Tempe Community Profile Personnel Summary Personnel Schedules Glossary of Terms Index OMB Staff Budget Resolution Property Tax Ordinance O RDINANCE NO. 2003.13 AN ORDINANCE LEVYING SEPARATE AMOUNTS TO BE RAISED FOR PRIMARY AND SECONDARY PROPERTY TAX LEVIES UPON EACH ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100.00) OF THE ASSESSED VALUATION OF PROPERTY SUBJECT TO TAXATION WITHIN THE CITY OF TEMPE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2004; AND ADOPTED EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY. PURSUANT to A.R.S. §42-17151, the ordinance levying taxes for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 is required to be adopted on or before the third Monday in August. WHEREAS, the County of Maricopa is t he assessing and collecting authority for the City of Tempe. WHEREAS, Tempe City Charter Section 5.11 allows an ordinance necessary in connection with the adoption of the annual budget to be adopted and go into effect immediately. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPE, ARIZONA, as follows: Section 1: There is hereby levied on each One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) of the assessed value of all property, both real and personal, within the corporate limits of the City of Tempe, except such property as may be by law exempt from taxation, a primary property tax rate, for general and administrative expenses of the City of Tempe. The primary property tax rate shall equal the maximum allowable primary tax rate for 2003 as determined by the Maricopa County Department of Finance. Section 2: In addition to the rate set in Section 1 hereof, there is hereby levied on each One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) of assessed valuation of all property, both real and personal, within the corporate limits of the City of Tempe, except such property as may be by law exempt from taxation, a secondary property tax rate equal to the difference between the primary tax rate, established in Section 1, and $1.3500. Section 3: The combined tax rate as set forth in Sections 1 and 2 shall equal $1.3500 per one hundred dollars ($100.00) of assessed valuation of all property, real and personal, within the corporate limits of the City of Tempe, except suc h property as may be by law exempt from taxation. Section 4: Failure by the county officials of Maricopa County, Arizona, to properly return the delinquent list, any irregularity in assessments or omissions in the same, or any irregularity in any proceedings shall not invalidate such proceedings or invalidate any title conveyed by any tax deed; failure or neglect of any officer or officers to timely perform any of the duties assigned to him or them shall not invalidate any proceedings or any deed or sale pursuant thereto, the validity of the assessment or levy of taxes or of the judgment of sale by which the collection of the same may be enforced shall not affect the lien of the City of Tempe upon such property for the delinquent taxes unpaid thereon; overcharge as to part of the taxes or of costs shall not invalidate any proceed- Schedule A Summary Schedule of Estimated Revenues and Expenditures/Expenses Adopted Budgeted Expenditures/ Expenses Fund General Fund Actual Expenditures/ Expenses 2002-03 Fund Balance/ Retained Earnings 7-1-2003 Direct Property Tax Revenues 2003-04 $128,498,814 $119,280,493 $33,751,999 $8,543,551 Special Revenue 39,841,045 41,712,723 67,052,368 78,000 Debt Service 11,518,082 11,518,082 9,718,444 13,554,896 Capital Projects 95,318,794 64,361,152 22,119,879 0 Enterprise 52,988,244 51,263,013 65,267,045 0 $328,164,979 $288,135,463 $197,909,735 $22,176,447 Total Fund General Fund Special Revenue Debt Service Estimated Reve- Proceeds nues Other From Other than Property Financing Taxes Sources 2003-04 2003-04 $113,282,412 $0 $0 $0 $155,577,962 $121,825,963 62,513,125 0 0 (21,475,070) 108,168,423 53,817,868 654,200 0 2,000,000 (1,227,000) 24,700,540 13,083,608 0 86,021,394 31,247,313 0 139,388,586 117,968,707 58,055,364 0 (10,545,243) 112,777,166 58,837,822 $234,505,101 $86,021,394 $33,247,313 ($33,247,313) $540,612,677 $365,533,968 Capital Projects Enterprise TOTAL Total Financial Budgeted Resources Expenditures/ Available Expenses 2003-04 2003-04 Interfund Transfers 2003-04 In (Out) Expenditure Limitation Comparison 2002-03 2003-04 1. Budgeted Expenditures/Expenses $328,164,979 $365,533,968 2. Less: Estimated Exclusions* (170,178,822) (130,326,284) 157,986,157 235,207,684 $157,986,157 $235,207,684 3. Total Estimated Expenditures/Expenses Subject to Expenditure Limitation 4. Expenditure Limitation * FY 2001-02 Estimate from the League of Arizona Cities and Towns. Schedule B Summary of Tax Levy and Tax Rate Information Estimated 2003-04 Fiscal Year 2002-03 Fiscal Year 1. Maximum Allowable Primary Property Tax Levy (A.R.S. 42-17051(A)) $8,621,551 2. Amount Received from Primary Property Taxation in the 2002-03 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 7,288,511 8,621,551 12,897,095 13,554,896 $20,185,606 $22,176,447 4. Property Taxes Collected* A. Primary Property Taxes 1. 2002-03 Levy 2. Prior Years' Levies 3. Total Primary Property Taxes 7,288,511 0 $7,288,511 B. Secondary Property Taxes 1. 2002-03 Levy 2. Prior Years' Levies 3. Total Secondary Property Taxes C. Total Property Taxes Collected 12,897,095 0 $12,897,095 $20,185,606 5. Property Tax Rates A. City Tax Rate 1. Primary Property Tax Rate 0.5214 0.5472 2. Secondary Property Tax Rate 0.8286 0.8028 $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. Schedule C Summary by Fund of Revenues Other Than Property Taxes Actual Estimated Revenues Revenues Source of Revenues 2002-03 2002-03 Estimated Revenues 2003-04 General Fund Local taxes City Sales Tax $61,011,600 $57,300,000 $58,500,000 Hotel Bed Tax 1,713,400 2,000,000 2,250,000 Franchise Taxes 1,913,319 1,531,200 1,704,200 Licenses and permits Business Licenses 1,087,150 1,072,525 1,090,877 29,674,000 29,185,000 26,866,160 5,050,000 5,600,000 5,600,000 Charges for services 6,087,900 6,548,648 6,988,051 Fines and forfeits 4,216,200 4,413,086 4,947,485 Interest on investments 4,400,000 3,233,700 2,600,000 395,900 428,862 450,000 1,743,120 2,783,061 2,285,639 117,292,589 114,096,082 113,282,412 Intergovernmental 9,965,400 9,965,400 10,986,169 Maintenance of Effort/Other 1,850,000 - - 11,815,400 9,965,400 10,986,169 901,600 901,600 883,600 (297,500) (297,500) (291,600) 604,100 604,100 592,000 26,465,100 25,326,325 26,027,864 Lottery Transfer In 297,500 297,500 291,600 ASU-Flash Transit 367,000 352,776 375,440 Interest Earned - Trust Invest. 2,300,000 1,969,100 1,261,900 Miscellaneous Revenue 5,086,000 5,434,996 5,953,189 Total Transit Fund 34,515,600 33,380,697 33,909,993 Intergovernmental revenues State-Shared County Voluntary contributions SRP In-lieu Tax Miscellaneous revenues Total General Fund Special Revenue Funds Highway Users Revenue Fund Total Highway Users Revenue Fund Local Trans. Assistance Fund (LTAF) Intergovernmental Lottery Transfer to Transit Total LTAF Transit Fund Transit Tax Summary by Fund of Revenues Other Than Property Taxes Source of Revenues Estimated Revenues 2002-03 Actual Revenues 2002-03 Estimated Revenues 2003-04 Rio Salado Fund City Sales Tax Miscellaneous Revenue 639,000 475,000 490,000 544,200 362,625 288,800 1,183,200 837,625 778,800 Performing Arts Fund Performing Arts Tax/Interest Income 5,396,000 5,471,540 5,428,500 Total Performing Arts Fund 5,396,000 5,471,540 5,428,500 Community Devel. Block Grant (CDBG) 8,614,252 11,480,214 10,817,663 62,128,552 61,739,576 62,513,125 635,156 635,156 654,200 635,156 635,156 654,200 2,253,000 2,055,000 2,066,800 Water/Wastewater Fund 45,364,062 46,199,534 45,384,864 Sanitation Fund 10,040,100 10,305,234 10,603,700 57,657,162 58,559,768 58,055,364 $237,713,459 $235,030,582 $234,505,101 Total Rio Salado Fund Total Special Revenue Funds Debt Service Fund SRP In-Lieu Tax Total Debt Service Fund Enterprise Funds Golf Fund Total Enterprise Funds TOTAL ALL FUNDS Schedule D Summary by Fund of Other Financing Sources and Interfund Transfers Fund Proceeds From Other Financing Sources 2003-04 General Fund Interfund Transfers In Out $0 $0 Special Revenue Funds HURF/LTAF (2,945,000) Transit (18,130,070) (400,000) (21,475,070) Performing Arts Total Special Revenue Funds Debt Service Fund Total Debt Service Fund 2,000,000 Capital Projects Funds 31,247,313 Bond/Note Proceeds CIP-Other Funding Total Capital Projects Funds (1,227,000) 77,971,520 8,049,874 86,021,394 31,247,313 0 Enterprise Funds Water/Wastewater Fund (10,545,243) Sanitation Fund Golf Fund Total Enterprise Funds Total All Funds (10,545,243) $86,021,394 $33,247,313 $(33,247,313) Schedule E Summary by Department of Expenditures/Expenses Within Each Fund Adopted Expenditure/ ExBudgeted pense Expenditures/ Ex- Adjustments Appenses 2002-03 proved General Fund Mayor and Council City Manager Community Relations Diversity Program Internal Audit City Clerk City Court Human Resources City Attorney Financial Services Development Services Police Fire Community Services Public Works - General Economic Development Non-Departmental Contingencies Total General