Annual Budget FY 2005-06 Will Manley City Manager Jerry Hart Financial Services Manager Cecilia Velasco-Robles Deputy Financial Services Manager Michelle Caruso Budget and Research Analyst Deborah Bair Lead Budget and Research Analyst Tom Mikesell Budget and Research Analyst Anita Erspamer Executive Assistant iii Tempe Mayor & City Council Hugh Hallman Mayor Mark Mitchell Leonard Copple Vice Mayor Council Member Pamela L. Goronkin P. Ben Arredondo Council Member Council Member Barbara Carter Hut Hutson Council Member Council Member i 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 biennial budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2003. 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. vii Mission... To work with each other and the community to make Tempe the best place to live, work and play. 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 commit- ted 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. Diversity - We promote diversity in the workforce to meet the needs of a diverse community. We recognize that with diversity comes strength. ix Organizational Chart People of Tempe Mayor & City Council City Clerk City Attorney City Manager Police Fire Development Services Public Works Water Utilites Diversity Community Development Financial Services Community Services Information Technology Internal Audit Human Resources Community Relations xi City Court June 2, 2005 To the Honorable Mayor and City Council: Transmitted herein is the City’s Fiscal Year 2005-06 financial program. The combined operating and capital budgets included in the financial program total $465.3 million, which represents a change of $28.2 million, or 6.3% from the FY 2004-05 adopted budget. The operating budget increases are driven by employee compensation, health insurance and state retirement contribution costs. The growth in the capital budget is primarily due to capacity expansion in water and wastewater facilities, replacement of Public Safety Radio System and the East Valley Light Rail project. The City’s economy is growing, with FY 2004-05 General Fund revenue surpassing the level collected prior to the economic downturn in early 2001. Streamlining efforts in recent years, coupled with recovering revenue, contributed to balancing the budget for FY 2005-06. However, the five-year long-range financial forecast projects a deficit in the General Fund in FY 2006-07. The Ad-Hoc Long-Range Budget & Finance Planning Committee is currently reviewing City expenditures and revenue sources to identify opportunities to eliminate the gap. Total Annual Budget Financial Program Operating Budget Percent Change Capital Improvements Percent Change Total Financial Program Percent Change FY 2004-05 Budget FY 2005-06 Budget $260,131,518 $275,297,746 5.8% $189,971,703 7.3% $465,269,449 6.3% $176,983,222 $437,114,740 1 Operating Budget The following chart presents a summary breakdown of the operating budget by fund. Operating Budget FY 2004-05 Budget General Fund FY 2005-06 Budget Percent Change $125,500,350 $138,273,504 10.2% Enterprise Funds Water/Wastewater Solid Waste Golf Cemetery 47,773,817 10,753,264 2,480,484 0 47,720,279 12,602,968 2,071,538 290,248 (0.1)% 17.2% (16.5)% --- Special Revenue Funds Transit Transportation Rio Salado Performing Arts CDBG/Section 8 Debt Service Fund 32,166,810 8,287,572 1,498,862 6,479,332 11,712,361 13,478,666 31,118,922 8,656,870 1,551,834 6,868,730 11,731,640 14,411,213 (3.3)% 4.5% 3.5% 6.0% 0.2% 6.9% $260,131,518 $275,297,746 5.8% Total Operating Budget Operating Budget Highlights ● ● State Retirement – Arizona State Retirement System contribution rate is set at 7.40%, an increase from 5.70% in previous budgets ($1.1M impact to General Fund) Public Safety Retirement (General Fund) – Police contribution rate is set at 13.87%, an increase from 11.15% in previous budgets ($537K impact); Fire contribution increased to 11.63% (from 8.30%) with a $422K impact ● Health, Dental & Life – Human Resources estimates a 13% increase in benefit costs ● Maintenance of Effort (MOE) – After a state granted three-year suspension from the MOE requirement for the transportation program, the full $1.85 million commitment has been reintroduced ● Solid Waste Fund – Purchase of one-time capital equipment, including the replacement of seven solid waste trucks ● Golf Fund – Ongoing streamlining efforts in the Golf Program ● Cemetery Fund – Start-up staffing, capital, and debt service costs associated with the Double Butte Cemetery expansion ● Performing Arts Fund – Staffing and equipment costs associated with the opening of the Tempe Center for the Arts in the latter part of FY 2005-06 2 Capital Budget The City’s five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) covering FY 2005-06 through FY 2009-10 totals $580.1 million. The first year of the five-year CIP, which the City incorporates into the annual budget, is $190.0 million for FY 2005-06. As is normal, requests exceeded available funding sources. Funding sources are maximized within the financial policies established by the Council. There is no General Fund pay-as-you-go financing recommended as part of the budget. Capital Improvement Program Summary Program 2005-06 Funded Program Additional Needs 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Total Five-Year Program Enterprise Program Water Wastewater $17,936,000 $21,851,000 $18,458,643 $14,893,357 $11,526,000 $84,665,000 42,064,688 8,364,688 17,287,125 17,787,125 14,250,000 99,753,626 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 1,400,000 0 0 0 0 1,400,000 61,450,688 30,265,688 35,795,768 32,730,482 25,826,000 186,068,626 Transit 67,475,773 119,741,517 52,902,815 25,742,880 18,836,500 284,699,485 Performing Arts 22,228,912 0 0 0 0 22,228,912 Golf Cemetery Total Enterprise Special Purpose Program 99,090 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 499,090 Total Special Purpose 89,803,775 119,841,517 53,002,815 25,842,880 18,936,500 307,427,487 General Purpose Program 31,728,760 8,293,300 14,866,830 8,430,204 4,168,310 67,487,404 6,988,480 3,256,439 2,928,902 2,385,219 3,516,354 19,075,394 38,717,240 11,549,739 17,795,732 10,815,423 7,684,664 86,562,798 128,521,015 131,391,256 70,798,547 36,658,303 26,621,164 393,990,285 $161,656,944 $106,594,315 $69,388,785 Rio Salado Transportation Program Total General / Transportation Subtotal Tax Supported TOTAL PROGRAM $189,971,703 3 $52,447,164 $580,058,911 Capital Budget Highlights Continued funding for the Transit program ($67.5 million) including: ● Funding for the Central Phoenix and East Valley Light Rail Transit planning, design and construction ($46.1 million) ● Funding for the Transit Regional Maintenance Facility ($10.9 million) ● Funding for the Transit Center ($3.9 million) ● Continued funding for construction of the Tempe Center for the Arts ($22.2 million) Continued funding for the Police Protection Program ($14.1 million) including: ● Continued funding for the Apache Boulevard Police Substation ($12.4 million) ● Continued funding for Water projects ($17.9 million) including: ● Continued funding for expansion at the Johnny G. Martinez Water Treatment Plant ($7.0 million) ● Continued funding for waterline improvements along Apache Boulevard ($3.5 million) Continued funding for Wastewater projects ($42.1 million) including: ● Continued funding for the plant expansion at the Kyrene Water Reclamation Facility (KWRF) ($21.0 million) ● Continued funding for 91st Avenue Treatment Plant capacity expansion ($12.5 million) Funding for Kyrene Reclaimed Water Transmission line ($6.7 million) Funding for the Police/City Radio Replacement ($1.3 million) and Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD)/ Records Management System (RMS)/Field Report Writing System (FRWS) ($150,000) Continued funding for the Park Improvements Program ($11.1 million) including: ● Continued funding for Tempe Diablo Stadium Renovation ($10 million) ● Continued funding for the North Tempe Multigenerational Center ($750,000) Continued funding for Transportation and Right-ofWay Improvements ($7.0 million) As the graph below depicts, the operating budget represents 59% of the FY 2005-06 total financial program. Departmental budgets make up over 75% of the citywide operating budget. Total Financial Program $465 (in Millions) 1% Contingencies CIP Budget $190 41% 15% Debt Service Operating Budget $275 59% 4% Federal Grants 78% Departmental 2% Non-Departmental 4 Revenue Considerations balance in the General Fund will be approximately $41 million as of June 30, 2005. This balance represents 31% of FY 2004-05 total General Fund revenue. Our recommended guideline for General Fund fund balance coverage is a minimum of 25% of General Fund revenue. The City’s Enterprise funds (Water/ Wastewater, Golf, and Solid Waste programs) are projected to have a combined fund balance of approximately $61 million at the end of FY 2004-05. The City will modify revenue as needed in several areas for FY 2005-06. Enterprise Fund Rate Reviews Water and Wastewater rates and Golf fees will be reviewed to determine if adjustments are required. The Solid Waste program is scheduled to increase rates in November given prior Council authorization. Review of Other Fees Financial Reserves In addition to the Enterprise Fund rate reviews, other fees are periodically reviewed. As part of this cycle, fees charged by the Development Services Department and City Court will be reviewed for potential adjustments. Through conservative financial management and adherence to sound fiscal analysis and policies, Tempe has developed and maintained a strong financial position. 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 liabilities. The City currently has selfinsurance reserves totaling $8.8 million, monies that will protect the City against potential claims. Additionally, the City approximates $15.6 million in debt service reserves at June 30, 2005, funds that will help stabilize and fund future debt service obligations. Included in the annual budget and financed from current revenue is $3.1 million of contingency funding for unanticipated emergencies. Fund Balances Bond Ratings We will continue to review fees on an ongoing basis and will bring them to Council as necessary. Financial Assessment 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. Having solid financial policies and strong financial reserves are principle reasons for these excellent bond ratings. These high ratings translate directly into lower interest rates on the City’s debt. One measure of a city’s financial strength is the level of its fund balances (i.e., revenue exceeds expenditures). The City’s estimated unreserved fund Unreserved General Fund Balance 50 Bond Ratings 40 30 20 10 0 5 Fitch December 2000 AAA Moody’s April 1997 Aa1 Standard & Poor’s February 1992 AA+ Development Activity City staff facilitated 17 companies locating or expanding operations in FY 2004-2005 that will add over 2,500 jobs and make a capital investment of more than $51 million in the community. Highlights include: ● Edward Jones began construction of a 100,000 square foot office tower, their second on the campus of Arizona State University Research Park at Elliot and Price roads. ● Motorola Embedded Systems Group, corporate headquarters began an expansion of their campus with the addition of 125 new employees. ● Macroelectronics Works (Flexible Display Center) occupied 275,000 square foot of research, development and production space at the Arizona State University Research Park. The partnership between academia, industry and government will accelerate the development of lightweight, flexible and portable display technologies for the US Army and private industry. ● Smith Barney located a corporate office on the eighth floor of the first Hayden Ferry Lakeside tower and added its name to the top story of the building. ● ● Hayden Ferry Lakeside broke ground on its first condominium tower, Edgewater. The 45 units are selling at prices between $250,000 and $2.5 million. The next project, Bridgeview, is being promoted now. Two projects on Playa del Norte are underway: Mondrian condominiums are under construction and Northshore condominiums are more than 75 percent sold. The In-n-Out Burger is under construction and should open in September. Favorable Development Activity Commercial Development Job Growth More than 100 special events took place at Tempe Town Lake last year, with a Tempe Convention and Visitors Bureau suggested economic impact of more than $60 million. Included in these, the first Ironman Arizona. The city continues to benefit from biotechnology and high technology companies. About one of every seven workers within Tempe holds a job with a technologyfocused company. The Arizona Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University is developing leading-edge medical research that will foster the commercialization of new therapies. Tempe’s downtown is experiencing a renaissance of activity. Several luxury high rise developments breaking ground will change the city’s skyline and generate new activity in the downtown. The urban atmosphere of the downtown will continue to proliferate with new residents. Centerpoint Condominiums, for example, will build four skyscrapers of at least 22 stories in the heart of downtown. 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 adherence to the Debt Management Plan which links our 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 2005-06. A “Comprehensive Financial Plan” Section is included which describes revenues and expenditures, issues, trends, and resource choices for all funds. 6 Council Budget Policies for FY 2005-06 Strategic Issues The operating budget embraces the following tenets that historically have made the City financially strong: 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: ● ● ● ● the budget provides that current revenue is 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; the budget provides a minimum level of maintenance and replacement dollars to ensure that all capital facilities and equipment are properly maintained. ● Neighborhood Quality of Life and Public Safety ● Education Partnerships ● Community Services ● Transportation ● Diversity and Human Relations and Resources ● Technology Advancement and Redevelopment ● Central City Development Committee of the Whole ● Ad-Hoc Long-Range Budget and Finance Planning The goal of each strategic team is to delineate longrange goals, formulate a cohesive strategy for each of the defined areas, and develop action plans to advance the city toward those strategic goals. 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: Income/Outgo 1. Successful efforts to control spending were directed at avoiding increases in personnel. The pie charts on the following page portray the City’s income and outgo. Revenue is grouped by major category, while expenditures are shown by program area and by type of expenditure (such as personal services). Local taxes (e.g., city sales tax and property tax) continue to be the largest City revenue source, representing 30% of the FY 2005-06 total revenue budget. Other major revenue sources include user charges (such as water service and refuse fees) and intergovernmental revenue. 2. Maintain the City’s strong financial reserve and fund balance program. 3. Increase the property tax rate to $1.40/$100 assessed value to provide for additional bonding capacity. 4. Evaluate the revenue structure on a regular basis to insure that fees are adjusted on a timely basis to reflect City costs. The pie charts show a breakdown of City expenditures and where the money is spent by program. Environmental Health and Transportation represent the greatest areas of program appropriation, accounting for 52% of the total financial program in 2005-06. 5. Conduct periodic budget reviews with City Council. 6. Continue examination of current programs by each Department for potential “sunsetting”. 