Fund Special Revenue Funds Highway Users Revenue Fund Streets Total HURF Transit CDBG Section 8 Housing Rio Salado Performing Arts Center 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 Total Enterprise Funds Total All Funds $ Revised Expenditures/ Expenses 2002-03 530,772 555,121 2,532,449 0 530,287 467,326 3,151,248 3,607,526 2,492,332 5,130,562 8,329,601 45,140,592 15,194,192 18,637,189 13,535,598 622,002 5,551,135 2,490,882 128,498,814 (2,122) (13,959) (14,919) 364,120 0 0 0 (86,647) (17,114) 360,703 (85,015) 47,516 8,612 (270,220) (33,236) 0 (1,081,896) 0 (824,177) 8,040,436 8,040,436 21,546,248 2,687,608 5,926,644 1,322,206 317,903 39,841,045 1,463,280 1,463,280 2,460 0 0 19,934 0 1,485,674 8,040,436 8,040,436 20,661,437 5,403,549 6,141,490 1,272,078 193,733 41,712,723 8,082,560 8,082,560 27,221,366 3,291,231 7,526,433 1,480,621 6,215,657 53,817,868 11,518,082 11,518,082 0 0 11,518,082 11,518,082 13,083,608 13,083,608 95,318,794 95,318,794 0 0 64,361,152 64,361,152 117,968,707 117,968,707 0 661,497 38,626,093 2,466,718 10,170,202 51,263,013 $288,135,463 45,965,050 2,279,870 10,592,902 58,837,822 $365,533,968 40,332,402 2,485,184 10,170,658 52,988,244 $328,164,979 $ 525,140 484,224 2,531,799 324,434 524,274 434,003 3,041,055 3,511,834 2,377,131 5,126,542 7,436,621 44,592,509 15,031,824 17,906,238 11,181,907 619,823 3,631,135 0 119,280,493 Budgeted Expenditures/ Expenses 2003-04 $ 374,066 269,047 2,633,742 430,513 412,235 669,770 3,083,668 2,003,755 2,171,149 3,993,062 6,858,657 46,284,000 15,395,129 17,417,253 12,959,151 676,033 4,194,733 2,000,000 121,825,963 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. 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, Solid Waste, and Golf Funds. The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report includes the combined financial statements of all funds. • Programs 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 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 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. • Relationship Between Budgeting and 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. Fund Structure • 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 Solid Waste Fund, and the Golf Fund. Governmental Funds 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 • 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 1999 2003City City Limits Limits 1960 Sa 1893 - 1940 lt River Channel McKellips Rd Salt River Channel Van Buren St S.P. R.R. Curry Rd Sa lt River RedCh Mountain Freeway an ne l Rio Salado Pkwy University Dr Apache Blvd Broadway Rd 1970 I-10 Southern Ave Salt 48th St Superstition Freeway River Channel Baseline Rd 1950 Guadalupe Rd Salt River Channel Warner Rd Price Rd Rural Rd Kyrene Rd I-10 Priest Dr Elliot Rd McClintock Dr Western Canal 1980 Ray Rd Salt River Year Area Year Area 1893 1.0 1940 1.8 Year 1893 1.0 Year 1940 Year Year Year Area Year 1975 36 1.8 1975 36.0 36.0 1894 1.8 1950 2.6 2.6 1980 1900 1900 1.81.8 1955 1955 4.5 4.5 1985 38.5 Scale 1910 1910 1.81.8 1960 1960 17.5 17.5 1990 1990 39.3 39.3 1/2 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 2003 40.0 40 1894 0 Year 1 mile 1.8 1950 1980 1985 36 38.5 Channel Tempe Community Profile Date of Incorporation - November 26, 1894 Date Charter Adopted - October 19, 1964 Tempe is unique among valley cities, due to the youth of its population and education levels that exceed valley and state norms, with 72% of the population having at least some college and 40% with four or more years of college education. Tempe also stands out due to presence of the Tempe Town Lake, which provides both recreational and business opportunities for residents and visitors. The Hayden Ferry Lakeside office complex and Tempe Beach Park will be joined by the Town Lake Marina in November 2003 and the Tempe Center for the Arts in May 2006. These projects will further enhance the status of both the Lake and Tempe downtown as valley destinations. Tempe is currently home to Arizona State University, Fiesta Bowl, the Arizona Cardinals and the California Angels' spring training. Due to the recent selection of Phoenix as the headquarters for the International Genomics Consortium and the Translational Genomics Research Institute, the Arizona State University campus will be the site of the Arizona Biodesign Institute. The Institute’s work in the field of biotechnical and biodesign research will put Tempe in the position to attract new businesses spawned Tempe 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 4.8 15.8 12.1 26.4 4.9 Undev/Agriculture Svc/ Institutional 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 Rights-of-Way 15.8% Industrial/Comm Public/Quasi Pub- Building Permits (3) Number Value ($000) 2002-03 1,313 $199,570 2001-02 2000-01 1999-00 1998-99 1997-98 1996-97 1995-96 1994-95 1993-94 1992-93 1991-92 1,148 1,417 1,717 1,905 2,533 1,984 2,038 2,291 2,298 1,307 1,294 99,197 262,266 317,143 304,600 492,419 406,821 248,476 275,409 265,148 87,841 147,168 Elections (5) Registered voters Primary General 74,238 75,724 Primary General 13,614 20,056 Primary General 18.34% 26.49% Voter Turnout % Voting DEMOGRAPHICS, continued School Registration (6) Household Income (1999)(%) (9) Tempe Elementary District 13,522 Less than $15,000 14.6 Tempe Union High School District 12,462 $15,000 -$34,999 25.5 ASU University (Fall 2002) 47,359 $35,000-$49,999 17.3 $50,000-$100,000 30.0 $100,000+ 12.7 Education Attainment (%) (7) 4 years or more College 39.6 1-3 years College 32.5 High School degree 17.9 Less than High School degree Racial Composition (%) 9.9 (8) Median Household Income $42,361 Occupational Composition (%) (10) Sales and Office 29.4 Managerial and Professional 39.7 14.6 White 69.7 Service Hispanic 17.9 Construction, Extraction, Maintenance Asian 4.7 Production, Transportation, Material Black 3.5 Farming, Forestry and Fishing Other 4.2 6.8 0.1 Industrial Composition (%) (10) Gender/Age Composition (%) (8) Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Male 51.7 Construction Female 48.3 Manufacturing 11.4 Wholesale trade 3.7 Under 5 years 5.7 Retail trade 5-14 years 10.8 15-19 years 9.2 20-24 years 15.4 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and 25-44 years 33.2 Professional. Scientific, Management, Administrative, and Waste 45-64 years 18.5 Educational, Health, and Social Serv- 7.2 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, Accommodation, and Food Serv- 65+ years 5.2 11.1 Transportation, Warehousing and Information 3.6 Other Services 3.6 Public Administration 3.7 ECONOMICS Property Tax Rate (11) Sanitation Primary Secondary Total City Sales Tax 0.55 Residential Accounts Serviced 0.80 Commercial Accounts Serviced $1.35 Solid Waste Collected (tons) 1.8% Parks/Golf Courses Bond Rating Fitch AAA Standard and Poor's AA+ Moody's Aa1 32,588 2,332 165,286 Developed Parks Parks Acres Maintained 46 1,074 Municipal Golf Courses: 2 Rounds of Play: Ken McDonald (18 holes) 83,670 Rolling Hills (9 holes) 86,065 SERVICE STATISTICS Water/Wastewater Police (12) Active Accounts Serviced 40,822 Water Treated and Distributed Sworn Personnel 339 Non-Sworn Personnel 176 (billions of gallons) 18.9 515 Sanitary Sewers (miles) 549 Total Avg. Emergency Response Time (min.) Crime Index (CY 2000) Part I Crime Per 1,000 Capita 5:25 15,246 104 Fire Sworn Personnel Non-Sworn Personnel Total Fire Stations 137 19 156 6 Avg. Emergency Response Time (min.) Response to emergency medical incidents 4:13 12,296 Total emergency response incidents 16,803 Source: (1) Area-Square Miles, City of Tempe-Development Services; (2) Population, Maricopa Association of Go vernments; (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, 2000 U.S. Census; (8) Racial, Gender/Age Composition, 2000 U.S. Census; (9) Household Income, 1999 Special Census; (10) Occupational, Industrial Composition, 2000 U.S. Census; (11) Property Tax Rate, City Sales Tax, Bond Rating, City of TempeFinancial Services; (12) Police, Fire, Sanitation, Parks/Golf Courses, Water/Wastewater, City of Tempe Bien- Personnel Summary Department Mayor and Council City Manager Diversity Program Internal Audit Community Relations City Clerk City Court City Attorney Financial Services Economic Development Rio Salado Strategic Planning Human Resources Information Technology Development Services Police Fire Community Services Water Utilities Public Works Admin & Engineering Field Services Fleet Services Transportation Total Public Works Sub Total Total Personnel 2001-02 Actual 2002-03 Budget 2003-04 Budget 2004-05 Budget Full- Perm Temp Full- Perm Temp Full- Perm Temp Full- Perm Temp Time FTE FTE Time FTE FTE Time FTE FTE Time FTE FTE 7 7 7 7 4 1.00 13 1.49 2 0.50 2 0.50 0 0 3 3 3 3 4 4 22 1.83 14 1.34 18 1.83 18 1.83 5 0.58 5 0.58 4 0.58 4 0.58 34 4.20 34 4.20 33 4.20 33 4.20 27 0.50 0.62 27 0.50 0.62 24 0.75 0.62 24 0.75 0.62 57 0.50 1.25 59 0.50 1.25 68 0.50 1.25 68 0.50 1.25 3 3 4 4 9 0.49 9 0.49 8 0.49 8 0.49 2 2 0 0 21 0.50 22 18 0.50 18 0.50 82 0.50 82 73 73 105 1.00 1.86 105 1.00 1.86 84 2.86 84 2.86 512 1.00 6.25 507 1.00 6.25 515 1.00 6.25 515 1.00 6.25 159 0.50 158 0.50 156 1.00 156 1.00 136 33.90 144.08 139 34.65 