7 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 Comes From by Source of Funds Bonds 23% Local Taxes 30% User Charges 17% Intergovernmental 12% CIP/Other Funding 11% All Other 7% Where the Money Goes by Type of Program Development Services 5% General Services 9% Transportation 25% Community Services 15% Environmental 27% Public Safety 19% Where the Money Goes by Line Item Category Personal Services 29% Capital Projects 41% Supplies/Services 16% Capital Outlay 1% Other 4% Debt Service 9% 8 Conclusion We can expect the economy to grow, underscoring the need to continue to focus on our long-range planning and the managing of our resources. The following 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 9 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 Policies The budgetary policies specified below provide a general framework of goals and objectives for the operating budget, debt management, capital budget, financial reserves, and financial reporting. Strong policies provide a standard against which current budgetary performance can be measured and proposals for future programs evaluated. Operating Budget Policies Current revenue will be sufficient to support current operating expenditures. • Status: FY 2004-05 estimated General Fund operating revenue ($131.6 million) to expenditures ($124.6 million) Ratio 1:1 Financial systems will be maintained to monitor expenditures, revenue and program performance on an ongoing basis. • Status: Ongoing monitoring system with monthly reviews including automated payment and purchase requisition system Revenue and expenditures will be projected for the next five years and will be updated annually. • Status: Projections completed in Comprehensive Financial Plan (Winter 2004 Update) Debt Management Policies Long-term debt will not be issued to finance current operations. • Status: None issued to finance current operations Debt Service Reserve will be maintained at a minimum of 8% of total outstanding general governmental debt. • Status: FY 2004-05 11.0% 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 2003-04 15.6 years Capital Budget Policies As required by City Charter, a five-year capital improvements program will be developed and updated annually, including anticipated funding sources. • Status: FY 2005-06 Annual CIP Budget of $190.0 million adopted representing the first year of a 5 year, $580.1 million CIP program 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 and maintenance impact of new capital projects is estimated at $1.6 million plus an estimated $11.4 million ($2.1million Special Purpose, $5.8 million Enterprise, $3.4 million General Purpose, and $126,000 Transportation) in additional debt service. Future operating costs associated with new capital projects have been incorporated into the Comprehensive Financial Plan. The City will maintain all its physical assets at a level adequate to protect the City's capital investment and to minimize future maintenance and replacement costs. • Status: Aggressive capital maintenance program approved in Capital Improvements Program budget, including city facilities rehabilitation, local and major street reconstruction, and neighborhood park improvements The City will establish an appropriate mix of bonded debt and pay-as-you-go financing in the funding of capital projects. Sources of Funds ($ Millions) FY 2005-06 General Obligation/Excise Tax Bonds $102.3 Pay-As-You-Go Financing 13.5 Outside Revenue 49.2 Capital Projects Fund Balance 25.0 Total Sources of Funds $190.0 Financial 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 04 Revenue FY 2003-04 Fund Balance Coverage $34.2 M $127.2 M 26.9% Estimated Fund Balance FYE 05 Revenue FY 2004-05 Fund Balance Coverage $41.2 M $131.6 M 31.3% Estimated Fund Balance FYE 06 Revenue FY 2005-06 Fund Balance Coverage $41.2 M $138.3 M 29.8% The City will maintain an unrestricted minimum retained earnings balance of no less than 12 months of anticipated revenue in the Water/Wastewater Fund, and a minimum of 10% and 15% of anticipated revenue in the Solid Waste and Golf funds, respectively. • Status: Fund Balance FYE 04 $67.0 M $1.1 M Revenue FY 2003-04 $43.5 M $11.0 M $0.6 M Estimated Fund Balance FYE 05 $2.0 M Revenue FY 2004-05 Fund Balance Coverage Days Coverage $57.7 M $44.9 M 128.5% 469 $2.5 M $12.1 M 20.7% 75 $0.5 M Estimated Fund Balance FYE 06 $2.1 M 23.8% 87 Revenue FY 2005-06 Fund Balance Coverage Days Coverage $54.9 M $46.0 M 119.3% 436 Solid Waste $2.7 M $12.8 M 21.1% 77 Golf $0.5 M $2.1 M 23.8% 87 Water/Wastewater Solid Waste Golf Water/Wastewater Solid Waste Golf Water/Wastewater Fund Balance Coverage 154.0% 10.0% 30.0% Days Coverage 562 37 110 Self-insurance reserves shall be maintained at a level which, together with purchased insurance policies, adequately indemnify the City's assets. • Status: FY 2004-05 $8.8 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 taken to ensure our continued financial stability amid anticipated reduction of state-shared revenue. These recommendations, listed under the Financial Action Plan in the Comprehensive Financial Plan, include the following: • • • • • • • • • • • • Continue Ad-Hoc Long-Range Budget and Finance Planning Committee review of city expenditures, sources of revenue, and long-range projections, and propose revisions to the City Council. Long-Range Forecast was prepared for all funds projecting revenue and expenditures over the next five years. Annual review of the Debt Management Plan and Sizing of Capital Budget to Debt Criteria led us to limit new General Obligation debt issues to an average of $14.0 million each year for the next 5 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 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 Revenue from legislative changes at the state level. 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 rate 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 Impact of budget decisions on the City’s financial position: The table below gives the estimated Operating and Capital Improvement fund balances for the 2005-06 fiscal year. Beginning balances total $189.7 million and the ending fund balances are $160.0 million. The decreases in fund balances are a planned drawdown primarily for “pay-as-you-go” financing. This financing is critical to the City’s Capital Improvement Program to fund projects that have the most value to Tempe residents. The Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) fund balance drawdown is for local and major street renovation and reconstruction and the Transit Fund $7.7 million transfer out is largely for continued funding for a new light rail system and bus replacements. Rio Salado’s negative fund balance is due to planned drawdowns to fund capital and land purchases. Also, the FY 05-06 estimated shortfall will be absorbed by the Rio Salado and Community Facilities District reserve which has a current balance of $8,759,029, this is a designated reserve for the special district. The Cemetery is a new fund, whose cost recovery will not be seen until next fiscal year with the completion of the City’s mausoleum. The FY 05-06 shortfall will be absorbed by an interfund loan. FY 2005-06 Fund General Estimated Fund Balance 7/1/05 Revenue 1 Total Financial Resources Budgeted Expend. 2 Adjusted Financial Resources Interfund Transfer In (Out) $41,167,650 $138,273,504 $179,441,154 $138,273,504 $41,167,650 Estimated Fund Balance 6/30/06 $41,167,650 Special Revenue: HURF/LTAF 9,152,382 CDBG/Section 8 Rio Salado 14,324,497 23,476,879 8,656,870 14,820,009 (7,204,283) 7,615,726 11,731,640 11,731,640 11,731,640 11,731,640 735,500 735,500 1,551,834 (816,334) (816,334) 13,361,253 Performing Arts 14,348,911 5,881,072 20,229,983 6,868,730 13,361,253 Transit 24,751,214 37,922,748 62,673,962 31,118,922 31,555,040 12,939,224 17,384,026 30,323,250 17,498,441 12,824,809 127,628 127,628 290,248 (162,620) (162,620) 537,463 2,073,194 2,610,657 2,071,538 539,119 539,119 2,507,367 12,809,949 15,317,316 12,602,968 2,714,348 2,714,348 45,953,569 103,649,067 47,720,279 55,928,788 (1,000,007) 54,928,781 163,099,709 287,217,327 450,317,036 278,384,974 171,932,062 3,700,000 (17,184,117) 158,447,945 Debt Service 3,700,000 (7,742,077) 23,812,963 (1,237,750) 15,287,059 Enterprise: Cemetery Golf Solid Waste Water/ Wastewater TOTAL OPERATING Capital Improvements TOTAL FUNDS 57,695,498 26,593,567 151,451,095 178,044,662 189,971,703 (11,927,041) 13,484,117 1,557,076 $189,693,276 $438,668,422 $628,361,698 $468,356,677 $160,005,021 $17,184,117 $(17,184,117) $160,005,021 Notes: 1) Revenue is net of Capital Improvement fund balances 2) Expenditures include a transfer to Community Facilities District Total Financial Program The total financial program adopted for FY 2005-06 is $465 million, representing a 6.3% increase from the FY 2004-05 total financial program. The FY 2005-06 amount includes an Operating Budget of $275 million and a $190 million Capital Budget. The operating budget growth of 5.8% in FY 2005-06 is related primarily to an increase in funding for employee compensation, healthcare, retirement contributions, and additional capital. The 7.3% increase in the Capital Budget is largely attributed to the construction of the Performing Arts Center, Central Phoenix and East Valley Light Rail Transit and Water/Wastewater plant expansion. FY 2005-06 Contingencies 1% Non-Departmental 2% CDBG/Section 8 4% Debt Service 5% Dept Op Budget 88% Operating Budget $275 M / 59% CIP Budget $190 M / 41% Total Financial Program FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 OPERATING BUDGET Departmental Operating Budget $227,680,037 $239,908,385 13,478,666 4,321,834 14,411,213 6,158,296 3,145,518 3,088,212 11,505,463 11,731,640 TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET $260,131,518 $275,297,746 TOTAL CAPITAL BUDGET $176,983,222 $189,971,703 TOTAL FINANCIAL PROGRAM $437,114,740 $465,269,449 Debt Service Non-Departmental Contingencies CDBG/Section 8 Housing Financial Program Summary The following tables summarize the revenue, expenditures and beginning fund balances for the City’s Financial Program in fiscal year 2005-06. FY 04-05 FUND BALANCES General $41,167,650 Debt Service HURF/LTAF 9,152,382 Cemetery CDBG /Section 8 0 Golf Rio Salado 0 Solid Waste FY 05-06 EXPENDITURES $12,939,224 0 537,463 2,507,367 Performing Arts 14,348,911 Water/ Wastewater 57,695,498 Transit 24,751,214 Capital 26,593,567 Operating Revenue $98,221,427 38,239,707 7,477,396 3,569,155 6,012,750 2,137,095 37,922,748 13,789,041 11,731,640 5,881,072 735,500 535,456 Enterprise Subtotal Operating Revenue 47,720,279 12,602,968 2,071,538 290,248 Transit Tax Highway User Section 8 CDBG Rio Salado Performing Arts 31,118,922 8,656,870 8,882,632 2,849,008 1,551,834 6,868,730 $275,297,746 Capital Budget General Purpose General Government Park Improvements Police Storm Drains $2,871,146 11,110,000 14,107,614 3,640,000 Enterprise 45,953,569 12,809,949 2,073,194 127,628 $287,217,327 Capital Revenue Bonds Water/Wastewater Excise Tax-Supported General Obligation CIP Outside Revenue Federal Funds Development Fees Other $75,890,227 25,166,159 25,451,975 9,484,537 14,411,213 430,606 Enterprise Subtotal Operating Budget Special Revenue Water/Wastewater Solid Waste Golf Cemetery Public Safety General Services Community Services Development Services Debt Service Environmental Health Special Revenue General Governmental Transit HURF CDBG/Section 8 Performing Arts Rio Salado Lottery Funds General Governmental Water/Wastewater Solid Waste Golf Cemetery FY 05-06 REVENUE Local Taxes/Licenses Intergovernmental Charges for Services Interest Fines & Forfeitures Other Operating Budget Water Wastewater Golf Cemetery Transportation Transportation & Right-of-Way Street Lighting & Traffic Signals 50,598,544 33,678,912 18,024,605 47,649,034 1,500,000 26,601,027 Subtotal Capital Revenue $178,052,122 TOTAL PROGRAM $465,269,449 17,396,000 42,064,688 50,000 1,400,000 6,043,480 945,000 Special Purpose Transit Rio Salado Performing Arts 67,475,773 99,090 22,228,912 Subtotal Capital Budget $189,971,703 TOTAL PROGRAM $465,269,449 Budget Process Flowchart The following flowchart depicts the City of Tempe’s Annual Budget process and timeline. Review Operating Requests Develop Annual Departmental Budgets Submit Dept. Operating Requests Operating Budget Guidelines Work Study Session Prepare Long-range Forecast Models Adopt Tentative Operating Budget Operating Budget Guidelines Identify Strategic Issues Public Hearing Adopt Final Budgets Prepare Debt Management Plan Public Hearing, Levy Property Tax Adopt Tentative CIP Budget CIP Budget Guidelines Work Study Session Develop Annual Departmental CIP Budgets Submit CIP Requests Review CIP Requests … 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 departments identify and discuss their own policy issues with the City Manager. Budget Process Overview Budget preparation allows departments the opportunity to reassess goals and objectives and the means for accomplishing them. Even though the budget 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, revenue, expenditure limit requirements, and financial capacity. It is with this "groundwork" that departmental expenditure requests are made and subsequently reviewed. • Financial Capacity Phase Forecasting is an integral part of our decision-making process. Both long-range and short-range projections are prepared. The City's Comprehensive Financial Plan is updated annually to assess our current financial condition and future financial capacity, given our long-range plans and objectives. A five-year financial forecast is prepared for each major fund, projecting both expenditures and revenue. As a part of this phase, alternative scenarios are examined for their fiscal impact on each respective fund. Concurrent with the Comprehensive Financial Plan is the update of the Debt Management Plan, which provides a ten-year view of the City’s debt capacity. This planning process gauges the capacity to incur debt in the upcoming Capital Improvement Program given the City’s Financial Policy guidelines. • 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 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. • 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 based on the department’s prior year budget. Supplemental requests are evaluated and the budget is presented at various levels: (1) base budget level, and (2) recommended level providing monies to implement new programs or expand existing City programs. • Adoption/Implementation Phase Prior to May 1, the City Manager submits to the Council a proposed operating budget for the fiscal year commencing the following July 1. The operating budget includes proposed expenditures and the means of financing them. The property tax levy must be adopted by the 3rd Monday in August. State law requires cities and towns with property taxes to adopt their tax rates annually, even though a jurisdiction may operate on a biennial budget. At any time during the fiscal year, the City Manager may transfer part or all of any unencumbered appropriation balance among programs within a department, office, or agency. Management control of the budget is maintained by conducting monthly budget performance reviews throughout the fiscal year. They are aimed at examining expenditure patterns, and recommending corrective action to be taken during the year. Additionally, records are maintained to evaluate ongoing programs and services. • Budget Roles and Responsibilities Every employee plays a role in budgeting, be it formulation, preparation, implementation, administration, or evaluation. Ultimately, of course, the department head, through the City Manager, is accountable to the City Council for the performance of departmental personnel in meeting specific objectives within allocation resource limits. Actual budget preparation responsibility can be identified more specifically: 1. The program cost center manager is responsible for (a) preparing cost estimates for the remainder of the current fiscal year; (b) projecting base budget requirements for the next year; 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 balance 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. 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 the Budget Office 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 relevant Council Committee or full Council with recommended action. 10. Budget Transfers; The department should process a budget transfer request form anytime a shortfall is anticipated in a departmental subtotal budget. Budget transfers are not 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. 11. 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 2005-06 Total Financial Program Operating Budget $275,297,746 Capital Budget $189,971,703 General Governmental Enterprise Special Revenue General Purpose Enterprise Transportation Special Purpose $152,684,717 $62,685,033 $59,927,996 $31,728,760 $61,450,688 $6,988,480 $89,803,775 Public Safety Water/ Wastewater Transit General Governmental Water Streets Transit $75,890,227 $47,720,279 $31,118,922 $2,871,146 $17,936,000 $6,043,480 $67,475,773 __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ General Services Solid Waste Highway User Park Improvements Wastewater Signals Performing Arts $945,000 $25,166,159 $12,602,968 $8,656,870 $11,110,000 $42,064,688 __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ Community Services Golf Section 8 Housing Storm Drains Cemetery Rio Salado $99,090 $25,451,975 $2,071,538 $8,882,632 $3,640,000 $1,400,000 __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ Debt Service Cemetery Performing Arts Police Golf $14,411,213 $290,248 $6,868,730 $14,107,614 $50,000 __________________________ __________________________ Development Services CDBG $9,484,537 $2,849,008 __________________________ __________________________ Environmental Health Rio Salado $430,606 $1,551,834 __________________________ Transportation (Maintenance of Effort) $1,850,000 $22,228,912 General Governmental Funds: Ten Year Fund Balance Trends General Fund Unreserved Fund Balance $ Millions 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 28.6 30.7 34.7 38.2 38.6 37.0 41.2 35.1 34.5 34.5 10.0 Over the ten year period, fund balances in the General Fund have been maintained at the financial policy guideline of 25% of revenue. At FYE 2005, the General Fund unreserved fund balance is estimated at $41.2 million. This projected 19% increase is a result of sales tax and intergovernmental revenue growth which is consistent with the national economic turnaround. 0.0 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 Fiscal Year Ending June 30 Debt Service Fund Balance $ Millions 15.0 10.0 13.5 13.4 12.1 5.0 9.6 12.9 9.3 6.8 7.6 7.3 The Debt Service reserve was 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. 8.0 0.0 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 Fiscal Year Ending June 30 Highway User Revenue/Local Transportation Assistance Fund Balances $ Millions 10.0 8.0 6.0 7.6 4.0 8.4 9.2 8.9 7.3 8.0 5.8 2.0 3.3 3.3 4.1 0.0 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 Fiscal Year Ending June 30 '03 '04 '05 Planned drawdowns used to fund street infrastructure projects have contributed to the inconsistent trend in fund balances. Concurrently, stateshared revenue has grown at a modest pace, allowing the fund balance to rebound to a healthy level. Enterprise Funds: Ten Year Fund Balance Trends Water/Wastewater Fund Unreserved Retained Earnings $ Millions 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 55.2 30.0 20.0 33.7 56.4 55.7 59.8 65.2 67.5 57.7 41.0 36.8 10.0 0.0 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 The large increase in FY 1998-99 is due to the reduction of an asset replacement reserve resulting in increased unreserved retained earnings. In FY 2004-05, a planned drawdown for pay-asyou-go financing of capital improvement projects was implemented. This reduction did not jeopardize the level of retained earnings, which is maintained at a level equal to one year of operating revenue. This is consistent with the City’s Financial Policy. Fiscal Year Ending June 30 Solid Waste Fund Unreserved Retained Earnings $ Millions 5.0 4.0 3.0 4.3 4.1 2.0 3.2 2.3 2.3 2.5 1.0 .05 .02 .05 1.1 A planned drawdown of unreserved retained earnings began in FY 1999-00, which resulted in the reserve’s depletion to $20,000 in FY 2001-02. A policy change increasing the fund’s balance reserve target to 10% of annual revenue was instituted in 2004. In November 2005, a fee increase was implemented which has helped the fund restore its balance and meet the new financial guideline. 0.0 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 Golf Unreserved Retained Earnings $ Thousands Expense growth has outpaced revenue growth since FY 199900, leading to a steady decline in reserves. Based on the LongRange Forecast, this trend is not expected to reverse itself under the current operating plan. Therefore, a comprehensive study of Golf operations is ongoing. 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 1,638 800 1,398 1,538 8.0 600 897 894 400 200 792 680 605 537 351 0 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 Fiscal Year Ending June 30 '03 '04 '05 Operating Budget Overview The citywide operating budget for FY 2005-06 totals $275.3 million. This operating budget amount represents growth of 5.8% from the prior fiscal year. This amount includes $11.7 million for Community Development Block Grant and Section 8 Housing grant funding. The number of full-time employees for FY 2005-06 totals 1,693 which represents a 2.9% increase from the prior year. These additional positions were for community service, water utility, and public safety programs. General Fund appropriations increased by 10.2%. This reflects funding for retirement and benefit inflationary adjustments. ♦ General Fund Fund Structure Description The General Fund is the general operating fund of the City and is used to account for all financial activity not reflected in another fund. Revenue Structure Major revenue sources are: Local Sales Taxes, Intergovernmental Revenue, Charges for Services, Property Taxes, Fines and Forfeitures and All Other. The following table depicts the major revenue sources as a percentage of General Fund revenue. Local Sales Taxes and Intergovernmental revenue represent the two major revenue sources in the General Fund. Together they comprise 78.2% or $108.1 million of the total $138.3 million FY 2005-06 General Fund revenue. Major Revenue Sources Local Taxes Intergovernmental All Other Charges for Services Property Tax Fines & Forfeitures FY 2005-06 50.6% 27.6% 5.2% 5.5% 6.8% 4.3% Local Taxes Local sales tax revenue is estimated at $69.8 million in FY 2005-06. Local sales taxes are derived from a 1.2% City sales tax, while the overall tax rate is 1.8% . The remaining 0.6% is restricted to transit 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. As the national economy has recovered from the 2001-03 national downturn, so too has the City. For FY 2005-06, sales tax collections are estimated at their highest level to date. Intergovernmental Revenue Revenue in this category is derived from three sources of state-levied revenue sharing: state sales tax, state income tax, and vehicle license taxes. Intergovernmental revenue represents $38.2 million or 27.6% in FY 2005-06 of total General Fund revenue. The primary allocation basis for state revenue sharing is each city or town’s relative share of the population of all incorporated cities and towns in Arizona. The allocations are based on the most recently completed United States Census. State sales tax State sales tax distributions are estimated at $15.3 million in FY 2005-06. 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 $398.0 million. State income tax Total estimated state-shared income tax revenue to be distributed to Arizona cities and towns is estimated at $421.9 million. Tempe’s share in FY 2005-06 is estimated at $16.6 million. Vehicle license tax The remaining state-shared revenue of $6.1 million is from vehicle license taxes. Of the net revenue collected for the licensing of motor vehicles by a county, 25% is distributed to incorporated towns and cities within the county. Tempe’s share of the vehicle license tax collections is based on its population in relation to the total incorporated population of the county. Charges for Services Charges for services remained stable at $7.5 million in FY 2005-06. Of this amount, recreation and social services programs contribute $5.0 million and development-related charges for building and trade permits, planning and zoning fees, and engineering fees account for $2.5 million. By Council policy, recreation and social service programs operate on a full or partial cost recovery basis. Property Tax Tempe’s property tax rate is $1.40 per $100 of assessed valuation, consisting of a primary tax rate of $0.52 per $100 of assessed valuation and a secondary tax rate of $0.88 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 $9.3 million in FY 2005-06. Fines and Forfeitures Fines and Forfeitures represent $6.0 million in FY 2005-06. Traffic Fines represent $1.4 million or 25.3% of total fines collected. Rounding out the fines and forfeiture revenue sources is defensive driving school fees, parking fines, and criminal fines, along with delinquent collections and default penalties. All Other Other General Fund revenue sources include Interest Income, Transient Lodging (Hotel/Motel Bed) Tax, Franchise Fees, Licenses and Permits, the Salt River Project Payment In-Lieu of Property Taxes, and other miscellaneous revenue. These sources contribute $2.1 million or 5.2% of General Fund revenue in FY 200506. Expenditure Structure The General Fund operating budget for FY 2005-06 totals $138.3 million. 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. Major Expenditure Categories Personal Services Fees and Services Materials and Supplies Capital Outlay/All Other FY 2005-06 78.6% 13.4% 5.2% 2.8% The General Fund consists of all City operations with the exception of Enterprise Fund operations (Water, Solid Waste, Cemetery and Golf), Transportation (LTAF and HURF), Transit, Rio Salado, Performing Arts and Debt Service. For FY 2005-06, Personal Services (salaries, wages and benefits) account for $108.7 million or 78.6% of the total General Fund operating budget. The remaining appropriations consist of $18.6 million or 13.4% for Fees and Services, $7.2 million or 5.2% for Materials and Supplies, and 2.8% for Capital Outlay and All Other. Personal Services Since the majority of City personnel, and major functions of city government, are supported by the General Fund, it is not surprising that salaries and wages represent such a significant proportion of total expenditures. Salaries and wages account for $82.9 million, or 78.6% of the $138.3 million General Fund operating budget for FY 2005-06. 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 $25.8 million of the total Personal Services budget for FY 2005-06. Other major items in the Capital Outlay category include radios, turf maintenance equipment and computer equipment. Within the All Other category are amounts for contingencies, travel, contributions to community service organizations and the local convention and visitors bureau, and payment to Maricopa County for animal control services. Fees and Services Fees and Services expenditures comprise 13.4% the FY 2005-06 General Fund appropriations. The largest portion of this expenditure category is for contracted services, accounting for 20.4% 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 at 17.5% 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 2005-06 include software maintenance agreements (6.5%), equipment rental and repair (4.9%), computer refresh (6.8%), and county jail costs (7.6%). ♦ Program Budget Summary Materials and Supplies Totaling $7.2 million in FY 2005-06, expenditures for Materials and Supplies account for 5.2% of the General Fund operating budget. Of these expenditures, 14% is derived from motor vehicle parts, fuels, and lubricants. The remainder is for library books, 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. Capital Outlay/All Other Capital Outlay expenditures account for $2.3 million or 2.8% of the total General Fund operating budget in FY 2005-06. These monies fund new and replacement equipment, of which automobile and truck purchases constitute the largest portion at 83.1% of total Capital Outlay. The following section describes the allocation of funding for the major functional, or program areas of Tempe city government. The General Fund budget for FY 2005-06 totals $138.3 million, an increase of 10.2% over the prior year. The majority of General Fund spending growth is related to inflationary increases in employment compensation, retirement contributions and health benefits. Major Services The General Fund consists of the following major functions: • General Services • Development Services • Public Safety • Community Services • Environmental Health • Maintenance of Effort Program General Services Development Services Public Safety Community Services FY 2005-06 $25,166,159 9,484,537 75,890,227 25,451,975 Environmental Health Transportation Total 430,606 1,850,000 $138,273,504 General Services Program General Services operating appropriations account for 18.2% of the General Fund budget in FY 2005-06. This area includes appropriations for Mayor and Council, City Manager, City Clerk, Human Resources, City Attorney, Fleet Services, Information Technology, Financial Services, and other departments. Funding for General Services increased to $25.2 million in FY 2005-06, a 1.7% increase over FY 2004-05. Development Services Program Approximately 6.9% of the General Fund operating appropriations are earmarked for Development Services. This program area includes the Development Services and Community Development departments, as well as the Public Works engineering division. The FY 2005-06 budget represents a $278,087 increase from FY 2004-05. Public Safety Program Public Safety continues to represent the largest appropriations area, accounting for 54.9% or $78.9 million of the General Fund operating budget in FY 2005-06. It includes appropriations for Police, Fire, and City Court. Increases in the Public Safety program are driven by additional temporary positions, public safety retirement plan contributions and benefits. Public Safety developed a personnel succession plan to address retirement of sworn personnel, which resulted in a temporary increase of 4 Police Officers and 12 Firefighters. Community Services This area consists of all Community Services divisions (Parks and Recreation, Library, Social Services, Cultural Services and Historical Museum, Cemetery), along with Parks Maintenance, Baseball Facilities, and Facility Services. General Fund appropriations for Community Services represent 18.4% or $25.5 million in FY 2005-06. Environmental Health Program With most of our Environmental Health appropriations residing in the Enterprise Funds, this area represents just 0.03% of the FY 2005-06 General Fund appropriations. Inflation is the primary driver of increases in this area. Maintenance of Effort This transfer of local revenue funding fulfills a statutory requirement to maintain expenditures for streets with locally generated revenue. This obligation was suspended from FY 2002-03 through FY 2004-05 by the State Legislature in response to the revenue slowdown experienced by cities within Arizona. Transit Fund Fund Structure Description The Transit Fund is a Special Revenue fund established to account for the receipt and expenditure of the City's transit tax and the onethird commitment of Lottery proceeds for mass transit. Major Services This fund provides the following Transit related functions: • • • • Planning and Design Operations Procurement Community Outreach and Marketing Revenue Structure Transit Fund revenue comes primarily from a ½ cent City sales tax to fund transit improvements and a one-third commitment of state Lottery proceeds dedicated for mass transit. 