144.83 126 12.65 167.22 126 12.65 167.22 143 0.50 0.49 144 0.50 0.49 130 0.50 0.49 130 0.50 0.49 44 0.49 46 0.49 34 0.49 34 0.49 250 1.50 8.69 289 1.50 9.19 212 0.50 8.69 212 0.50 8.69 36 0.50 33 0.50 33 0.50 61 0.50 66 0.50 87 0.50 87 0.50 391 2.00 9.68 401 2.00 9.68 366 1.00 9.68 366 1.00 9.68 1,722 40.90 172.33 1,734 40.65 173.08 1,643 17.90 195.97 1,643 17.90 195.97 1,935.23 1,947.73 1,856.87 1,856.87 The number of full-time employees for FY 2003-04 and FY 2004-05 totals 1,856.87 full-time equivalents (FTE), including 1,643 full-time, 17.90 permanent full-time equivalents, and 195.97 temporary full-time equivalent employees. This total translates to a 4.7% decrease over the 1,947.73 full-time equivalents budgeted in FY 2002-03, and a 4.0% decrease over the 1,935.23 full-time equivalent employees in FY 2001-02. Public Works and Police account for over 48% of the total work force in both fiscal years, representing 376.68 and 522.25 full-time equivalents in FY 2003-04 and FY 2004-05. Personnel Schedules Cost Center Position 1110 1210 1212 1213 1219 MAYOR & COUNCIL Mayor Council Member Total Full -Time Mayor & Council Department Total Full-Time 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Range Actual Revised Budget Budget 99 98 1 6 7 7 1 6 7 7 1 6 7 7 1 6 7 7 103 171 28 26 1 1 1 1 1.0 4 1.00 1 1 1 1 0.5 4 0.50 1 0 1 0 0.5 2 0.50 1 0 1 0 0.5 2 0.50 Diversity Program Diversity Director Events Coordinator Administrative Assistant II Diversity Program Total Full-Time 148 31 16 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Internal Audit Internal Audit Director Organizational Efficiency Director Internal Auditor Contract Administrator Internal Audit Division Total Full-Time 154 200 36 31 1 0 2 0 3 1 1 2 1 5 1 0 2 1 4 1 0 2 1 4 163 200 154 30 30 28 26 26 15 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 0.00 0.49 10 0.49 1 0 1 1 1 3 1 0 1 0.49 0.49 9 0.98 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 0.49 0.49 8 0.98 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 0.49 0.49 8 0.98 CITY MANAGER Administration City Manager Assistant City Manager Executive Assistant to the City Manager/Mayor II Executive Assistant Administrative Intern* City Manager Department Total Full-Time City Manager Department Total Temp FTE* COMMUNITY RELATIONS Administration Community Relations Manager City Council Chief of Staff Mayor's Chief of Staff Executive Assistant to the City Manager/Mayor II Mayoral/Council Aide II Mayoral/City Council Aide I Executive Assistant Mayoral Aide Management Intern Administrative Intern* COE* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Cost Center Position 1214 1215 1216 Communication & Media Relations Communication & Media Relations Director Media Services Coordinator Communications Relations Coordinator Media Services Producer I/II+ Media Services Assistant * Media Services Intern* COE* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Range Actual Revised Budget Budget 154 39 36 29 1 1 2 2 0.19 0.66 0.49 6 1.34 1 1 2 2 0.19 0.66 0.00 6 0.85 1 1 2 2 0.19 0.66 0.00 6 0.85 1 1 2 2 0.19 0.66 0.00 6 0.85 Neighborhood Program Neighborhood Program Director Neighborhood Services Specialist Management Assistant II Total Full-Time 154 37 35 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 2 Government Relations Government Relations Director Aviation Coordinator Management Assistant I/II+ Total Full-Time 154 40 35 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 22 1.83 21 1.83 18 1.83 18 1.83 107 29 26 14 8 1 1 1 1 1 0.58 5 0.58 1 1 3 0 0 0.58 5 0.58 1 0 3 0 0 0.58 4 0.58 1 0 3 0 0 0.58 4 0.58 114 153 104 45 45 27 26 1 1 2 2 2 1 0 1 1 2 2 2 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 0 1 Community Relations Department Total Full-Time Community Relations Department Total Temp FTE* 1310 1410 CITY CLERK City Clerk Deputy City Clerk Executive Assistant Records Specialist Micrographics Operator I/II+ COE * City Clerk Department Total Full-Time City Clerk Department Total Temp FTE* CITY COURT Administration/Judicial Division Presiding City Judge Court Manager City Judge Deputy Court Manager Hearing Officer Court Services Supervisor Executive Assistant Cost Center Position 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Range Actual Revised Budget Budget Court Interpreter (Grant funded position for two years - through 04-05) Total Full-Time 1411 1412 Criminal Division Court Services Supervisor Court Services Specialist I/II+ COE* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Civil Division Court Services Supervisor Court Services Specialist I/II+ COE* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 21 0 1 1 1 9 10 10 10 27 18 2 8 2.1 10 2.1 2 8 2.1 10 2.1 2 7 2.1 9 2.1 2 7 2.1 9 2.1 27 18 3 12 2.1 15 2.1 3 12 2.1 15 2.1 3 11 2.1 14 2.1 3 11 2.1 14 2.1 34 4.2 35 4.2 33 4.2 33 4.2 1 1 4 1 1 5 1 1 2 1 1 4 1 0 5 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 0 5 1 1 1 1 1 4 0 0.50 0.62 23 0.50 0.62 1 1 4 0 0.75 0.62 21 0.75 0.62 1 1 4 0 0.75 0.62 21 0.75 0.62 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 City Court Department Total Full-Time City Court Department Total Temp FTE* 1710 3115 CITY ATTORNEY Legal Services City Attorney 114 1 Deputy City Attorney 60 1 Assistant City Attorney 300 4 City Prosecutor 54 1 Senior Prosecutor 50 1 Prosecutor I/II+ 40 5 Legal Executive Assistant 27 1 Paralegal II+ 28 1 Paralegal I+ 24 2 (1 position 60% funded by General Fund / 40% by Victim's Rights Grants) Legal Specialist I/II+ 19 1 Senior Legal Assistant 18 1 Legal Assistant 16 4 Administrative Assistant I 10 1 Paralegal** 0.50 Law Intern* 0.62 Total Full-Time 24 Total Perm FTE** 0.50 Total Temp FTE* 0.62 City Attorney/Water Assistant City Attorney Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time 300 16 2 1 3 Cost Center Position 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Range Actual Revised Budget Budget City Attorney Department Total Full-Time City Attorney Department Total Perm FTE** City Attorney Department Total Temp FTE* 1810 1812 2621 1831 FINANCIAL SERVICES Administration Financial Services Manager Executive Assistant Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time Budget Deputy Financial Services Manager Lead Budget and Research Analyst Budget and Research Analyst I/II+ Total Full-Time Risk Management Risk Manager Safety Officer Claims Officer - Liability Industrial Hygienist Administrative Assistant II Workers Compensation Rep** Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Accounting Deputy Financial Services Manager Accounting Administrator Accounting Supervisor Senior Accountant Financial Applications Analyst Cash Management Specialist Accountant Payroll Supervisor Senior Financial Services Technician Payroll Specialist Financial Services Technician I/II+ Accounting Assistant* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 27 0.50 0.62 26 0.50 0.62 24 0.75 0.62 24 0.75 0.62 163 26 16 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 2 155 39 36 1 0 3 4 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 4 44 33 33 33 16 15 1 1 1 1 0 0.5 4 0.5 1 1 1 1 0 0.5 4 0.5 1 0 1 0 1 0.5 3 0.5 1 0 1 0 1 0.5 3 0.5 155 51 42 37 36 36 31 31 21 20 18 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 6 0.63 14 0.63 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 6 0.63 12 0.63 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 4 0.63 11 0.63 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 4 0.63 11 0.63 Cost Center Position 1832 1841 1851 1852 1870 Tax and Licensing Tax and License Administrator License & Collections Supervisor Tax Audit Supervisor Tax Auditor I/II+ Specialty Licenses Coordinator Tax Audit Analyst Executive Assistant License Inspector Revenue Compliance Officer I/II Revenue Collector Financial Services Technician I/II+ Total Full-Time Customer Services Deputy Financial Services Manager Customer Services Administrator Customer Services Office Supervisor Customer Services Field Supervisor Senior Financial Services Technician Financial Services Technician I/II+ Water Service Representative Water Meter Reader Tech Water Meter Reader Total Full-Time Central Services/Purchasing Central Services Administrator Procurement Officer Assistant Buyer Financial Services Technician I/II+ Administrative Assistant II Unclassified Temporary-Office* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Central Services/Duplicating & Supplies Senior Reprographics Operator 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* Economic Development Economic Development Manager Economic Development Specialist Retail Specialist 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Range Actual Revised Budget Budget 49 42 42 32 31 27 26 25 25 23 18 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 0 2 4 18 1 1 1 5 1 1 0 1 0 2 4 17 1 1 1 5 1 1 0 0 3 0 4 17 1 1 1 5 1 1 0 0 3 0 4 17 155 48 33 27 21 18 16 13 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 7 1 1 4 16 1 1 1 1 0 9 0 1 6 20 1 1 1 1 0 9 0 1 6 20 46 31 25 18 16 1 3 1 3 1 0.62 9 0.62 1 3 0 3 1 0.62 8 0.62 1 2 0 3 1 0.62 7 0.62 1 2 0 3 1 0.62 7 0.62 18 10 8 2 2 1 5 57 0.50 1.25 2 1 1 4 68 0.50 1.25 2 1 1 4 68 0.50 1.25 2 1 1 4 68 0.50 