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 2005-06, the transit tax is expected to generate $28.0 million in revenue, or 73.8% of total Transit Fund revenue. Lottery Proceeds Per state statute (Arizona Revised Statutes §282502 (F)), a municipality with a population of 60,000 or more persons is required to spend one- third of its local transportation monies for public transportation each fiscal year. Total Lottery proceeds to the City are expected to be $799,186 in FY 2005-06. This represents a slight decrease from the prior fiscal year, 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 at $263,730 for FY 2005-06. Expenditure Structure The Transit Fund includes all personnel in Transit Administration, Transit Operations, Transit Store and Bus Stop Maintenance. Major expenditures in the Transit Fund include: Fees and Services, Internal Services, Capital Outlay/All Other, Personal Services and Contingency. The following table depicts the major expenditure categories as a percentage of the total transit budget. Major Expenditure Categories FY 2005-06 Capital Outlay/All Other Within this category are budgeted amounts for capital outlay, debt service, travel and other contributions. Debt service represents 97% of these expenditures in FY 2005-06. Personal Services Personal Services account for 6.0%, or $2,335,301 of the total FY 2005-06 budget. Contingency The contingency account will remain constant at $449,232. This amount represents 1.2% of the budget in FY 2005-06. 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, light rail construction and other related capital projects. ♦ Transportation Funds Fees and Services 60.1% Internal Services 22.5% Fund Structure Description Capital Outlay/All Other 10.2% The Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) and the Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF) are Special Revenue funds that comprise the City’s Transportation funds. They have been established to account for the receipt and expenditure of Tempe’s allocation of stateshared Highway User taxes and state Lottery funds. Personal Services 6.0% Contingency 1.2% 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 Dial-ARide services. In FY 2005-06, Fees and Services are estimated to account for $23.4 million or 60.1% of the Transit Fund operating budget. Internal Services Indirect cost allocations to the Transit Fund account for 22.5% or $8,751,331 of the FY 200506 budget. This amount represents the Transit Fund’s share of certain administrative costs funded by the General Fund. Major Services • Street Maintenance • Traffic Operations • Street Lighting and Signal Systems Revenue Structure Transportation revenue is derived primarily (83.2% in FY 2005-06) from state-shared Highway User taxes. State Lottery proceeds account for 3.7% increase in FY 2005-06. Highway User Tax Highway User revenue comes primarily (55%) from the $0.18 per gallon fuel tax levied by the state, with the remainder from motor carrier fees (16%), vehicle license taxes (14%), vehicle registration fees (11%), and other transportationrelated fees (4%). Estimates for the total pool of HURF revenue to be shared by cities will be $338.3 million in FY 2005-06, with Tempe’s share at $11.9 million. Experience has shown, however, that state projections for HURF revenue have not proven reliable. In short, HURF revenue is 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 revenue is for gradually declining distributions to Tempe as our relative share of total statewide population falls. Lottery Proceeds Lottery proceeds (Local Transportation assistance Fund or LTAF), including Powerball revenue, are expected to be $799,186 in FY 200506, 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. Cities benefit from Powerball revenue 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 revenue have reached $31 million, a maximum of $18 million is to be paid to the LTAF from Powerball revenue for distribution to cities, towns and counties. The $18 million statewide pool is divided into county pools based on each county’s market share of Lottery ticket sales. Actual distributions to cities and towns are based on their share of the incorporated population within the county. Generally, proceeds can be used only for street and highway projects such as construction or reconstruction in the public right-of-way. However, for cities in counties with populations of 1,200,000 persons or more, 1/3 must be allocated to public transit (A.R.S. §28-2502 (F)). Thus, the forecast reflects the transfer of funds from Transportation funds to the Transit Fund. Maintenance of Effort In addition to state-shared revenue sources, Transportation derives its remaining revenue from a “Maintenance of Effort” transfer from the General Fund. This transfer of locally-generated funds fulfills the statutory 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 from FY 2002-03 through FY 2004-05 by the State Legislature in response to a revenue slowdown experienced by cities within Arizona. This transfer requirement resumes in FY 2005-06. Expenditure Structure Transportation funds include all personnel in the Street Maintenance and Traffic Operations Divisions. Major budgeted expenditures for the Transportation funds include: Personal Services, Internal Services, Utilities, Materials and Supplies, Fees and Services, and All Other. Major Expenditure Categories Personal Services FY 2005-06 47.3% Internal Services 23.6% Utilities 12.4% Materials and Supplies 5.4% Fees and Services All Other 5.1% 6.2% Personal Services The largest budgeted expenditure in the Transportation Fund is Personal Services, which accounts for 47.3% or $4.1 million in FY 200506 of the total Transportation budget and will likely continue in that range for the next few years. 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 23.6% or $2.0 million of the FY 2005-06 budget, while utility costs (electricity for street lights and traffic signals) account for another 12.4% or $1.2 million. Loan Repayment The expenditure from the Transportation funds for Loan Repayment to the Water Utilities Fund amounts to $309,862 in FY 2005-06. The remaining expenditures are for Capital Outlay, Materials and Supplies and Contracted Services. These costs will be driven largely by inflation over the next five years. Summary Expenditures for Transportation increased from $8.2 million in FY 2004-05 to an estimated $8.7 million in FY 2005-06. The FY 2005-06 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 revenue, Tempe’s share slightly increased by approximately $1.0 million dollars from FY 2004-05 to 2005-06. Total Transportation revenue is projected to increase by 9.1% to $12.5 million. 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 revenue used to make principal and interest payments on the City’s general obligation debt. Debt service for Special Purpose and Enterprise Program projects is accounted for in the respective funds. Revenue Structure Debt Service Fund revenue is derived from the secondary property tax and the Salt River Project (SRP) Payment In-Lieu of Property Taxes. The property tax accounts for 96.1% of the fund’s revenue in FY 2005-06. Revenue 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 valuation represent the effects of the marketplace and assessor methodology, the secondary rate is determined by City policy. The secondary property tax rate for FY 2005-06 years is $0.88 per $100 of assessed valuation and is expected to generate $16.7 million. 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 revenue includes $676,495 from the SRP Payment In-Lieu of Property Taxes. Our estimate of FY 2005-06 secondary property tax collections was based on the decision of the City Council to increase the overall property tax rate (primary and secondary) property tax rate from $1.35 per $100 of assessed valuation to $1.40 per $100 of assessed valuation. The additional nickel was dedicated to pay the additional debt service costs associated with the communications and technology projects in the Police Protection program of the Capital Budget. In total, the City plans to issue $58.7 million of tax-supported general obligation bonds over the next five years. Expenditure Structure Expenditures in this fund are confined to principal and interest payments on 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, 2005 totaled $299.3 million, including $118.0 million in Water/Wastewater bonds (not repaid by general tax revenue). Summary Projected revenue for FY 2005-06 totals $17.4 million, a 14.0% increase from actual FY 200405 collections. Expenditures are estimated at $14.41 million in FY 2005-06. awarded directly to the City from the federal government based on a funding formula which reflects such local factors as the percentage of people living in poverty, unemployment, population, the age of existing housing, and the need for housing. Fiscal Year CDBG Section 8 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 2002-03 2,896,728 7,277,924 2003-04 3,174,654 8,364,970 2004-05 2,901,168 8,811,193 2005-06 2,849,008 8,882,632 Expenditure Structure ♦ 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 Pursuant to federal requirements, most CDBG and Section 8 funding is expended on property rehabilitation and rental subsidies. In FY 200506, 7.2% is earmarked for salaries and benefits and 3.7% is allocated to contingencies and miscellaneous expenses. ♦ Water/Wastewater Fund Fund Structure Description The Water/Wastewater Fund is a self-supporting 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. Revenue 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, Golf, and Cemetery Funds. Major Services Interest Income/All Other Cash balances in the Water/Wastewater Fund are expected to generate $886,116 in Interest Income during FY 2005-06. This represents 1.9% of the fund’s total revenue. Other sources of fund revenue include a loan repayment from the General Fund, land and building rental fees, delinquent payment charges, and miscellaneous fees and charges. This budget provides for: • Water/Wastewater Administration • Water Resource Management • Water Conservation • Water Quality • Transmission & Collection Expenditure Structure • Technical Services • Wastewater Reclamation Total estimated operating expenses for FY 200506 are $48.7 million. Together, Debt Service, Personal Services and Wastewater Plant Regional Operating Expenses represent 70.0% of the total operating expenses. • Environmental Services • Utility Customer Services • Irrigation Revenue Structure Water, Irrigation, and Wastewater user fees account for 91.4% or $42.0 million of the $46.0 million in total fund revenue in FY 2005-06. The following table depicts the major revenue categories as a percentage of total revenue. Major Revenue Categories Water and Irrigation User Fees FY 2005-06 54.4% Wastewater User Fees 37.0% All Other 6.7% Interest Income 1.9% Water and Irrigation User Fees Water and irrigation user (consumption) fees provide $25.0 million or 54.4% of the total Water/Wastewater Fund revenue in FY 2005-06. This revenue amount reflects an estimated 41,532 accounts for potable water and 921 irrigation water accounts. Wastewater User Fees Over 35,000 Wastewater Service accounts are estimated to produce $17.0 million or 37.0% in FY 2005-06 of the total user fee revenue. Residential wastewater charges are largely driven by water consumption in that monthly billings are based upon a three month Winter average consumption. The following table shows the composition of fund expenditures earmarked for Debt Service, Personal Services, Internal Services, Wastewater Plant Regional Operating Expenses, Electricity and Water, and All Other. Major Expense Categories Debt Service FY 2005-06 35.8% Personal Services 25.5% All Other 13.5% Internal Services 9.0% WW Regional Exp. 8.7% Electricity and Water 7.5% Debt Service Debt Service accounts for 35.8% of total estimated expenses for FY 2005-06, indicative of the capital intensive nature of a water/wastewater operation. Personal Services Personal Services represent $12.4 million or 25.5% of Water/Wastewater operating expenses. For FY 2005-06, salaries and wages account for 75.0% of the total Personal Services budget, followed by health insurance at 12.4%, retirement at 6.2%, FICA at 5.6%, and other at 0.8%. All Other Other major budgeted expenses include chemical supplies, contingencies, water quality testing and contracted services. Internal Services Internal Services costs for information systems, communications, vehicle maintenance, and indirect charges account for $4.4 million or 9.0% of FY 2005-06 Water/Wastewater expenses. November of 2004. 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. ♦ Solid Waste Fund Wastewater Plant Regional Operating Expenses Tempe participates in an intergovernmental agreement for the construction, operation, and maintenance of jointly used facilities, including the 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant, Salt River Outfall Sewer and the Southern Avenue Interceptor. The City pays for upgrades based on relative sewage flows and strengths. Expenses associated with the 91st Avenue Plant represent $4.3 million or 8.7% of the FY 2005-06 total. Excess sewer capacity will continue to be purchased to accommodate increasing flow demand. Planning and cost-benefit assessments are currently underway to estimate the costs associated with additional sewage treatment capacity and available alternatives. Fund Structure Description Electricity and Water Utilities comprise a major expense within this fund, as substantial electricity and water is required to provide these services. For FY 200506, electricity and water are budgeted at $3.6 million, or 7.5% of total expenses. Revenue Structure Summary Water/Wastewater Fund estimated operating expenses for FY 2005-06 are $48.7 million. Tempe’s shared cost to operate the 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant is expected to remain stable in FY 2005-06. Debt service expense increased primarily due to Wastewater treatment plant expansion and mandated water testing. Revenue for FY 2005-06 is projected to be $45.9 million; which includes a rate increase in 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. Major Services This enterprise fund provides for: • Residential Collection • Commercial Collection • Recycling Collection • Roll-Off Collection Revenue in the Solid Waste Fund derives almost exclusively from user fees for residential, recycling, commercial, roll-off, and uncontained solid waste service. These revenue are supplemented by a small amount of interest revenue. The collection and disposal of contained solid waste represents the City's second largest enterprise operation. Residential Solid Waste User Fees Residential solid waste user fee revenue are expected to generate $6.8 million in FY 2005-06, which equates to 53.0% of the total revenue for this fund. Residential customers pay $15.29 per month and the number of active accounts totals 33,800. Commercial Solid Waste User Fees Commercial solid waste fees are expected to generate $4.7 million in FY 2005-06 or 36.5% of the total fund revenue. Collection of commercial solid waste is provided by the City or a licensed collector. The number of active commercial accounts totals 2,385. This figure is expected to remain steady but could decline as competition for commercial solid waste services increases. Expense Structure Solid Waste estimated expenses for FY 2005-06 total $12.6 million. Of the total operating expenses, Personal Services, Internal Services and Landfill Usage Charges comprise 81.3%. Capital Outlay accounts for 15.1%, while the remaining 3.6% is for Materials and Supplies, Utilities, and Miscellaneous Fees and Services. Major Expense Categories Personal Services Landfill Usage Charge Internal Services Capital Outlay All Other FY 2005-06 33.0% 25.9% 22.4% 15.1% 3.6% Personal Services As with many labor intensive operations, Personal Services represent a major expense in the Solid Waste Fund, accounting for $4.2 million or 33.0% of the $12.6 million budget in FY 200506. Salaries and wages account for 71.3% of the total personal services budget, with health insurance accounting for 16.7% and the remainder for other fringe benefits. Landfill Usage Charges Landfill usage charges have increased over the prior fiscal year and are now estimated at $3.3 million, representing 25.9% of total expenses. Landfill tipping fees are projected to follow expected inflation rates, but environmental compliance requirements could impact these expenses beyond normal inflation. Internal Services Internal Service charges represent 22.4% or $2.8 million of the FY 2005-06 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 (52.2%) of total internal service costs derive from vehicle operating and maintenance expenses. Capital Outlay/All Other The Solid Waste budget reflects appropriations of $1.9 million for replacement of solid waste trucks. Other budgeted expenses include recycling sorting fees of $88,500. Summary The Solid Waste Fund budget of $12.6 million represents a 17% increase over the FY 2004-05 budget. This is primarily due to a $1.5 million increase in capital outlay costs associated with the purchase of solid waste vehicles. Revenue in this fund is expected to slightly increase to $12.8 million, a 6% increase over FY 2004-05 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 • Golf Course Pro Shops • Golf Course Restaurants Revenue Structure Greens Fees Greens fees amount to $1.9 million in FY 200506, accounting for 89.2% of golf course revenue for the year. Greens fees are set by Council and were last adjusted in November 2002, with adjustments ranging from $1 to $4 per 18 holes. Revenue projections are traditionally conservative to reflect the volatility that can result from weather conditions or fee changes. Internal Services Golf operation internal service costs are primarily vehicle maintenance and fuel, and represent $299,065, or 14.4% of budgeted expenses in FY 2005-06. Total rounds of golf played in FY 2004-05 for Ken McDonald (9 and 18 holes) and Rolling Hills (9 holes) were 83,670 and 86,065 rounds, respectively. Capital outlay Capital Outlay expenses are for lawn and turf equipment, and represent 4.0% of fund expenses. Pro Shop and Restaurant Revenue Pro shop revenue for Rolling Hills is 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. Expenditure Structure Personal Services and Supplies and Services represent the major categories of Golf Fund expenditures. Together they account for 74.2% of total Golf Fund expenses in FY 2005-06. The remaining expenses include Internal Services, Debt Service, Materials and Supplies, and Capital Outlay. Major Expenses Categories Personal Services FY 2005-06 47.0% Supplies and Services 27.2% Internal Services 14.4% Debt Service 7.4% Capital Outlay 4.0% Personal Services Personal Services account for $973,788 or 47.0% of FY 2005-06 expenses. Fees and Services Fees and Services expenses account for 27.2% of expenses in FY 2005-06, and primarily fund irrigation water and electricity. Debt Service Debt service costs total $153,453, or 7.4% of fund expenses in FY 2005-06. Summary Golf Fund appropriations for FY 2005-06 remain constant at $2.0 million, similar to the FY 200405 level. Cost containment is necessary to offset declining revenue reflective of the slowdown in the golf industry. By financial policy, the City maintains an unrestricted optimum fund balance level of at least 15% of annual revenue. The FYE 2004 fund balance reserve was $604,703 or 29.2% of estimated FY 2003-04 operating revenue. Capital Budget Overview Pursuant to City Charter, a five-year capital improvement plan is developed and updated annually. The first year’s funding requirements of the plan are included in the Capital Budget, and are formally adopted by the City Council. The FY 2005-06 Capital Budget expenditures total $189,971,703, a 7.3% increase from the FY 200405 amount. This increase in the budget is driven largely by capacity expansion in the Water/ Wastewater Program, continued construction of the Light Rail Transit project and the construction of the Performing Arts Center. The capital improvement program also 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 programs. Expenditures for these programs in the FY 2005-06 budget include $61.5 million for Enterprise capital programs; $89.8 million for Special Purpose capital programs; $31.7 million for General Purpose capital programs; and $7.0 million for Transportation capital programs. Transit projects represent the largest appropriation area in fiscal year 2005-06 at $67.5 million, which accounts for 36% of the total Capital Budget. Other major areas include $17.9 million for Water projects, $42.1 million for Wastewater projects, and $6.0 million for Transportation and Right-of-Way projects. The table below compares the 2004-05 Capital Program with the FY 2005-06 program. Comparison of FY 2004-05 and FY 2005-06 Capital Budgets 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 Traffic Signals/ Street Lighting Total 2004-05 Budget 2005-06 Budget $19,355,000 32,789,500 1,490,000 770,000 $17,936,000 42,064,688 50,000 1,400,000 77,324,792 26,107,768 526,269 67,475,773 22,228,912 99,090 6,715,950 0 200,000 2,385,000 2,978,445 14,107,614 0 3,640,000 11,110,000 2,871,146 5,395,498 945,000 $176,983,222 6,043,480 945,000 $189,971,703 Enterprise Capital Program Special Purpose Capital Program Enterprise capital projects include Water, Wastewater, Golf, and Cemetery projects. Special Purpose capital projects include those for Transit, the Performing Arts, and the Rio Salado program. Water projects comprise $17.9 million or 29.2% of the Enterprise Capital Budget in FY 2005-06. Major projects include $7.0 million for expansion and waterline improvements at the Johnny G. Martinez Water Treatment Plant and $3.5 million for replacement of the Apache Boulevard Water Line. Wastewater projects comprise $42.1 million or 68.5% of the enterprise program in FY 2005-06. This includes $12.5 million for the City’s share of improvements at the 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant, $21.0 million for the expansion of the Kyrene Water Reclamation Facility (KWRF), and $6.7 million for the KWRF Transmission/Distribution Line. Golf and Cemetery projects represent only 2.3% or $1.5 million of the Enterprise program in FY 2005-06. Projects include $50,000 for ongoing improvements at the city-owned golf courses and $1.4 million for expansion of the Double Butte Cemetery. The primary funding for the Enterprise capital projects comes from bond proceeds that total $52.0 million or 85% in fiscal year 2005-06. The next largest funding source is Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Fund Balances, which represent $7.9 million, or 13% of the Enterprise program funding. The balance of the Enterprise program is funded with development fee revenue, which contributes $1.5 million or 2% in FY 200506. Enterprise – Sources of Funds ($ Millions) FY 05-06 Bonds $52.0 CIP Fund Balance 7.9 Development Fees 1.5 Total $61.4 Transit projects represents $67.5 million or 75.1% of the Special Purpose Capital Budget. Major projects include $46.1 million for planning, design, and construction of the Central Phoenix and East Valley (C.P.& E.V.) Light Rail Transit system, $3.9 million for a Transit Center, and $10.9 million for a Regional Bus Maintenance Facility. The Transit capital program is funded from Excise Tax bonds, transit taxes, capital projects fund balances, and outside revenue. Performing Arts projects represent $22.2 million or 24.8% of the Special Purpose Capital Budget in FY 2005-06. This funding provides for the construction of the Tempe Center for the Arts on the south side of Tempe Town Lake. The Rio Salado projects represent less than 1% of the Special Purpose Program. These projects deal with ancillary construction in the Rio Salado area. The primary funding for the Special Purpose capital projects comes from Federal Grant revenue that total $45.8 million or 51% in fiscal year 2005-06. The next largest funding source is Excise Tax Bonds, which represent $22.2 million, or 24.8% of the Special Purpose program funding. The balance of the Special Purpose program is funded with Transit Tax Revenue, which contributes $7.7 million or 8.6% and CIP Fund Balance, representing $14.0 million or 15.6% in FY 2005-06. Special Purpose – Sources of Funds ($ Millions) FY 05-06 Federal Grants $45.8 Excise Tax bonds 22.2 CIP Fund Balance 14.0 Transit Tax Revenue 7.7 Total $89.7 General Purpose Capital Program Transportation Capital Program The General Purpose program includes Police Protection, Storm Drains, Park Improvements, and General Governmental projects. The Transportation Capital Budget includes projects for Transportation and Right-of-Way (R.O.W.) and Street Lighting and Traffic Signals. Police Protection accounts for $14.1 million or 44.5% of the General Purpose Capital Budget in FY 2005-06. Of this amount, $12.4 million is provided for construction of the Apache Boulevard Police Substation and the remainder provides for various communications and technology projects. The majority of Transportation capital funding is for Transportation and R.O.W., which represents $6.0 million or 86.5% of the total Transportation Capital Budget. These amounts provide ongoing funding for local and major street renovation and reconstruction. Storm Drains represent $3.6 million or 11.4% of the General Purpose Capital Budget. Of this amount, $3.4 million is for the Highline Western Canal Storm Drain Improvements. Park Improvements represent $11.1 million or 35% of the total General Purpose Capital Budget. Principal projects include $10 million for improvements to the Tempe Diablo Stadium and $750,000 for the completion of the North Tempe Multigenerational Center. General Governmental projects account for $2.9 million or 9.1% of the General Purpose Capital Budget, with funding provided for a variety of purposes. General Purpose – Sources of Funds ($ Millions) FY 05-06 General Obligation Bonds $16.4 Excise Tax Bonds 10.0 Other Operating Funds 2.8 Grants 1.7 CIP Fund Balance 0.9 Total $31.7 As shown in the table above, funding for General Purpose capital projects primarily comes from General Obligation and Excise Tax Bonds, grants, CIP Fund Balance, and Other Operating Funds, as shown in the following table. The remaining funding is for Street Lighting and Traffic Signals, which combined represent $1.0 million or 13.5% of the total Transportation Capital Budget in FY 2005-06. These amounts provide funding for street light upgrades, new signals, and the undergrounding of overhead utility lines. The Transportation Capital Budget is funded from General Obligation Bonds, the Local Transportation Assistance Fund, CIP Fund Balance, and Grants. Transportation – Sources of Funds ($ Millions) FY 05-06 General Obligation Bonds $1.7 Local Transportation Assistance Fund 3.5 CIP Fund Balance 1.7 Grants 0.1 Total $7.0 Capital Improvements Program Summary Program 2005-06 Funded Program 2006-07 Additional Needs 2007-08 2008-09 Enterprise Program Water Wastewater Golf Cemetery Subtotal Enterprise $17,936,000 42,064,688 50,000 1,400,000 61,450,688 $21,851,000 8,364,688 50,000 0 30,265,688 $18,458,643 17,287,125 50,000 0 35,795,768 67,475,773 22,228,912 99,090 89,803,775 119,741,517 0 100,000 119,841,517 52,902,815 0 100,000 53,002,815 25,742,880 0 100,000 25,842,880 18,836,500 0 100,000 18,936,500 284,699,485 22,228,912 499,090 307,427,487 14,107,614 0 3,640,000 4,709,648 765,000 200,000 10,977,622 402,000 250,000 5,213,649 0 250,000 1,435,800 0 250,000 36,444,333 1,167,000 4,590,000 11,060,000 50,000 310,000 50,000 965,000 50,000 725,000 50,000 310,000 50,000 13,370,000 250,000 600,007 1,062,750 175,000 90,000 225,000 718,389 31,728,760 302,157 1,062,750 175,000 0 225,000 493,745 8,293,300 357,458 1,062,750 175,000 0 225,000 402,000 14,866,830 326,805 1,062,750 175,000 0 225,000 402,000 8,430,204 257,760 1,062,750 175,000 0 225,000 402,000 4,168,310 1,844,187 5,313,750 875,000 90,000 1,125,000 2,418,134 67,487,404 6,043,480 945,000 6,988,480 2,771,439 485,000 3,256,439 2,418,902 510,000 2,928,902 1,887,719 497,500 2,385,219 3,018,854 497,500 3,516,354 16,140,394 2,935,000 19,075,394 61,450,688 128,521,015 30,265,688 131,391,256 35,795,768 70,798,547 32,730,482 36,658,303 25,826,000 26,621,164 186,068,626 393,990,285 Special Purpose Program Transit Performing Arts Rio Salado Subtotal Special Purpose General Purpose Program Police Fire Storm Drains Park Improvements Recreation Public Works General Governmental Municipal Arts Program Development Services Financial Services Information Technology Neighborhood Program Public Works Subtotal General Purpose Transportation Program Transportation and R.O.W. Traffic Signals/Street Lighting Subtotal Transportation Subtotal Enterprise Subtotal Tax Supported TOTAL PROGRAM $189,971,703 $161,656,944 $106,594,315 2009-10 $14,893,357 $11,526,000 17,787,125 14,250,000 50,000 50,000 0 0 32,730,482 25,826,000 Total 5-Year Program $84,665,000 99,753,626 250,000 1,400,000 186,068,626 $69,388,785 $52,447,164 $580,058,911 Capital Improvements Program Source of Funds Program Enterprise Supported Water/Wastewater Water/Wastewater Bonds Water/Wastewater (FB Applied) Capital Projects Fund Balance Development Fees Total Water/Wastewater Funds Golf Excise Tax Bonds - Golf Fund Cemetery Excise Tax Bonds - Cemetery Fund Subtotal Enterprise Supported 2005-06 Funded Program Additional Needs 2007-08 2008-09 2006-07 Total 5-Year Program 2009-10 $50,598,544 $28,715,688 0 7,902,144 1,500,000 60,000,688 0 0 1,500,000 30,215,688 0 0 500,000 35,745,768 0 0 500,000 32,680,482 0 0 500,000 25,776,000 0 7,902,144 4,500,000 184,418,626 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 1,400,000 61,450,688 0 30,265,688 0 35,795,768 0 32,730,482 0 25,826,000 1,400,000 186,068,626 7,742,077 0 0 13,912,662 0 45,821,034 67,475,773 27,678,160 37,000,000 0 0 3,244,999 51,818,358 119,741,517 6,830,790 17,000,000 0 0 0 29,072,025 52,902,815 4,954,880 0 1,020,000 0 0 19,768,000 25,742,880 614,720 0 2,660,500 0 0 15,561,280 18,836,500 47,820,627 54,000,000 3,680,500 13,912,662 3,244,999 162,040,697 284,699,485 22,228,912 0 0 0 0 22,228,912 99,090 89,803,775 100,000 119,841,517 100,000 53,002,815 100,000 25,842,880 100,000 18,936,500 499,090 307,427,487 General Obligation Bonds Excise Tax Bonds Water/Wastewater Fund Transfers from Other Funds CIP Fund Balances FTA Grant Flood Control District Grant Subtotal General/Transport. 18,024,605 10,000,000 1,000,007 4,742,033 3,122,595 108,000 1,720,000 38,717,240 9,809,832 0 502,157 1,237,750 0 0 0 11,549,739 15,950,524 0 607,458 1,237,750 0 0 0 17,795,732 9,000,868 0 250,000 1,564,555 0 0 0 10,815,423 5,939,154 0 250,000 1,495,510 0 0 0 7,684,664 58,724,983 10,000,000 2,609,622 10,277,598 3,122,595 108,000 1,720,000 86,562,798 Subtotal Enterprise Supported Subtotal Tax Supported 61,450,688 128,521,015 30,265,688 131,391,256 35,795,768 70,798,547 32,730,482 36,658,303 25,826,000 26,621,164 186,068,626 393,990,285 $189,971,703 $161,656,944 $106,594,315 $69,388,785 $52,447,164 $580,058,911 Special Purpose Program Transit Transit Tax Revenue Excise Tax Bonds Regional Public Transportation Capital Projects Fund Balance Regional Participation Grants Total Transit Funds Performing Arts Program Excise Tax Bonds - Performing Arts Rio Salado Capital Projects Fund Balance Subtotal Special Purpose $35,245,768 $32,180,482 $25,276,000 $172,016,482 General Purpose/ Transportation Program TOTAL PROGRAM Capital Improvements Program Fund Balances Program Enterprise Water/Wastewater Golf Cemetery Subtotal Enterprise Special Purpose Transit Performing Arts Rio Salado Estimated Fund Bal. 06-30-05 Transfers from Other Funds Outside Revenue Bond Proceeds Appropriation Estimated Fund Bal. 06-30-06 $8,310,298 $0 $1,500,000 $50,598,544 $60,000,688 $408,154 42,425 0 0 0 0 0 50,000 1,400,000 50,000 1,400,000 42,425 0 8,352,723 0 1,500,000 52,048,544 61,450,688 450,579 14,161,784 231,098 7,742,077 0 45,821,034 0 0 22,228,912 67,475,773 22,228,912 249,122 231,098 1,482,718 0 0 0 99,090 1,383,628 Subtotal Special Purpose 15,875,600 7,742,077 45,821,034 22,228,912 89,803,775 1,863,848 General Purpose Police Protection (1,030,535) 0 0 14,107,614 14,107,614 (1,030,535) 3,166 555,372 0 200,000 0 1,720,000 0 1,164,628 0 3,640,000 3,166 0 36,551 1,033,072 0 2,037,757 0 0 11,110,000 0 11,110,000 2,871,146 36,551 199,683 597,626 2,237,757 1,720,000 26,382,242 31,728,760 (791,135) 1,679,904 3,504,283 108,000 762,000 6,043,480 10,707 64,637 0 0 880,363 945,000 0 1,744,541 3,504,283 108,000 1,642,363 6,988,480 10,707 $26,570,490 $13,484,117 $49,149,034 $102,302,061 $189,971,703 $1,533,999 Fire Protection Storm Drains Park Improvements General Governmental Subtotal General Purpose Transportation Transportation. & R.O.W. Improvements Traffic Signals/Street Lighting Subtotal Transportation TOTAL PROGRAM Capital Improvements Program Project Listing Descriptions The following Capital Budget Project listing shows the title and short description for each project included in the FY 2005-06 Capital Budget, as approved by the City Council. The total 5 year project cost is displayed in the upper right hand corner of each project description, and the source of funds for the budgeted FY 2005-06 expenditure is shown below the description. 