1.25 163 43 32 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cost Center Position Executive Assistant Administrative Assistant II Economic Development Division Total Full-Time 4410 4413 1890 1911 1920 Economic Development - Rio Salado Rio Salado Manager Senior Planner Community Relations Coordinator Management Assistant I/II+ Executive Assistant Administrative Assistant II COE* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE * Rio Salado Park Administrative Assistant I Total Full-Time Rio Salado Division Total Full-Time Rio Salado Division Total Temp FTE* Strategic Planning Strategic Planning Director Contract Administrator Strategic Planning Division Total Full-Time HUMAN RESOURCES Human Resources -Administration Human Resources Manager Deputy Human Resources Manager Employee Benefits Supervisor Human Resources Supervisor Human Resources Analyst I/II+ Executive Assistant Benefits Specialist Human Resources Technician I/II+ Administrative Assistant II Human Resources Analyst I/II+** Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Tempe Learning Center Org Development Administrator Management Assistant I/II+ Human Resources Technician II Total Full-Time Human Resources Department Total Full-Time Human Resources Department Total Perm FTE** 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Range Actual Revised Budget Budget 26 16 0 1 3 1 0 4 1 0 4 1 0 4 47 38 36 35 26 16 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.49 6 0.49 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.49 6 0.49 1 1 1 2 0 1 0.49 6 0.49 1 1 1 2 0 1 0.49 6 0.49 10 3 3 9 0.49 2 2 8 0.49 2 2 8 0.49 2 2 8 0.49 200 31 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 163 155 41 37 36 26 20 20 16 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 7 1 0.5 19 0.5 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 7 1 0.5 18 0.5 1 1 1 0 4 1 1 6 1 0.5 16 0.5 1 1 1 0 4 1 1 6 1 0.5 16 0.5 48 1 1 1 1 35 20 0 1 2 21 0.5 0 1 2 20 0.5 1 0 2 18 0.5 1 0 2 18 0.5 Cost Center Position 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Information Technology/Administration Information Technology Manager Deputy Information Tech Manager Planning & Research Analyst Program Consultant Executive Assistant Total Full-Time 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Range Actual Revised Budget Budget 163 155 40 37 26 1 2 1 2 1 7 1 2 0 2 1 6 1 2 0 0 1 4 1 2 0 0 1 4 Information Technology/Customer Support PC Services Supervisor Support Services Supervisor Customer Support Coordinator Sr. PC Services Consultant PC Services Consultant I/II+ Total Full-Time 46 44 39 34 31 0 1 2 1 6 10 1 1 0 1 6 9 1 0 0 1 6 8 1 0 0 1 6 8 Information Technology/Technical Services 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 47 46 44 41 33 25 20 1 1 2 5 1 2 3 15 1 1 2 5 1 2 3 15 1 1 2 5 1 1 3 14 1 1 2 5 1 1 3 14 49 47 46 46 46 46 1 1 0 1 2 8 1 1 1 3 2 8 1 1 1 3 2 8 1 1 1 3 2 8 42 44 2 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 41 8 7 6 6 37 31 1 5 0.5 38 0.5 1 5 0 38 0 1 5 0 37 0 1 5 0 37 0 46 39 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Information Technology/Application Services Application Services Supervisor IT Project Coordinator Customer Support Supervisor Database Administrator Webmaster Business Analyst (1 position funded by Water/Wastewater) Database Analyst Senior Programmer Analyst (1 position funded by Water/Wastewater) Programmer Analyst I/II+ (1 position funded by Water/Wastewater) IT Training Coordinator Customer Support Specialist I/II+ Programmer Analyst** Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Information Technology/Telecommunications Telecommunications Supervisor Telecommunications Operations Supervisor Cost Center Position Telecommunications Network Engineer Sr Communication Network Technician Communication Network Technician Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time Range 39 31 28 16 3 1 4 2 12 3 1 4 1 11 3 1 3 1 10 3 1 3 1 10 82 0.5 79 0.0 73 0.0 73 0.0 165 26 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 157 45 42 40 39 36 35 36 35 34 32 31 31 26 25 25 25 25 22 16 16 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 0 1 1 2 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 0 42 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 0 1 2 1 6 1 0 1 1 1 5 1 0 1 0 32 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 0 0 2 1 6 1 0 1 1 0 5 1 0 0 1 29 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 0 0 2 1 6 1 0 1 1 0 5 1 0 0 1 29 0 1 157 45 39 34 1 3 4 6 1 3 4 6 0 2 4 7 0 2 4 7 Information Technology Department Total Full-Time Information Technology Department Total Perm FTE** 2710 2721 2731 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Development Services - Administration Development Services Manager Executive Assistant Total Full-Time Building Safety and Permits Deputy Dev Services Manager-BS Plan Check Administrator Permits Center Manager Bldg. Inspection Superintendent Senior Plan Check Engineer Sr Building Inspector Plan Check Engineer Permits Center Supervisor 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+** Dev Services Specialist I/II + * Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Total Temp FTE* Planning Deputy Dev Services Manager - Planning Principal Planner Senior Planner Planner I/II+ 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Actual Revised Budget Budget Cost Center Position Executive Assistant Administrative Assistant II COE* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 2732 2741 27612774 Code Compliance Code Enforcement Manager Senior Code Inspector Specialist Senior Code Inspector Code Inspector I/II+ Administrative Assistant II Administrative Assistant I Total Full-Time Redevelopment, Neighborhood Planning & Urban Design Deputy Dev Srvs Manager - Comm. Design & Dev. Principal Planner Senior Planner (2 positions funded by Federal Grant) Planner I/II+ Planning Technician I/II+ (1 Position 50% funded by Federal Grant) Housing Services Specialist I/II Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time Housing Services Division Dep Dev Svs Manager - Housing Srvs Housing Services Supervisor Accountant Homeless Coordinator Family Self Sufficiency Specialist Housing Services Specialist (CDBG & HOME) Housing Services Specialist (Section 8) Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Range Actual Revised Budget Budget 26 16 0 2 1.86 16 1.86 1 2 1.86 17 1.86 0 3 1.86 16 1.86 0 3 1.86 16 1.86 40 32 27 26 16 8 1 1 1 9 1 1 14 1 1 1 9 1 1 14 1 1 1 8 1 1 13 1 1 1 8 1 1 13 157 45 39 1 4 5 1 4 4 1 3 3 1 3 3 34 25 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 0 25 16 0 1 17 1 1 17 0 1 11 0 1 11 157 33 31 31 26 25 22 16 1 1 1 0 1 4 5 1 14 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 1 14 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 1 14 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 1 14 105 1 1.86 95 1 1.86 84 0 2.86 84 0 2.86 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 Development Services Department Total Full-Time Development Services Department Total Perm FTE* Development Services Department Total Temp FTE* 2210 POLICE Office of the Chief Police Chief Police Administration Manager Management Assistant II Crime Analyst I/II+ 167 44 35 31 Cost Center Position 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Range Actual Revised Budget Budget Executive Assistant Alarm Coordinator Administrative Assistant II Police Records Clerk II Administrative Assistant I Total Full-Time 2231 2232 2233 2236 2241 Detention Facility Police Detention & Support Manager Police Identification Supervisor Police Property Supervisor Detention Supervisor Police ID Technician Detention Officer Police Property Technician Fingerprint Technician Detention Officer** Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Communications Bureau Police Communications Manager Police Communications Shift Supvr. Police Communications Dispatcher I/II+ Total Full-Time Records Bureau Police Information Manager Senior Police Records Clerk Police Records Clerk II Administrative Assistant I Police Records Clerk I COE* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Crime Prevention Police Sergeant Crime Free Multi-Housing Coordinator Police Officer Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time Investigations/Criminal Investigations Assistant Police Chief Police Commander Police Sergeant Police Officer 26 21 16 14 10 1 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 12 48 31 28 27 22 19 18 17 1 1 1 6 5 19 5 2 1 40 1.0 1 1 1 6 6 19 5 2 1 41 1.0 1 1 1 6 5 19 5 2 1 40 1.0 1 1 1 6 5 19 5 2 1 40 1.0 42 32 22 1 6 36 43 1 6 36 43 1 6 36 43 1 6 36 43 42 24 16 10 8 1 3 15 2 8 1 29 1 1 3 15 2 8 1 29 1 1 3 15 1 8 1 28 1 1 3 15 1 8 1 28 1 36 29 28 16 1 1 4 1 7 1 1 5 1 8 1 1 5 1 8 1 1 5 1 8 160 50 36A 28 1 1 6 38 1 1 6 39 1 1 6 39 1 1 6 39 Cost Center Position 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Range Actual Revised Budget Budget Executive Assistant Police Community Service Officer Police Investigative Asst. Administrative Assistant II COE* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 2242 2243 Investigations/Traffic Investigations Police Commander Police Sergeant Police Officer Administrative Assistant II Administrative Assistant I Traffic Enforcement Aide Total Full-Time 2251 1 3 3 1 1.26 54 1.26 1 3 3 1 1.26 55 1.26 1 3 3 1 1.26 55 1.26 1 3 3 1 1.26 55 1.26 50 36A 28 16 10 10 1 5 26 1 1 7 41 1 5 25 1 1 7 40 1 5 25 1 1 7 40 1 5 25 1 1 7 40 50 36A 31 28 1 4 0 23 1 5 0 22 1 5 1 22 1 5 1 22 20 16 16 1 2 1 32 1 2 1 32 1 1 1 32 1 1 1 32 50 36A 28 26 1 3 21 1 26 1 3 21 1 26 1 3 16 1 21 1 3 16 1 21 160 50 36A 35 34 1 1 8 1 2 1 1 8 1 2 1 1 8 1 2 1 1 8 1 2 31 28 1 4 1 2 1 0.7 22 0.7 1 4 1 2 1 0.7 22 0.7 1 4 1 2 1 0.7 22 0.7 1 4 1 2 1 0.7 22 0.7 SEU Police Commander Police Sergeant Criminal Intelligence Analyst Police Officer (1 position is a Senior Intelligence Officer) Police Community Service Officer Police Investigative Assistant Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time 2248 26 20 16 16 Downtown Unit Police Commander Police Sergeant Police Officer Police Licensing Specialist Total Full-Time Administration Assistant Chief Police Commander Police Sergeant Management Assistant I/II Police Polygraph Examiner I/II+ (1 position sworn, 1 non-sworn) Volunteer Coordinator Police Officer Policy Procedures Officer Administrative Assistant II Administrative Assistant I COE* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 16 10 Cost Center Position 2258 2259 2271 2272 2273 2274 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Range Actual Revised Budget Budget Rio Salado - Park Rangers Park Ranger Total Full-Time 13 0 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 Rio Salado - Sworn Police officer Total Full-Time 28 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 57 50 36A 28 16 10 1 1 2 1 2 2 0.16 2.5 0.63 9 3.29 1 1 2 1 2 2 0.16 2.5 0.63 9 3.29 1 1 2 1 2 2 0.16 2.5 0.63 9 3.29 1 1 2 1 2 2 0.16 2.5 0.63 9 3.29 50 36A 28 20 5 24 138 10 177 5 23 138 10 176 5 23 137 10 175 5 23 137 10 175 36A 2 2 2 2 13 10 12 9 11 9 11 9 11 28 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 512 1.0 6.25 518 1.0 6.25 515 1.0 6.25 515 1.0 6.25 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 0 1 1 3 0 Patrol-Administration Assistant Chief Police Commander Police Sergeant Police Officer Administrative Assistant II Administrative Assistant I Police Reserves* Service Aide* COE* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Patrol Police Commander Police Sergeant Police Officer Police Community Service Officer Total Full-Time City Security Team Police Sergeant (.5 funded by Rio Salado) Park Ranger Total Full-Time Recruits Police Officer Total Full-Time Police Department Total Full-Time Police Department Total Perm FTE** Police Department Total Temp FTE* 2310 FIRE Administration Fire Chief Assistant Fire Chief Fire Battalion Chief Senior Management Assistant 165 158 48 40 Cost Center Position 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Range Actual Revised Budget Budget Executive Assistant Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time 2330 2340 2350 2363 2364 2370 2380 Fire Prevention Fire Marshal Fire Inspector I/II+ Fire Education Specialist Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time Fire Emergency Services Fire Captain Fire Engineer Firefighter (57 of Firefighter, Engineer or Captain positions are paramedic assignment.) Total Full-Time Training/Professional Development Fire Battalion Chief Fire Captain - Assgt. Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time Fire Apparatus Maintenance Senior Fire Mechanic Fire Mechanic Inventory Services Specialist ** Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Support Services - Administration Fire Battalion Chief Fire Services Inventory Technician Fire Support Services Technician Service Aide Service Aide ** Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Medical Services Fire Battalion Chief Fire Captain - Paramedic-Assgt. Medical Services Coordinator Total Full-Time Special Operations Fire Battalion Chief 26 16 1 1 8 1 1 8 0 1 6 0 1 6 48 31 18 16 1 7 2 1 11 1 7 2 1 11 1 7 2 1 11 1 7 2 1 11 34 28 25 30 33 62 30 33 62 30 33 62 30 33 62 125 125 125 125 48 37A 16 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 33 28 13 1 1 0.5 2 0.5 1 1 0.5 2 0.5 1 1 0.5 2 0.5 1 1 0.5 2 0.5 48 24 13 1 1 1 1 0.00 4 0.00 1 1 1 1 0.00 4 0.00 1 1 1 0 0.50 3 0.50 1 1 1 0 0.50 3 0.50 48 41A 33 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 48 1 1 1 1 Cost Center Position 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Range Actual Revised Budget Budget Haz Mat Program Specialist Fire Captain Total Full-Time 36 34 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 3 159 0.5 159.50 159 0.5 159.50 156 1.0 157.00 156 1.0 157.00 165 31 26 1 1 1 0.38 0.14 3 0.52 1 1 1 0 0.52 3 0.52 1 1 1 0 0.52 3 0.52 1 1 1 0 0.52 3 0.52 157 35 31 19 16 1 1 1 1 3 0.00 1.50 0.22 7 1.50 0.22 1 1 1 1 3 1.50 0.00 0.22 7 1.50 0.22 1 1 1 1 3 1.50 0.00 0.22 7 1.50 0.22 1 1 1 1 3 1.50 0.00 0.22 7 1.50 0.22 39 31 31 23 1 1 2 1 1.18 5 1.18 1 0 2 1 1.18 4 1.18 1 0 1 1 1.18 3 1.18 1 0 1 1 1.18 3 1.18 31 23 16 1 1 1 0.50 2.87 3 0.50 2.87 1 1 1 0.00 2.87 3 0.00 2.87 1 1 1 0.00 2.87 3 0.00 2.87 1 1 1 0.00 2.87 3 0.00 2.87 Fire Department Total Full-Time Fire Department Total Perm FTE** 2410 2421 COMMUNITY SERVICES Administration Community Services Manager 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 Administrative Assistant II** Administrative Assistant I** Unclassified Temporary* Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Total Temp FTE* 2422 (2483) Recreation/Community Events Community Services Supervisor Public Relations and Events Coordinator Recreation Coordinator Assistant Recreation Coordinator Unclassified Temporary* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 2423 Recreation/Special Populations Recreation Coordinator Asst. Recreation Coordinator Administrative Assistant II Asst. Recreation Coordinator ** Unclassified Temporary* Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Total Temp FTE* Cost Center Position 2424 2425 2426 2427 2429 2431 Recreation/Rec. Instructional Community Services Supervisor Recreation Coordinator Assistant Recreation Coordinator Recreation Leader III* Unclassified Temporary* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Recreation/Youth Sports Recreation Coordinator Unclassified Temporary* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Recreation/Adult Sports Community Services Supervisor Program Coordinator Recreation Coordinator Unclassified Temporary* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Recreation Resources Recreation Coordinator Unclassified Temporary* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Recreation/Diablo Stadium Operation Recreation Coordinator Unclassified Temporary* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Recreation/Kiwanis Center Community Services Supervisor Recreation Coordinator Asst. Recreation Coordinator Administrative Assistant II Administrative Assistant II** Recreation Leader I* Recreation Worker* Unclassified Temporary* Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Total Temp FTE* 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Range Actual Revised Budget Budget 39 31 23 1 2 1 1.93 4.72 4 6.65 1 3 0 1.93 4.72 4 6.65 1 3 0 1.93 4.72 4 6.65 1 3 0 1.93 4.72 4 6.65 31 2 3.84 2 3.84 2 3.84 2 3.84 2 3.84 2 3.84 2 3.84 2 3.84 39 35 31 1 1 2 2.89 4 2.89 1 0 2 3.89 3 3.89 1 0 2 3.89 3 3.89 1 0 2 3.89 3 3.89 31 1 4.1 1 4.1 1 4.1 1 4.1 1 4.1 1 4.1 1 4.1 1 4.1 31 1 2.41 1 2.41 1 2.41 1 2.41 1 2.41 1 2.41 1 2.41 1 2.41 39 31 23 16 1 1 3 0 3.75 0.75 0.50 18.46 5 3.75 19.71 1 1 2 1 1.75 0.75 0.50 18.46 5 2.75 19.71 1 1 2 1 1.75 0.75 0.50 18.46 5 2.75 19.71 1 1 2 1 1.75 0.75 0.50 18.46 5 2.75 19.71 Cost Center Position 2432 2433 2435 2440 2486 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Range Actual Revised Budget Budget Recreation/Kiwanis Concession Unclassified Temporary* Total Temp FTE* 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* Recreation/Kiwanis Batting Cage Batting Cage Coordinator Batting Range Operator Unclassified Temp* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Library Dep Comm Svcs Mgr - Library Administrative Librarian Library Supervisor Recreation Coordinator Catalog Services Coordinator Librarian I/II+ Circulation Services Coordinator Administrative Assistant II Library Specialist I/II+ Library Specialist I+ Library Assistant Librarian I/II+** Library Specialist II** Library Assistant** Unclassified Temp - Office* Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Total Temp FTE* Social Services/Administration Dep Comm Svcs Mgr - Social Services Management Assistant II Administrative Assistant II Unclassified Temporary* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 39 31 23 20 1 1 1 1 0.75 17.33 4 0.75 17.33 1 1 1 1 0 18.08 4 0.00 18.08 1 1 1 1 0 18.08 4 0.00 18.08 1 1 1 1 0 18.08 4 0.00 18.08 27 9 1 1 1.41 2 1.41 1 1 1.41 2 1.41 1 0 2.41 1 2.41 1 0 2.41 1 2.41 157 39 39 31 31 30 28 16 15 11 8 1 1 4 1 1 13 1 1 6 3 5 2 1.75 4.50 9.84 37 8.25 9.84 1 1 4 1 1 11 1 1 6 3 5 1.25 1.75 4.00 9.84 35 7.00 9.84 1 0 4 1 1 11 1 1 9 0 5 0.50 1.00 3.25 9.84 34 4.75 9.84 1 0 4 1 1 11 1 1 9 0 5 0.50 1.00 3.25 9.84 34 4.75 9.84 157 35 16 