5 Year Cost 5 Year Cost JGMWTP: 15 MGD Plant Expansion $45,000,000 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. Waterline Upgrades & Extensions $4,250,000 This project provides funding to replace water lines that break during normal operation or that have reached their useful life as identified in the Water Utilities Division Integrated Master Plan. 05-06 Source of Funds 05-06 Source of Funds Water W/WW Bonds 7,000,000 Apache Boulevard Waterline Improvements $3,500,000 This project funds replacement of older water lines along Apache Boulevard that will be impacted by the construction of the Light Rail Transit (LRT) project in the Special Purpose Transit Program. 05-06 Source of Funds W/WW Bonds 3,500,000 W/WW Bonds 850,000 Utility Services & Warehouse Building $2,625,000 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. 05-06 Source of Funds W/WW Bonds 2,200,000 Rural-Lemon Terrace Water/Sewer Improvements $2,410,000 This project funds replacement of older water lines along Rural Road, Lemon Road, and Terrace Road that will be impacted by the construction of the LRT project in the Special Purpose Program. Enterprise Geographical Information System $1,800,000 This project funds a Geographical Information System in the Water Department to provide a new view of spatial information to both internal and external customers. 05-06 Source of Funds 05-06 Source of Funds W/WW Bonds Development Fees 910,000 1,500,000 W/WW Bonds 900,000 Distribution System Fittings $1,250,000 This project provides for the acquisition, assembly, and installation of water works infrastructure including meters, valves, hydrants and water lines. STWTP Capital Equipment Replacement $750,000 This project provides funding for replacement of pumps, valves, and other operating equipment due to unforeseen failures at the South Tempe Water Treatment Plant (STWTP). 05-06 Source of Funds 05-06 Source of Funds CIP Fund Balance 250,000 CIP Fund Balance 150,000 JGMWTP: Capital Equipment Replacement $750,000 This project provides funding for replacement of pump, valves, and other operating equipment due to unforeseen failures at the Johnny G. Martinez Water Treatment Plant (JGMWTP). Central Arizona Project Capital Charge $630,000 This project provides the annual repayments to the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) to reimburse construction cost of the Central Arizona Project canal. 05-06 Source of Funds 05-06 Source of Funds W/WW Bonds CIP Fund Balance 138,544 11,456 CIP Fund Balance 126,000 Wastewater SCADA Remote Terminal Units Replacement $400,000 This project provides a funding mechanism to facilitate replacement of equipment at the South Tempe Water Treatment Plant (STWTP). $65,000,000 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant This project represents Tempe’s share of all expansion activities at the jointly-owned, regional 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant. 05-06 Source of Funds W/WW Bonds 05-06 Source of Funds W/WW Bonds 12,500,000 400,000 5 Year Cost Kyrene Water Reclamation Facility Expansion $21,000,000 This project provides funding to renovate the Kyrene Water Reclamation Facility (KWRF) to a 9 MGD membrane treatment facility. 05-06 Source of Funds W/WW Bonds 21,000,000 Sewer Line Upgrades and Extensions 05-06 Source of Funds W/WW Bonds 2,950,000 CIP Fund Balance 3,750,000 $3,750,000 This project provides a recurring funding source to replace sewer lines that break during normal operation, as identified in the Water Utilities Division Integrated Master Plan (IMP). 05-06 Source of Funds CIP Fund Balance 750,000 Southern Avenue Interceptor Rehabilitation – $3,303,626 All Phases This project funds the phased rehabilitation or replacement of a jointly-owned regional sewer line that runs through Tempe. 05-06 Source of Funds CIP Fund Balance 1,114,688 Golf Golf Course Improvements 5 Year Cost Kyrene Reclaimed Water Transmission $6,700,000 Distribution Line This project funds a pipeline that will be constructed from the Kyrene Reclamation Facility to the Tempe Town Lake, to provide water to refill the lake. The pipeline will be 24-inches in diameter and will extend for five miles. Cemetery $250,000 This ongoing project provides funds for small annual renovation and improvement projects at both golf courses. 05-06 Source of Funds Excise Tax Bonds 50,000 $1,400,000 Double Butte Cemetery Improvements and Expansion This project provides funding for improvements and expansion of the Double Butte Cemetery based on the completed master plan as recommended by the Cemetery Advisory Committee. 05-06 Source of Funds Excise Tax Bonds 1,400,000 Transit Central Phoenix & East Valley Light Rail Transit $200,437,663 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. Transit Regional Maintenance Facility $32,449,990 This project funds design and construction costs for a cooperative multi-jurisdictional regional maintenance center located in Tempe. 05-06 Source of Funds CIP Fund Balance 9,292,663 Federal Grants 31,752,000 Transit Tax 5,054,000 05-06 Source of Funds Federal Grants 7,609,034 CIP Fund Balance 3,244,999 Bus Replacement and Purchase $23,110,000 $5,900,170 Tempe Transit Center This project replaces 53 buses in the Tempe fleet. This project also provides funding for 4 additional neighborhood circulator buses to meet current usage demands. This project funds the design and construction of a transit center, including parking, commercial and office space, and 15 bus bays. 05-06 Source of Funds Transit Tax 1,460,000 05-06 Source of Funds Federal Grants 3,900,000 College Avenue Streetscape and Pedestrian $3,000,000 Improvements This project provides funding for two miles of pedestrian improvements and traffic calming for a collector street. Municipal Arts Program—Transit 05-06 Source of Funds Transit Tax 150,000 05-06 Source of Funds Transit Tax $2,818,807 This project provides for various Transit-related Municipal Arts projects. 668,077 5 Year Cost Tempe Canal Multi-Use Path: Phase II $2,400,000 5 Year Cost University Drive Pedestrian Improvement Project $560,000 This project involves design and construction of a two mile segment of paved off-street pathway that will include lighting, landscaping, and art elements along the Tempe Canal from the Union Pacific Railroad to Earnhardt Park at the US-60. This project provides for the design and construction of missing sidewalks, bicycle crossings and Americans with Disabilities Act compliant ramps on University Drive between Hacienda Road and George Drive. 05-06 Source of Funds 05-06 Source of Funds Transit Tax 240,000 Federal Grants Transit Tax 500,000 60,000 Curry Road Pedestrian Improvement Project $560,000 This project provides for the design and construction of missing sidewalks, bicycle crossings and Americans with Disabilities Act compliant ramps on Curry Road between Hayden Road and Scottsdale Road. Apache Boulevard—Mill to Terrace $250,000 This project provides design and construction funding to reduce the segment of Apache Boulevard from Mill Avenue to Terrace Road from 3 lanes to 2 lanes. 05-06 Source of Funds 05-06 Source of Funds Federal Grants Transit Tax 500,000 60,000 Transit Tax 50,000 Performing Arts Midlife Scheduled Fleet Maintenance $4,618,000 Tempe Center for the Arts $22,228,912 This project funds maintenance of the Tempe bus fleet and associated operational equipment. This project will produce the Tempe Center for the Arts located on the south shore of Tempe Town Lake. 05-06 Source of Funds 05-06 Source of Funds Federal Grants CIP Fund Balance 1,560,000 1,375,000 Excise Tax Bonds Rio Salado 22,228,912 Police Rio Salado Ancillary Construction $499,090 This project funds the various design, safety requirements, emergency signage and fencing projects, and any other unforeseen project that becomes necessary in the Rio Salado area. Police/City Radio System Replacement $15,572,519 This project will replace the City’s existing analog radio system with an interoperable digital system. 05-06 Source of Funds 05-06 Source of Funds CIP Fund Balance 99,090 Apache Boulevard Substation GO Bonds $12,372,814 1,285,800 Police CAD/RMS/FRWS System $6,150,000 This project provides for a Police Substation and property/ evidence facility on Apache Boulevard. This project replaces the Police Department’s existing Computer Aided Dispatch System, Records Management System, and Field Report Writing System. 05-06 Source of Funds 05-06 Source of Funds GO Bonds 12,372,814 GO Bonds 150,000 Technology Integrated Police System $800,000 This project incorporates new technology in the Police Department, and adds resources to upgrade and interface existing automated systems. Police Logging Recorder $149,000 This project replaces the Communication Bureau’s logging recorder that records all 911 and dispatch correspondence in accordance with the State of Arizona Records Retention Schedule requirements. 05-06 Source of Funds GO Bonds 05-06 Source of Funds GO Bonds 149,000 150,000 Storm Drains 5 Year Cost Highline Western Canal Storm Drain Improvements 5 Year Cost $3,440,000 Storm Drain Improvements $1,150,000 This project provides storm drainage relief to the residences identified by the Highline Western Canal Floodplain Delineation Study by removing them from the floodplain. This project provides for the construction of minor storm drain extensions to relieve localized problems for replacement and/or upgrades associated with various storm water retention facilities. 05-06 Source of Funds 05-06 Source of Funds GO Bonds 1,164,628 Flood Control Grants 1,720,000 CIP Fund Balance 555,372 W/WW Funds 200,000 Park Improvements/Recreation Tempe Diablo Stadium Renovation $10,000,000 This project continues funding for extensive renovations of Tempe Diablo Stadium. North Tempe Multigenerational Center $750,000 This request provides funding for the construction of the North Tempe Multigenerational Center. 05-06 Source of Funds 05-06 Source of Funds Excise Bonds GO Bonds 10,000,000 750,000 Neighborhood Park Improvements $1,250,000 This project provides for the renovation and redevelopment of neighborhood parks with playground equipment, picnic equipment, landscaping, concrete replacement/installation, and sand. Sport Facility Relamping $300,000 This project provides for the continued funding of maintenance for the city’s sports facilities’ lighting needs. 05-06 Source of Funds 05-06 Source of Funds GO Bonds 250,000 GO Bonds 60,000 Park Improvements/Public Works Acquisition and Development of Victory Acres Park $2,820,000* This project funds acquisition of land for a park in the Victory Acres section of Tempe. Various Park Landscaping/Improvements $250,000 This project provides funding to improve the softball, baseball, and multi-use sports fields. 05-06 Source of Funds 05-06 Source of Funds *Funded in Community Development Block Grant operating budget. GO Bonds 50,000 General Governmental $300,000* Commercial Center Façade Improvement Program This project provides matching grants to assist in the revitalization of neighborhood retail centers and downtown building facades. Municipal Arts Program $1,844,187 This project provides for various Transit-related municipal arts projects. 05-06 Source of Funds 05-06 Source of Funds *Funded in Community Development Block Grant operating budget. W/WW Fund America West Airlines—1st Street Redevelopment $4,313,750 This project provides funding for the Development Agreement between America West Airlines and the City of Tempe. Downtown Public Parking $1,000,000 This project provides funding for private parking facilities for which the City has leased or purchased parking rights for use as public parking in the downtown area. 05-06 Source of Funds 05-06 Source of Funds Transfer from Other Funds 862,750 Transfer from Other Funds 600,007 200,000 5 Year Cost 5 Year Cost Leased Office Space $875,000 Replacement of A/C Units in Data Center $90,000 This project funds the office lease costs for the Tax and License Office at Centerpoint Plaza. This project provides funding to upgrade the City’s software from Windows 95/97 to Windows 2000. 05-06 Source of Funds 05-06 Source of Funds Transfer from Other Funds CIP Fund Balance 500,000 174,000 Maryanne Corder Neighborhood Improvement $1,125,000 Program This project provides funding for small neighborhood initiated projects. Fleet Vehicle Refueling Site Relocation 05-06 Source of Funds CIP Fund Balance 225,000 05-06 Source of Funds W/WW Fund CIP Fund Balance City Facilities Rehabilitation $1,540,000 $508,134 This project would re-establish a City owned fueling facility on the north west end of town, to replace the prior site that was eliminated to provide space for the expansion of the water treatment plant. 200,000 216,389 Historical Properties Preservation $175,000 This project provides funding for the rehabilitation and repair of city owned properties. This project provides funding to preserve the structural and aesthetic value of City owned historical properties. 05-06 Source of Funds 05-06 Source of Funds CIP Fund Balance CIP Fund Balances 200,000 HVAC Equipment Replacement $175,000 35,000 Energy Upgrade and Retrofit $160,000 This project replaces Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) equipment as it reaches its useful life span or is identified as ineffective and inefficient through increased downtime of excessive repair costs. This project improves and upgrades lighting in city facilities, based on past surveys of city facilities, buildings, and parking lots. 05-06 Source of Funds 05-06 Source of Funds CIP Fund Balance CIP Fund Balances 35,000 32,000 Transportation & Right-of-Way Local and Major Street Reconstruction $6,109,451 This project provides for the reconstruction and/or resurfacing of local and major streets and intersections throughout the city in accordance with the City’s Pavement Management Program. Major Street Renovation $3,750,825 05-06 Source of Funds This project provides ongoing preventive maintenance of major arterial and collector streets throughout the city in accordance with the City’s Pavement Management Program. . 05-06 Source of Funds GO Bonds 535,000 CIP Fund Balance 1,516,316 Local Transportation Assistance Fund Local Street Renovation $3,375,373 1,541,954 Minor Concrete Improvements $975,000 This project provides ongoing preventive maintenance of local/ residential streets throughout the city in accordance with the City’s Pavement Management Program. This project will provide for a variety of improvements to curbs, gutters, and sidewalks in the city right-of-way. 05-06 Source of Funds 05-06 Source of Funds Local Transportation Assistance Fund GO Bonds Local Transportation Assistance Fund 1,255,062 52,000 273,000 5 Year Cost Neighborhood Transportation Management $588,000 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 neighborhood-specific traffic calming measures. 5 Year Cost City Facilities Parking Lots $412,325 This project will provide for the sealing, resurfacing, and reconstruction of City parking lots in accordance with the City’s Pavement Management Program. 05-06 Source of Funds 05-06 Source of Funds Local Transportation Assistance Fund Local Transportation Assistance Fund 188,000 182,728 Bridge Maintenance $300,000 This project provides funds for maintenance and rehabilitation of bridges located throughout Tempe as identified in the City’s Bridge Inspection Report. Various Street Landscaping $225,000 This project provides funding to continue to improve various street rights-of-way and city properties by installing, replacing or improving existing landscaping. 05-06 Source of Funds 05-06 Source of Funds GO Bonds GO Bonds 100,000 75,000 Streets Modular Trailer Expansion $164,420 This project will provide work and meeting space immediately adjacent to the modular trailer once used as the Rio Salado Project construction trailer. Minor Street and Alley Improvements $120,000 This project provides for the improvement or dust control of minor streets and alleys throughout the city. 05-06 Source of Funds 05-06 Source of Funds Local Transportation Assistance Fund CIP Fund Balance CIP Fund Balance 40,000 51,539 112,881 Various Street Landscaping $225,000 This project provides funding to continue to improve various street rights-of-way and city properties by installing, replacing or improving existing landscaping. 5th Street and Farmer Drive Railroad Sign Reloc. $120,000 This project provides Tempe’s share of an agreement with Union Pacific Railroad to relocate and upgrade the signal crossing at 5th Street and Farmer Drive. 05-06 Source of Funds 05-06 Source of Funds GO Bonds Local Transportation Assistance Fund Federal Grants 75,000 12,000 108,000 Traffic Signals/ Street Lighting $960,000 New Signals/ Modular Upgrade This project provides for the installation of new traffic signals and/ or the conversion of existing signals to modular standards. Utility Undergrounding $975,000 This project provides for the undegrounding of overhead utility lines 05-06 Source of Funds 05-06 Source of Funds GO Bonds CIP Fund Balance GO Bonds 280,363 39,637 300,000 Streetlight Upgrades/ New Installations $900,000 This project provides for the installation of new street lights at various locations as well as the upgrading of streetlight from mercury vapor luminaires to high pressure sodium luminaires. Antique Street Sign and Frames Replacement $50,000 The project provides for the replacement of the Antique Street Sign faces and frames in the downtown area. 05-06 Source of Funds 05-06 Source of Funds GO Bonds CIP Fund Balance 300,000 25,000 Relationship Between Operating and Capital Budgets CAPITAL/OPERATING BUDGET RELATIONSHIP Current Operating and Maintenance Costs Though the City of Tempe prepares a separate Capital Budget from the Operating Budget, the two budgets are closely linked. These links include operating and maintenance costs associated with new facilities, debt service payments for new debt financed projects, pay-as-you-go financing, and new operating revenue. These impacts total $25.1 million as shown in the following table. As part of the Capital Improvement Program, departments were asked to identify those capital projects that have an impact on the operating budget specifically in terms of operation and maintenance. The table below summarizes the projected operating and maintenance impact by project of the capital improvements on the operating budget for FY 2005-06. There were no savings explicitly quantified for these projects. Total Impact of Capital Budget on Operating Budget FY 2005-06 New Debt Service Enterprise $5,826,214 Special Revenue 2,084,073 Transportation 126,258 General Purpose 3,372,700 New Operations and Maintenance Cost Pay-As-You-Go Financing 1,642,443 12,246,297 New Operating Revenue (190,336) Total $25,107,649 As shown in the table below, the finalization of the construction of the Tempe Center for the Arts contributes the largest operating cost, with nearly $1.2 million in capital equipment and operating costs. Approximately $400,000 of this amount is budgeted for 16 new Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) positions associated with the opening of this facility in the latter months of FY 2005-06. In general terms these costs relate to the hiring of personnel to operate the arts center, including administrative and custodial staff, and groundskeepers. Other notable items include additional staff to maintain and market burial lot sales for the expansion of Double Buttes Operating and Maintenance Costs of FY 2005-06 Capital Budget Program/Project $ Amount FTE Fund Special Purpose Performing Arts Center $1,239,877 16 Performing Arts Fund 131,714 2 Water/Wastewater Fund 127,628 2 Cemetery Fund Enterprise Kyrene Water Reclamation Facility Expansion Doubles Buttes Cemetery Improvements and Expansion Transportation Streetlight Upgrades/New Installation New Signals/Modular Upgrade Streets Modular Trailer Expansion 16,440 5,840 4,800 General Purpose North Tempe Multigenerational Center Police Logging Recorder Technology Integrated Police System 110,944 200 5,000 2.5 $1,642,443 22.5 Total Operating and Maintenance Costs Highway User Revenue Fund Highway User Revenue Fund Highway User Revenue Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund Cemetery, plant operating staff for the Kyrene Water Reclamation Facility, and custodial and support staff for the finalization of construction of the North Tempe Multigenerational Center. Combined these projects add $370,000 in operating costs and 6.5 new FTE positions. the project and request of the department. Cost and revenue estimates beyond the FY 2005-06 budget will be subject to upward or downward revision in future years based on changes in scope of the project and/or Council and Community priorities. Current Operating Revenue As shown in the table below, several projects have potential to generate operating revenue over the next four years. Key revenue generating projects are the Double Butte Cemetery, which is expected to generate revenue as burial plots are sold, and the Central Phoenix and East Valley Light Rail Transit Project, which will generate train fare revenue as part of its operation. In total, the projects included in the CIP are estimated to generate $12.6 million in revenue between FY 2006-07 and FY 2009-10. Two projects included in the FY 2005-06 Capital Budget are expected to generate total operating revenue of $190,336 in FY 2005-06. These include the Double Butte Cemetery Improvements and Expansion Project, which is expected to generate burial plot sales revenue of $127,628 to the Cemetery Fund associated with the addition of new burial plots, and the North Tempe Multigenerational Center, which will generate $62,708 to the General Fund from an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Tempe Elementary School District. Future Impacts of the Capital Improvements Program A final consideration in the Capital Improvements Program process is the projection of future operating costs and revenue associated with current and future projects. Since the City Council only formally adopts Operating and Capital Budgets on an annual basis, it is important to note that these impacts merely represent estimates based on the current scope of The table on the following page shows the estimated future operating costs of projects in the 5-year CIP. It is important to note that no operating savings were explicitly delineated for any projects in the 5-year CIP. The operation of the Central Phoenix and East Valley Light Rail Transit Project, the Tempe Center for the Arts, the Transit Regional Maintenance Facility, and the Apache Boulevard Police Substation have the largest cost, net of operational savings, over the four years from FY 2006-07 to FY 2009-10. In total, operating costs for all projects are estimated to total $23,584,362 in this time period. Capital Improvements Program: Projected Revenue: FY 2006-07 to FY 2009-10 Fiscal Year Capital Project Double Butte Cemetery Expansion 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 $1,085,000 $1,130,000 $1,175,000 $1,220,000 C.P. & E.V. Light Rail Transit Transit Regional Maintenance Facility Total $4,610,000 Cemetery 1,522,000 1,806,000 3,328,000 Transit 490,397 505,700 521,498 1,517,595 Transit Transit Tempe Transit Center 197,478 204,390 211,543 218,948 832,359 Tempe Center for the Arts 440,000 456,000 473,000 490,400 1,859,400 North Tempe Multigenerational Center 122,750 122,750 122,750 122,750 491,000 Total Fund $1,845,228 $2,403,537 $4,009,993 $4,379,596 Performing Arts General $12,638,354 All Funds Future Impact of Capital Improvements on Operating Budget Capital Improvements Program: Future Operating Cost Estimates: FY 2006-07 to FY 2009-10 Fiscal Year Capital Project 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Kyrene Water Reclamation Facility Expansion $111,714 $111,714 $111,714 122,782 122,782 Total Fund $111,714 $446,856 Water 122,782 122,782 491,128 Cemetery 3,545,000 7,214,000 10,759,000 Transit 984,271 1,015,051 1,046,829 3,046,151 Transit 88,312 91,403 94,602 359,642 Transit Western Canal Multi-Use Path 28,600 28,600 28,600 85,800 Transit Tempe Canal Multi-Use Path: Phase II 10,400 10,400 10,400 31,200 Transit 10,400 10,400 Transit 5,200 5,200 Transit Double Butte Cemetery Expansion C.P. & E.V. Light Rail Transit Transit Regional Maintenance Facility Tempe Transit Center 85,325 Rio Salado Multi-Use Path: Tempe/Phoenix Crosscut Canal 2009-10 1,642,000 1,218,000 1,279,000 1,323,590 5,462,590 Performing Arts Apache Boulevard Police Substation 421,232 408,413 430,543 461,511 1,721,699 General North Tempe Multigenerational Center 236,009 236,009 236,009 236,009 944,036 General 20,300 20,300 40,600 General 10,000 10,000 35,000 General 3,000 31,000 34,000 General 15,000 15,000 30,000 General Tempe Center for the Arts Acquisition and Development of Victory Acres Property Technology Integrated Police System 5,000 10,000 Kiwanis Center Wave Equipment Restoration Laptop Refresh Police Logging Recorder 200 200 200 220 820 General Streetlight Upgrades/New Installations 8,940 8,940 8,940 8,940 35,760 HURF New Signals/Modular Uprades 5,840 6,480 6,480 6,480 25,280 HURF Streets Modular Trailer Expansion 4,800 4,800 4,800 4,800 19,200 HURF Total $2,643,842 $3,238,921 $6,939,222 $10,762,377 $23,584,362 All Funds Capital Budget, Debt Service and Property Tax Rate: Ten Year Historical Trends Budgeted Fiscal Capital Improvements Outstanding Principal Debt Service Requirements Net % Change Secondary Assessed in Secondary Assessed Year Program Debt P&I Value Valuation 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 35,466,698 79,717,004 87,651,929 85,587,326 61,256,862 85,541,430 130,638,313 117,968,707 176,983,222 189,971,703 141,285,000 173,470,000 203,495,000 197,735,000 200,805,000 205,950,000 252,480,000 280,525,000 298,600,000 419,954,814 27,161,881 24,533,678 24,297,657 31,836,932 29,772,986 26,675,235 23,996,164 27,243,978 27,696,707 46,326,184 912,856,941 993,270,348 1,098,826,160 1,223,438,321 1,356,429,397 1,456,361,617 1,556,492,294 1,688,452,415 1,768,877,385 1,904,426,188 2.8 8.8 10.6 11.3 10.9 7.4 6.9 8.5 4.8 7.7 Property Tax Rate ($) Primary Secondary Total .57 .56 .54 .55 .54 .53 .52 .55 .53 .52 .83 .84 .86 .85 .81 .82 .83 .80 .82 .88 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.40 Summary: (1) The increase from $86 to $190 million between FY 2001-02 and FY 2005-06 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; (2) the City decreased the property tax rate from $1.40 to $1.35 in FY 2000-01; and (3) the city increased the total property tax rate from $1.35 to $1.40 in FY 2005-06 for the purpose of funding Public Safety communications projects. 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: • Debt will only be used to finance long term capital improvements and not be used to finance recurring operating expenses. • In accordance with state law, the total value of General Obligation bonds issued for the purposes of water, wastewater, artificial light, open space preserves, parks, playgrounds, and recreational facilities cannot exceed 20% of assessed valuation. The total value of General Obligation bonds issued for all other purposes other than those listed above cannot exceed 6% of assessed valuation. • Debt term should match the useful life of the capital project funded. • Debt service schedules will be based upon level annual principal and interest payments. • Overlapping debt issue shall be included in the City’s financial reports. • Authorized debt shall be limited as follows unless authorization is obtained from the City council to exceed these limits: -General obligation bonds shall follow the guidelines established in the debt management plan -Excise tax bonds shall maintain revenue coverage limits of at least 3 times debt service -Improvement District bonds shall not exceed 5% of the City’s secondary assessed valuation -Short-term borrowing or lease/purchase contracts must be budgeted within 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. Bonded Debt Limits July 1, 2005 Bond Limit (1) FY 2005-06 6% 20% $114,265,571 $380,885,238 Outstanding Bonded Debt-Previously Issued (73,535,000) (174,265,000) Proposed Bonds to be Sold in FY 2005-06: Water/Wastewater Storm Drains Park Improvements All Others (2) 0 0 0 (24,230,555) 0 0 (1,110,000) 0 Debt Margin Available $16,500,016 $205,510,238 Notes: (1) The FY 2005-06 Bond Limit is based upon an estimated secondary assessed value of $1,904,426,188, compared to the FY 2004-05 secondary assessed value of $1,768,877,385. (2) Includes $7,315,950 in previously authorized, unissued debt. Under Arizona law2, cities may issue general obligation bonds for purposes of water, wastewater, artificial light, open space preserves, parks, playgrounds and recreational facilities up to an amount not exceeding 20% of the secondary assessed value. Cities may also issue general obligation bonds for all other purposes not included in the 20% Debt Margin category up to an amount not exceeding 6% of the secondary assessed value. Debt Service Schedule FY 2005-06 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 Part. 2001A General Obligation 2002A General Obligation 2002R General Obligation 2003 General Obligation 2004R General Obligation 2004 General Obligation 2005 General Obligation Total Existing Debt 2006 Planned New Debt: General Obligation 1 Excise Tax 2 Total General Purpose Streets Existing Debt: 1993A General Obligation 1995 General Obligation 1997 General Obligation 1998 General Obligation 1998A General Obligation 2001A General Obligation 2002A General Obligation 2002R General Obligation 2003 General Obligation 2004R General Obligation 2004 General Obligation 2005 General Obligation Total Existing Debt 2006 Planned New Debt: General Obligation Total Streets Rio Salado (CFD) Existing Debt: 2003 Rio Salado Refunding Total Rio Salado (CFD) Outstanding Direct 7-1-05 Principal $895,000 $475,000 Direct Interest Fiscal Agent 2005-06 Total Payments Requirements $3,850,000 4,000,000 5,600,000 4,000,000 4,035,000 10,500,000 5,110,000 3,300,000 4,330,000 3,215,000 10,860,000 4,630,000 3,215,000 6,935,000 73,580,000 $46,960 40,000 $521,960 30,000 379,988 222,208 540,055 794,300 650,766 260,700 330,919 109,130 832,763 382,875 255,838 528,797 5,840,299 1,680,000 765,000 3,170,000 7,695,000 2,320,000 2,905,000 3,900,000 2,215,000 10,165,000 4,450,000 3,125,000 6,935,000 50,220,000 285,000 180,000 390,000 445,000 540,000 115,000 155,000 10,000 410,000 200,000 115,000 230,000 3,550,000 84,988 42,208 150,055 349,300 110,760 145,700 175,919 99,130 422,763 182,875 140,838 298,797 2,250,293 23,698,192 20,000,000 117,278,192 23,698,192 20,000,000 93,918,192 755,407 630,874 4,936,281 1,066,419 920,000 4,236,712 40,000 1,821,826 1,550,874 9,212,999 4,800,000 9,400,000 4,500,000 3,390,000 9,500,000 6,700,000 3,670,000 2,755,000 8,860,000 6,130,000 3,935,000 6,340,000 48,215,000 2,580,000 2,815,000 865,000 2,665,000 6,965,000 5,905,000 3,310,000 1,905,000 8,860,000 5,945,000 3,825,000 6,340,000 40,330,000 475,000 475,000 200,000 330,000 405,000 235,000 130,000 10,000 360,000 185,000 140,000 210,000 2,275,000 137,015 142,388 47,675 126,168 316,125 296,123 149,350 85,225 368,650 247,238 172,225 273,176 1,725,446 612,388 617,388 247,675 456,168 721,125 531,123 279,350 95,225 728,650 432,238 312,225 483,176 4,000,446 1,642,363 71,622,363 1,642,363 53,622,363 52,352 3,207,352 73,906 2,435,264 126,258 5,642,989 39,275,000 39,275,000 36,570,000 36,570,000 1,395,000 1,395,000 1,692,228 1,692,228 3,087,228 3,087,228 $30,000 10,000 Original Issue Performing Arts Existing Debt: 