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1 4 0.85 6 0.85 1 1 4 0.85 6 0.85 Cost Center Position 2451 2457 2485 Social Services/Diversion Dep Comm Svcs Mgr - Social Services Community Services Supervisor Social Services Supervisor Social Services Counselor I/II+ Community Youth Coordinator Youth Employment Coordinator Social Services Coordinator Asst Recreation Coordinator Program Specialist Administrative Assistant II Social Services Coordinator** Customer Support Specialist I** Secretary** Social Services Counselor** 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 Assistant Recreation Coordinator Administrative Assistant II Inventory Services Specialist Social Services Coordinator** Secretary** Inventory Services Specialist** Program Coordinator** Program Coordinator* Unclassified Temporary* Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Total Temp FTE* Social Services/Partnerships Social Services Supervisor Social Services Counselor II Social Services Coordinator Crisis Intervention Specialist 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Range Actual Revised Budget Budget 157 39 39 35 31 31 31 23 17 16 1 2 3 10 2 1 3 2 2 8 1.50 0.75 0.75 0.65 0.06 4.00 3.25 7.36 34 3.65 14.67 1 2 3 9 2 1 3 2 2 8 1.75 0.75 0.75 0.65 0.06 4.00 3.25 7.36 33 3.90 14.67 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 0.65 0.00 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 0.65 0.00 39 35 31 23 16 13 1 1 4 1 0 0 2.00 1.00 1.00 10.00 0.48 46.95 7 14.00 47.43 1 1 3 1 0 0 2.00 1.00 1.00 10.00 0.48 46.95 6 14.00 47.43 1 0 5 11 1 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.93 19 0.00 65.93 1 0 5 11 1 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.93 19 0.00 65.93 39 35 31 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 Cost Center Position 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Range Actual Revised Budget Budget Unclassified Temporary * Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 2487 2481 Social Services/Escalante Community Services Supervisor Social Services Coordinator Assistant Recreation Coordinator Administrative Assistant II Customer Support Specialist I** Administrative Assistant I** Unclassified Temporary* Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Total Temp FTE* 39 31 23 16 23 10 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 7.43 6 7.43 7.43 6 7.43 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 1 2 2 1 0.75 0.75 7.28 6 1.50 7.28 1 2 2 1 0.75 0.75 7.28 6 1.50 7.28 1 1 0 2 1 0.0 0.00 0 1 0 2 1 0.0 0.50 0 1 0 2 1 0.0 0.50 0.95 0.36 6.01 5 0.00 7.32 0.95 0.36 6.01 4 0.50 7.32 0.95 0.36 6.01 4 0.50 7.32 Cultural Services - Administration Dep Comm Svcs Mgr - Cultural Services 157 1 Community Services Supervisor 39 1 Recreation Coordinator 31 1 Fine Arts Coordinator 31 2 Administrative Assistant II 16 1 Assistant Recreation Coordinator** 1.0 Dep Comm Svcs Mgr - Cultural Services** 0.00 (.50 funded by General Fund, .50 by Performing Arts Fund) Recreation Leader III* 0.95 Recreation Leader IV* 0.36 Unclassified Temporary* 5.01 Total Full-Time 6 Total Perm FTE** 1.00 Total Temp FTE* 6.32 2484 (2445) Historical Museum Museum Administrator Museum Curator Museum Registrar Administrative Assistant II Museum Aide** Unclassified Temp - Office* Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Total Temp FTE* 3610 Performing Arts - Administration Cultural Facilities Administrator Fine Arts Coordinator 39 28 23 16 1 5 1 1 0.5 0.7 8 0.5 0.7 1 4 1 1 0.5 0.7 7 0.5 0.7 1 4 1 1 0.5 0.7 7 0.5 0.7 1 4 1 1 0.5 0.7 7 0.5 0.7 37 31 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cost Center Position 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Range Actual Revised Budget Budget Administrative Assistant II 10 1 Dep Comm Svcs Mgr - Cultural Services** 0.00 (.50 funded by General Fund, .50 by Performing Arts Fund) Total Full-Time 3 Total Perm FTE** 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.50 1 0.50 2 0.00 3 0.50 3 0.50 136 33.90 144.08 127 29.65 146.83 126 12.65 167.22 126 12.65 167.22 165 42 35 26 1 1 1 1 0.49 4 0.49 1 1 1 1 0.49 4 0.49 1 0 1 1 0.49 3 0.49 1 0 1 1 0.49 3 0.49 157 40 40 39 31 29 26 25 22 16 15 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 10 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 10 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 Engineering/Construction Mgt. & Quality Assurance Principal Civil Engineer Engineering Manager Engineering Permit Inspection Coordinator Senior Engineering Associate+ Engineering Associate+ Total Full-Time 44 41 36 31 27 0 1 0 7 2 10 0 1 0 6 2 9 1 0 1 4 1 7 1 0 1 4 1 7 Engineering/Plan Review/Project Development Assistant City Engineer Principal Civil Engineer Engineering Supervisor Senior Civil Engineer+ (One position funded by Water/Wastewater) 53 44 41 41 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 Community Services Department Total Full-Time Community Services Department Total Perm FTE** Community Services Department Total Temp FTE* 3210 3221 3222 3223 PUBLIC WORKS Administration Public Works Manager Administrative Services Coordinator Management Assistant II Executive Assistant COE* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Engineering/Admin. Support/Contract Admin. Deputy PW Manager-Engineering Engineering Manager Senior Management Assistant Senior Civil Engineer Contract Administrator Senior Engineering Associate+ Executive Assistant Engineering Associate+ Engineering Technician II+ Administrative Assistant II Engineering Technician I+ Total Full-Time Cost Center Position Municipal Property Specialist Civil Engineer + (One position funded by Water/Wastewater) Engineering Systems Supervisor Real Estate Property Specialist Utility Infrastructure Coordinator Senior Engineering Associate+ Senior Survey Technician Engineering Technician I/II+ Survey Technician I/II+ Total Full-Time 3225 Engineering/Information & Technical Services Engineering Supervisor Engineering Systems Supervisor Real Estate Property Specialist Senior Engineering Associate+ Engineering Technician I/II+ Survey Technician II Total Full-Time 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Range Actual Revised Budget Budget 38 36 2 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 35 33 33 31 22 22 18 1 0 1 4 1 3 1 20 1 0 1 2 1 3 0 17 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 8 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 8 41 35 33 31 22 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 4 1 11 1 1 1 3 4 1 11 44 0.49 40 0.49 34 0.49 34 0.49 157 40 35 16 10 1 1 1 3 1 7 1 1 1 3 1 7 1 1 1 2 0 5 1 1 1 2 0 5 44 32 29 26 23 1 1 1 1 16 20 1 1 1 1 17 21 1 1 1 1 15 19 1 1 1 1 15 19 28 14 5 2 4 33 0.5 0.49 39 0.5 0.49 1 4 31 0.5 0.49 36 0.5 0.49 4 0 34 0.0 0.49 38 0.0 0.49 4 0 34 0.0 0.49 38 0.0 0.49 Admin & Engineering Division Total Full-Time Admin & Engineering Division Total Temp FTE* 3231 3241 3250 Field Services/Administration Deputy PW Manager-Field Services Senior Management Assistant Management Assistant I/II+ Administrative Assistant II Administrative Assistant I Total Full-Time Field Services/Facility Maintenance Administration Asst. Field Serv. Director-Facility Management Facility Services Supervisor Facility Automation Technician Facility Electrician Facility Technician I/II+ Total Full-Time Field Services/Custodial Services Custodial Supervisor Lead Custodian Custodian Custodian** Custodian* Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Total Temp FTE* Cost Center Position 3252 3253 3254 3255 3256 3257 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 Senior Groundskeeper Parks & Golf Course Mechanic Equipment Operator II (1 position funded by HURF) Sprinkler Sys. Maint. Worker I/II+ Equipment Operator I Groundskeeper Groundskeeper* Unclassified Temporary* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Range Actual Revised Budget Budget 44 31 23 22 21 20 19 1 3 2 1 8 1 5 1 3 2 1 8 1 5 1 3 2 0 7 1 6 1 3 2 0 7 1 6 16 9 8 7 2 21 2.62 2.5 51 5.12 7 2 20 2.62 2.5 50 5.12 7 4 15 2.62 2.5 46 5.12 7 4 15 2.62 2.5 46 5.12 31 21 9 8 1 0 2 7 0.56 10 0.56 1 0 2 7 0.56 10 0.56 1 2 0 5 0.56 8 0.56 1 2 0 5 0.56 8 0.56 21 8 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 0.1 2 0.0 0.1 1 1 0 0.1 2 0.0 0.1 Field Services/Landscape Maintenance Contract Parks and Golf Course Supervisor Groundskeeper Total Full-Time 31 8 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 0 1 1 0 1 Field Services/Pest Control Senior Pest Control Worker Pest Control Technician Total Full-Time 23 16 1 4 5 1 4 5 1 4 5 1 4 5 Field Services/Rio Salado - CFD Groundskeeper Total Full-Time 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Field Services/Baseball Facility Parks and Golf Course Supervisor Senior Groundskeeper Equipment Operator I Groundskeeper Groundskeeper* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Field Services/Rio Salado Senior Groundskeeper Groundskeeper Custodian** Groundskeeper* Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Total Temp FTE* Cost Center Position 3258 3712 3713 3714 3715 3716 3718 3813 2511 Double Butte Cemetery Groundskeeper Total Full-Time 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Range Actual Revised Budget Budget 8 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 44 31 22 1 1 1 0 3 1 1 1 0 3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 Field Services/Solid Waste Residential Refuse Solid Waste/Recycling Supervisor Equipment Operator II Total Full-Time 31 19 1 19 20 1 19 20 1 19 20 1 19 20 Field Services/Solid Waste Commercial Refuse Solid Waste Supervisor Equipment Operator II Total Full-Time 31 19 1 15 16 1 15 16 1 15 16 1 15 16 Field Services/Roll Off Tilt Frame Senior Equipment Operator Total Full-Time 22 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 22 19 19 1 3 1 0.0 5 0.0 1 3 1 0.0 5 0.0 1 3 0 0.5 4 0.5 1 3 0 0.5 4 0.5 31 19 1 14 0.5 15 0.5 1 14 0.5 15 0.5 1 15 0.0 16 0.0 1 15 0.0 16 0.0 41 29 22 19 1 0 5 19 25 1 2 6 19 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 1 1 1 1 Field Services/Solid Waste Support Services Asst. Field Services Manager - Solid Waste Solid Waste/Recycling Supervisor Solid Waste Services Specialist Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time Field Services/Solid Waste Support Services Lead Solid Waste Technician Solid Waste Technician Equipment Operator II Equipment Operator II** Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Field Services/Solid Waste Uncontained Refuse Solid Waste/Recycling Supervisor Equipment Operator II Equipment Operator II** Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Field Services/Street Maintenance Street Maintenance Supervisor Senior Engineering Associate Senior Equipment Operator Equipment Operator II Total Full-Time Field Services/Rolling Hills Golf Parks & Golf Course Supervisor Cost Center Position Senior Groundskeeper Parks & Golf Course Mechanic Equipment Operator II Sprinkler Systems Maint. Worker I/II+ Equipment Operator I Groundskeeper Groundskeeper* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 2512 Field Services/Ken McDonald Golf Parks & Golf Course Supervisor Senior Groundskeeper Parks & Golf Course Mechanic Equipment Operator II Sprinkler System Maint. Worker I/II+ Equipment Operator I Groundskeeper Groundskeeper* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Range Actual Revised Budget Budget 21 20 19 16 9 8 0 1 2 1 1 4 1.07 10 1.07 0 1 2 1 1 4 1.07 10 1.07 1 1 1 1 1 4 1.07 10 1.07 1 1 1 1 1 4 1.07 10 1.07 31 21 20 19 16 9 8 1 0 1 3 1 1 5 1.35 12 1.35 1 0 1 3 1 1 5 1.35 12 1.35 1 1 1 2 1 1 5 1.35 12 1.35 1 1 1 2 1 1 5 1.35 12 1.35 250 1.5 8.69 250 1.5 8.69 212 0.5 8.69 212 0.5 8.69 147 39 35 30 27 21 16 16 8 1 1 0 0 1 1 3 1 1 0.5 9 0.5 1 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 0 0.5 7 0.5 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 0.5 8 0.5 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 0.5 8 0.5 33 30 28 25 24 22 13 3 0 3 15 1 1 4 27 3 0 3 15 1 1 4 27 3 1 2 14 0 1 4 25 3 1 2 14 0 1 4 25 Field Services Division Total Full-Time Field Services Division Total Perm FTE** Field Services Division Total Temp FTE* 3261 3262 Fleet Services/Fleet Management Fleet Director Equipment Maintenance Supt. Fleet Systems Coordinator Equipment Control Coordinator 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* Fleet Services/Fleet Maintenance Equipment Maint. Supervisor Equipment Control Coordinator Lead Equipment Mechanic Equipment Mechanic Motorcycle Repair Technician Equipment Paint & Body Repair Worker Equipment Service Worker II Total Full-Time Cost Center Position 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Range Actual Revised Budget Budget Fleet Services Division Total Full-Time Fleet Services Division Total Temp FTE* 3813 3821 3822 3823 3824 3825 36 0.50 34 0.50 Streets & Traffic Operations/Street Maintenance Street Maintenance Superintendent 41 0 0 Street Maintenance Supervisor 31 0 0 Senior Engineering Associate 29 0 0 Senior Equipment Operator 22 0 0 Equipment Operator II 19 0 0 (2 positions funded by Solid Waste for Alley Management Program) (4 positions funded by Water/Wastewater for Street sweeping-stormwater program) Total Full-Time 0 0 Streets & Traffic Operations/Administration Deputy Public Works Manager - Transportation Management Assistant II Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time 33 0.50 33 0.50 1 1 1 3 20 1 1 1 3 20 26 26 157 35 16 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Transportation/Studies & Design Traffic Engineering Supervisor Senior Civil Engineer+ Transportation Engineering Planner Senior Traffic Engineering Technician+ Total Full-Time 42 41 36 31 1 2 0 4 7 1 1 0 4 6 1 1 1 4 7 1 1 1 4 7 Streets & Traffic Operations/Operations Traffic Operations Supervisor Senior Sign Technician Traffic Operations Crew Leader Sign Technician Administrative Assistant II Transportation Worker I/II+ Total Full-Time 41 30 20 18 16 15 1 1 2 1 1 5 11 1 1 2 1 1 4 10 1 1 2 1 1 4 10 1 1 2 1 1 4 10 Streets & Traffic Operations/Street Lighting Transportation Engineering Planner Management Assistant I/II+ Lighting Systems Coordinator Total Full-Time 36 35 27 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 Streets and Traffic Operations/Signal System Intelligent Trans. System Coordinator Traffic Signal Supervisor Signal Systems Analyst Senior Traffic Signal Technician Traffic Signal Technician I/II+ Underground Utilities Coordinator Traffic Signal Service Worker I/II+ Total Full-Time 39 35 34 33 26 22 21 1 0 1 1 3 1 5 12 1 0 0 1 3 1 5 11 1 1 0 0 3 1 5 11 1 1 0 0 3 1 5 11 Cost Center Position 3911 3915 3917 Transportation/Transit Deputy Public Works Manager Transit Administrator Principal Planner Principal Civil Engineer Sr Civil Engineer+ Senior Transportation Planner + Transit Operations Supervisor Transportation Planner + Community Outreach & Marketing Coordinator Transit Finance Specialist Transit Operations Coordinator Alternative Modes Specialist Transit Information Specialist Transit Support Services Supervisor Transit Operations Technician Administrative Assistant II Transportation Operations Worker I/II+ Management Intern** Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Range Actual Revised Budget Budget 157 44 45 44 41 40 37 36 36 36 32 29 27 26 18 16 15 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 5 0.5 23 0.5 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 0.5 24 0.5 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0.5 20 0.5 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0.5 20 0.5 Transportation/Transit Store Senior Financial Services Technician Financial Services Clerk I/II+ Total Full-Time 18 18 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Transportation/Bus Stop Maintenance Transportation Operations Worker I/II+ Total Full-Time 15 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 61 0.5 58 0.5 87 0.5 87 0.5 391 2.0 9.68 382 2.0 9.68 366 1.0 9.68 366 1.0 9.68 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 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* 3002 WATER UTILITIES Water Utilities - Administration Water Utilities Dept. Manager Deputy Water Utilities Manager - Operations Principal Infrastructure Engineering Planner Senior Management Assistant Planning and Research Analyst Environmental Program Supervisor Air Quality Specialist 165 157 42 40 40 39 36 Cost Center Position 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Range Actual Revised Budget Budget Management Assistant I/II+ Water Utility Safety & Training Coordinator Executive Assistant Administrative Assistant II COE* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 3003 3004 3011 3012 3013 3014 3021 35 33 26 16 1 1 1 2 0.49 10 0.49 2 1 1 2 0.49 13 0.49 1 1 1 2 0.49 10 0.49 1 1 1 2 0.49 10 0.49 Water Utilities Warehouse Warehouse Supervisor Inventory Services Specialist Distribution Clerk Total Full-Time 25 13 8 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Water Utilities Security Management Assistant I/II+ Water Utility Security Guard Total Full-Time 35 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 1 2 3 Water Quality - Administration Plant Operations Administrator Total Full-Time 47 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Control Center Operations Control Center Supervisor Instrumentation and Control Tech (4 SBP) Control Center Operator Total Full-Time 36 27 25 1 4 4 9 1 4 4 9 1 4 4 9 1 4 4 9 Johnny G. Martinez Water Plant Plant Team Leader Plant Electrician (SBP) Plant Operator I/II+ (5 SBP) Plant Mechanic (SBP) Total Full-Time 36 26 23 22 1 1 6 2 10 1 1 6 2 10 1 1 7 2 11 1 1 7 2 11 South Tempe Water Plant Plant Team Leader Plant Electrician (1 SBP) Plant Operator I/II+ (3 SBP) Utility Services Mechanic Plant Mechanic (2 SBP) Total Full-Time 36 26 23 22 19 1 1 5 1 1 9 1 1 5 1 1 9 1 1 5 0 2 9 1 1 5 0 2 9 Distribution System Services - Administration Transmission and Collection Administrator Total Full-Time 47 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cost Center Position 3022 3024 3025 3027 3028 3029 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Range Actual Revised Budget Budget Distribution System Maintenance Utility Services Supervisor Utility Services Team Lead (SBP) Senior Utility Services Worker Utility Services Tech I/II+ (SBP) Total Full-Time 37 27 17 17 1 3 1 8 13 1 3 1 8 13 1 2 0 10 13 1 2 0 10 13 Irrigation Water Systems Supervisor Water Systems Coordinator Irrigator Total Full-Time 33 24 5 1 1 7 9 1 1 7 9 1 1 7 9 1 1 7 9 Technical Support Team CMMS Tech II Underground Utilities Coordinator Engineering Tech II Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time 23 22 22 16 4 2 2 1 9 4 2 2 1 9 4 2 2 1 9 4 2 2 1 9 47 39 37 31 29 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1 3 2 1 1 0.5 9 0.5 1 1 3 2 1 1 0.5 9 0.5 39 35 31 29 24 24 22 16 13 1 0 5 0 1 0 3 2 2 0.0 14 0.0 0 0 5 1 1 1 3 2 2 0.5 15 0.5 0 1 4 0 0 0 4 2 0 0.0 11 0.0 0 1 4 0 0 0 4 2 0 0.0 11 0.0 35 33 31 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Environmental Services Environmental Services Administrator Environmental Program Supervisor Environmental Quality Specialist Environmental Investigator+ Sr. Cross Connection Control Inspector Cross Connection Control Inspector Administrative Assistant II** Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Environmental - SROG Environmental Compliance Supervisor Sr. Environmental Investigator Environmental Investigator I/II+ Sr. Cross Connection Control Inspector Lead Environmental Technician Cross Connection Control Inspector Environmental Technician I/II+ Administrative Assistant II Utility Security Technician Administrative Assistant II** Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Household Hazardous Product Environmental Haz. Mat. Supervisor Industrial Hygienist Environmental Investigator+ Total Full-Time Cost Center Position 3031 3033 3034 3035 3041 3051 3052 3061 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Range Actual Revised Budget Budget Wastewater Services - Administration S.R.O.G Program Administrator Total Full-Time 47 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Wastewater Utility Services Utility Services Team Lead (SBP) Utility Services Tech I/II+ (SBP) Total Full-Time 27 17 2 8 10 2 8 10 2 8 10 2 8 10 36 23 1 2 0 3 1 2 0 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Field Facilities - Wastewater Plant Team Leader (SBP) Utility Services Mechanic Plant Mechanic+ (SBP) Total Full-Time 36 22 22 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 4 1 0 2 3 1 0 2 3 Laboratory Services - Administration Environmental Services Administrator Senior Chemist Chemist I/II+ Administrative Assistant II Laboratory Technician Total Full-Time 47 35 32 16 14 1 1 5 1 1 9 1 1 5 1 1 9 0 1 5 1 1 8 0 1 5 1 1 8 Water Resources - Administration Water Resource Administrator Water Resources Hydrologist Water Quality Specialist Total Full-Time 47 38 37 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 2 Water Conservation Water Conservation Coordinator Water Resources Technician Total Full-Time 31 20 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 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 44 33 21 18 16 10 1 1 1 7 1 5 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kyrene Water Reclamation Plant Plant Team Leader (SBP) Plant Operator I/II+ (SBP) Plant Mechanic+ (SBP) Total Full-Time Cost Center Position 3224 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Range Actual Revised Budget Budget 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** Water Utilities Department Total Full-Time Water Utilities Department Total Perm FTE* Water Utilities Department Total Temp FTE* Grand Total Full-Time Grand Total Perm FTE** Grand Total Temp FTE* **Permanent Full-Time Equivalent 51 39 36 35 29 29 24 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 5 0.5 143 0.50 0.49 0 0 0 126 0.50 0.49 0 0 0 130 0.50 0.49 0 0 0 130 0.50 0.49 1722 1692 1643 1643 40.90 36.15 17.90 17.90 172.33 174.58 195.97 195.97 *Temporary Full-Time Equivalent ( )Former Cost Center Number Grant Funded Personnel (Included in above totals) City Attorney Legal Services (Victims Right Grant) City Court Development Services Redevelopment/Section 8 Housing Redevelopment, Neighborhood Planning and Urban Design Total Police Grant Funded Total Grand Total Personnel by Fund (Full-Time Only) General Fund Special Revenue Funds HURF Transit Rio Salado Performing Arts CDBG/Section 8 Enterprise Funds Golf Water/Wastewater Solid Waste Grand Total 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Actual Actual Budget Budget 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 14 3 14 3 14 3 14 3 17 17 17 17 18 18 8 8 0 0 0 0 36 26 18 18 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Actual Actual Budget Budget 1,383 1,345 1,276 1,276 60 26 9 3 14 59 27 14 2 14 54 28 19 3 14 54 28 19 3 14 22 143 62 1,722 22 147 62 1,692 22 162 65 1,643 22 162 65 1,643 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 reissuance 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. 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 effic iency 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. 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. 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. Overall Net Debt - Net direct debt plus overlapping debt. 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. Depreciation - Expiration in the service life of capital assets attributable to wear and tear, deterioration, action of the physical elements, inadequacy, or obsolescence. 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. Estimated Revenue - The amount of projected revenue to be collected during the fiscal year. Expenditure/Expense - This term refers to the outflow of funds paid for an asset obtained or goods and services obtained. 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. 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. Full Faith and Credit - A pledge of a government’s taxing power to repay debt obligations. 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. 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. 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. 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 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 Solid Waste Fund, and the Golf Course Fund. Fund Balance - The difference between revenues and expenditures. The beginning fund balance represents the residual funds brought forward from the previous year (ending balance). 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. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) - Uniform minimum standards for financial accounting and recording, encompassing the conventions, rules, and procedures that define accepted accounting principles. Internal Services Charges - The charges to user departments for internal services provided by another government agency, such as data processing, fleet services and communications. Levy - To impose taxes for the support of government activities. 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. Line -Item Budget - A budget prepared along departmental lines that focuses on what is to be bought. 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. 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. 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 cla ssified as either categorical or block depending upon the amount of discretion allowed the grantee. Long-Term Debt - Debt with a maturity of more than one year after the date of issuance. 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. Indirect Cost - A cost necessary for the 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, wages, and fringe benefits of a government's employees. Policy - A plan, course of action or guiding principle, designed to set parameters for decisions and actions. 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. 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: (1) General Services consist of: Mayor and Council; City Manager; Internal Audit; Diversity Program; Community Relations; City Clerk; Human Resources; City Attorney; Financial Services; Public Works; Information Technology; and Other Programs. (2) Development Services consist of: Development Services - Section 8 Housing; and Public Works – Design/Construction/ Landscape maintenance. (3) Public Safety consists of: City Court; Police; and Fire. (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. Property Tax - A levy upon the assessed valuation of the property within the City of Tempe upon each $100 of valuation. Property taxes in Arizona consist of both primary and secondary levies. Primary Property Tax - A statutory limited tax levy which may be imposed for any purpose. 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. 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. 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. 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. Resolution - A special or temporary order of a legislative body requiring less legal formality than an ordinance or statute. 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. 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). 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 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 Ce cilia Velasco-Robles Deputy Financial Services Manager Debbie Bair Budget & Research Analyst Michelle Caruso Budget & Research Analyst Tom Mikesell Budget & Research Analyst Anita Erspamer Executive Assistant