2004 Excise Tax 2006 Planned New Debt: Excise Tax Total Performing Arts Golf Enterprise Outstanding 7-1-05 Direct Principal Direct Interest Fiscal 2005-06 Agent Total Payments Requirements 37,595,000 36,095,000 1,695,000 1,831,888 3,526,888 22,228,912 63,000,000 22,218,912 63,000,000 1,061,543 2,441,266 1,022,530 3,224,001 2,084,073 5,665,267 1,400,000 275,000 135,000 23,015 158,015 50,000 50,000 1,577 2,300 3,877 1,450,000 325,000 136,577 25,315 161,892 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 44,161 44,161 64,400 64,400 108,561 108,561 8,655,000 4,610,000 905,000 244,723 1,149,723 1995 General Obligation 11,300,000 3,390,000 575,000 171,513 746,513 1997 General Obligation 6,000,000 1,160,000 265,000 63,888 328,888 1998 General Obligation 5,330,000 4,195,000 520,000 198,590 718,590 1998A General Obligation 17,500,000 12,820,000 745,000 581,925 1,326,925 2001A General Obligation 14,000,000 12,330,000 485,000 618,288 1,103,288 2002A General Obligation 14,000,000 12,620,000 505,000 569,263 1,074,263 2002R General Obligation 5,075,000 3,535,000 20,000 158,120 178,120 25,100,000 23,500,000 950,000 977,825 1,927,825 8,015,000 7,690,000 325,000 316,438 641,438 2004 General Obligation 12,750,000 12,390,000 460,000 558,288 1,018,288 2005 General Obligation 39,150,000 39,150,000 1,300,000 1,686,574 2,986,574 166,875,000 137,390,000 7,055,000 6,145,435 13,200,435 73,798,544 73,798,544 2,310,355 3,381,494 5,691,849 240,673,544 211,188,544 9,365,355 9,526,929 18,892,284 Existing Debt: 1993 Tempe Municipal Property Corporation 2006 Planned New Debt: Excise Tax Obligations Total Golf Enterprise Cemetery Enterprise 2006 Planned New Debt: Excise Tax Obligations Total Cemetery Enterprise Water/Wastewater Enterprise Existing Debt: 1993A General Obligation 2003 General Obligation 2004R General Obligation Total Existing Debt 2006 Planned New Debt: Water/Wastewater Debt 3 Total Water/Wastewater TOTAL ALL ISSUES $534,699,099 $460,024,099 $21,525,992 $21,204,849 1 Includes $7,315,950 of previously authorized, unissued debt. 2 Includes $10,000,000 of previously authorized, unissued debt. 3 Includes $23,200,000 of previously authorized, unissued debt. $40,000 $42,771,220 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. For FY 2005-06, the City raised the levy rate to $1.40 to increase debt capacity for public safety capital improvement projects. $ Millions Millio ns 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 6 '9 59 ' 7 '9 69 ' 8 '9 79 ' 9 '9 89 ' 0 '0 99 ' 1 '0 00 ' Primary Tax Levy 2 '0 10 ' 3 '0 20 ' 4 '0 30 ' 5 '0 40 ' 6 '0 50 ' Secondary Tax Levy Fiscal Year Primary Secondary Total Tax Rate/ $100 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 8,313,398 13,059,814 21,373,212 1.35 2004-05* 8,768,091 14,517,177 23,285268 1.35 2005-06* 9,413,934 16,707,531 26,121,465 1.40 * Amounts reflect estimated receipts. Citywide Overview Total Operating Budget and Debt Service 2003-04 Actual Budget Data $252,461,143 Operating Budget Cost Per Capita $1,582 2004-05 Budget $260,131,518 11,666,989 $73 2005-06 Budget $1,618 $249,794,666 $1,553 $275,297,746 $1,703 2.3% (1.2%) 5.3% 13,478,666 $84 15.5% 13,278,518 $83 13.8% 14,411,213 $90 7.1% % Change (cost per capita) Debt Service* Cost Per Capita % Change (cost per capita) 2004-05 Revised * Tax-Supported Total Operating Revenue by Source 2003-04 Actual Source 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget $120,011,327 $125,500,350 Debt Service Fund 11,666,989 13,478,666 13,278,518 14,411,213 Transportation/Transit Funds 31,057,297 40,454,381 38,316,196 39,775,792 CDBG/Section 8 Funds 11,143,513 11,712,361 11,712,361 11,731,640 974,644 15,389,165 50,764,316 $241,007,250 1,498,862 6,479,332 61,007,567 $260,131,518 General Fund Rio Salado Fund Performing Arts Fund Enterprise Funds Total $124,641,296 $138,273,504 1,082,118 1,551,834 3,996,475 6,868,730 56,771,702 62,685,033 $249,798,665 $275,297,746 Staffing Summaries Citywide: Full-Time Authorized Positions Source Total Personnel Employees/1,000 Population % Change (Employees/1,000 Population) 2002-03 Actual 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget 1,692 1,643 1,645 1,693 10.6 10.3 10.2 10.5 (2.8%) (1.0%) 2.9% Program Budget at a Glance Historically, Environmental Health has always consumed the largest share of program expenditures. For FY 2005-06, Environmental Health represents 27% of the budget, reflecting funding for plant capacity expansions for water and wastewater facilities. Transportation constitutes 25% of total program expenditures, reflecting the commitment to construct the transit light rail project. $ Millions ($) Millions 600 Population Population(Thousands) (Thousands) & & & & & & & & & & 170 150 500 130 400 110 90 300 70 50 200 30 100 10 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 General Services Development Services Public Safety Environmental Health Community Services Transportation Population 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Historically, the majority of resources have been earmarked for Environmental Health. Program (Thousands) FYE 97 FYE 98 FYE 99 FYE 00 FYE 01 FYE 02 FYE 03 FYE 04 FYE 05 FYE 06 General Services $25,881 $25,096 $25,138 $27,024 $28,427 $44,517 $37,819 $44,547 $43,779 $40,785 Development Services 20,172 29,563 37,949 20,483 21,842 35,036 21,958 20,287 21,659 23,454 Public Safety 44,271 49,853 50,509 58,040 63,479 66,277 66,618 70,515 72,421 89,998 Environmental Health 53,542 64,665 64,472 72,022 69,586 73,406 127,686 76,678 110,865 124,395 Community Services 32,027 32,982 32,138 43,320 36,232 37,070 37,544 56,500 45,126 70,547 Transportation 20,032 44,186 67,905 62,624 50,508 63,251 67,055 62,389 65,461 116,090 $195,925 $246,345 $278,111 $319,557 $358,680 $330,916 Total $283,513 $270,074 $359,311 $465,269 Per Capita 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 2005-06, the total per capita cost is $2,879. In this fiscal year, for every $1 of expenditure, 27¢ is earmarked for Environmental Health, 25¢ for Transportation and the remainder for Public Safety, Community Services, and Development Services. Environmental Health and Transportation represent the greatest areas of expense. Environmental compliance modifications and additional treatment plant capacity continue to impact enterprise operations resulting in increasing water and wastewater costs. The increase in Transportation is primarily due to construction of a light rail transit corridor. FY 2005-06 Community Services $432 General Services $259 Public Safety $547 Development Services $144 Transportation $720 Environmental Health $777 Per Capita Expenditures Program General Services FY 2005-06 $259 Percentage of Total 9% Development Services 144 5% Public Safety 547 19% Environmental Health 777 27% Community Services 432 15% Transportation 720 25% $2,879 100% Total Per Capita Expenditures Program By Fund Summary Environmental Health represents the greatest expense, primarily attributed to capacity expansion projects and water/wastewater improvements. Transportation, the second greatest expense, reflects the engineering and construction of the light rail transit corridor. FY 2005-06 Fund General General Services $25, 166,159 Rio Salado Development Services Public Safety $9,484,537 $75,890,227 Environmental Community Health Services Transportation Total $430,606 $25,451,975 $1,850,000 $138,273,504 376,436 1,551,834 1,175,398 HURF 8,656,870 8,656,870 Transit 31,118,922 31,118,922 Debt Service 14,411,213 14,411,213 Performing Arts 6,868,730 6,868,730 Golf 2,071,538 2,071,538 Solid Waste 12,602,968 12,602,968 Water Utilities 47,720,279 47,720,279 CDBG/Section 8 11,731,640 11,731,604 Cemetery Total Operating Capital Improvements 290,248 290,248 39,577,372 22,391,575 75,890,227 60,753,853 35,058,927 41,625,792 275,297,746 1,208,389 1,062,750 14,107,614 63,640,688 35,488,009 74,464,253 189,971,703 TOTAL PROGRAM $40,785,761 $23,454,325 $89,997,841 $124,394,541 $70,546,936 $116,090,045 $465,269,449 Program By Department Summary FY 2005-06 Department Mayor & Council City Manager Community Relations City Clerk General Services Development Services Public Safety Environmental Community Transportation Health Services Total $386,716 $386,716 307,987 307,987 2,556,094 2,556,094 726,757 726,757 City Court 3,759,540 Human Resources 2,461,483 City Attorney 2,453,274 Financial Services 4,102,465 Diversity Program 558,314 Internal Audit 453,147 Development Services Community Development 3,759,540 2,461,483 338,578 2,791,852 4,102,465 558,314 Public Works represents 32% of the total General Services program, while Police comprises 70% of the total Public Safety program budget. 453,147 4,795,089 4,795,089 16,130,966 16,130,966 Police 53,475,942 53,475,942 Fire 18,654,745 18,654,745 Community Services 14,782,981 Water Utilities Public Works TOTAL DEPT Non-Departmental 14,782,891 28,935,590 5,645,562 1,465,520 19,651,799 22,391,575 75,890,227 28,935,590 13,033,574 14,768,649 37,347,560 42,307,742 29,551,630 37,347,560 227,140,533 4,288,296 72,260,865 4,288,296 Debt Service 14,411,213 17,446,111 5,130,861 3,829,000 40,817,185 Contingency 1,226,064 1,000,000 376,436 449,232 3,051,732 TOTAL OPERATING Capital Improvements TOTAL PROGRAM 39,557,372 22,391,575 75,890,227 60,753,853 35,058,927 41,625,792 275,297,746 1,208,389 1,062,750 14,107,614 63,640,688 35,488,009 74,464,253 189,971,703 $89,997,841 $124,394,541 $70,546,936 $108,633,477 $465,269,449 $40,785,761 $23,454,325 Impact of Total Budget on Residents The City maintains three utility services for water, sewer, and solid waste. For FY 2005-06, an increase in solid waste rates has been approved and is effective November 1, 2005. Water and sewer 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 The property tax rate for FY 2005-06 will increase by $.05 to $1.40/$100 assessed valuation. This increase is primarily earmarked for debt service requirements for the new Police/ City Radio System Replacement and the new Police CAD/RMS/FRWS System in the Capital Improvements Program. The primary tax rate is $0.52 and the secondary tax rate is $0.88. Utility Charges for Services Water/Sewer Effective November 1, 2004, water rates increased by 4%, sewer rates increased by 7.5%, and irrigation rates increased by 9%. Pending Council approval, 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. Solid Waste A fee adjustment to solid waste rates will take effect on November 1, 2005. The rate for residential services will increase by 9.5%, while commercial services will increase by 7.5%. Our last fee adjustment of 9.5% for residential rates and 7.5% for commercial rates was implemented August 1, 2004. Utility Charges for Services (monthly) 1 Local Taxes 1 Fiscal Year Sales Tax Property Tax Water Sewer Solid Waste 2004-05 1.8% $1.35 $21.29 $12.45 $15.29 $1.40 $22.15 $13.38 $15.29 2005-06 1.8% Charges reflect rates effective July 1. Personnel Summary: Ten Year History The number of full-time employees, which does not include permanent full-time equivalents or temporary full-time equivalents, for fiscal year 2005-06 totals 1,693, a 2.9% increase from the FY 200405 budget. Total employees per 1,000 population for 2005-06 is estimated at 10.48, a 2.4% increase from the previous fiscal year. The increase in personnel can primarily be attributed to the hiring of additional police officers, and to positions requested in conjunction with the opening of the new Tempe Center for the Arts. Full-time Employees Per 1,000 Population 2000 12 10 1500 8 The total number of full-time employees has increased from 1,460 to 1,693 from 1997 to 2006 for a 16% increase. During that same period the number of employees per 1,000 population rose by 11%. 1000 500 6 4 2 0 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Fiscal Year Full Time Employees Per 1,000 Population Fiscal Year-End Full- Time Employees Employees Per 1,000 Population 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 10.29 2005 1,645 10.23 2006 1,693 10.48 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 decisionmaking. It includes long-range forecasts of revenue and expenditures, issues, trends, resource choices for all funds, and the debt management program. Comprehensive Financial Plan Overview Introduction The Comprehensive Financial Plan, first published in March 1991, is a vital component of Tempe’s financial management strategy. Its purpose is to provide a five-year perspective on the financial condition of each of the City’s appropriated funds. As a planning tool it provides a long-range context for short-term budgetary decisions. 2004. This balance represents 27.4% of FY 2003-04 total General Fund revenue (25% is the guideline used by the City as an optimum fund balance level according to the City’s financial policy). Self-insurance reserve of $8.8 million (considered adequately protected from potential liability claims). Study Approach Restricted debt service reserves of $13.3 million, sufficient to absorb debt obligations over the next five years. 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 2004-2005 through fiscal year 2008-09. Water/Wastewater fund balance of $67 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 funds. The City enjoys bond ratings of: "AAA" Fitch, "AA+" Standard and Poor's "Aa1" Moody's Operating funds examined include: • • • • • • • • General Fund Transit Fund Transportation Fund Performing Arts Fund Water/Wastewater Fund Solid Waste Fund Golf Fund Rio Salado and Comm. Fac. Dist Funds Not included in this forecast is the Cemetery Fund as it had not been established at the time of the forecast. Major Study Findings Highlights of the major findings and conclusions from the long-range financial study follow: The City continues to have strong fund balances and reserves. This is best depicted by the following: Unrestricted fund balance in the General Fund totaled $34.5 million as of June 30, Previously, revenue growth and operating surpluses in the General Fund have allowed the City to address high priority needs in the Capital Improvements Program with pay-as-you-go financing. For the current fiscal year, the General Fund shows a balanced budget with revenue equaling expenses, thus eliminating pay-as-yougo financing. The successful transit tax proposal in September 1996, increasing the sales and use tax rate by one half of one percent, is forecasted to 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. Our projection is for continued reductions in our percentage share of state revenue 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. The Water/Wastewater fund will most likely require rate adjustments to occur in the near term, 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. Over the next five years further adjustments will be necessary to meet the fiscal impact of water/wastewater compliance and sewer capacity demands. These costs are driven primarily by federally mandated modifications at the regionally shared 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant, and the need for increased sewage processing capacity, and other compliance required improvements. 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. The Golf Fund faces unique challenges as valley courses vie for golfers. These challenges may require a look at options beyond rate adjustments to ensure fund solvency in the future. Forecast Methodology Forecasting as used in this report refers to the estimating of the future values of revenue 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 revenue. For example, a revenue such as the city sales tax will reflect consensus forecasts related to taxable sales growth. Other revenue, 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 revenue 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 as well as including new operational and debt service 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 general approach to forecasting is to apply a conservative philosophy that does not overstate revenue nor understate expenditures. We recognize that economic forecasting is not an exact science and at times relies upon the professional judgment of the forecaster. To reduce the risks of miscalculating revenue or expenditures, we attempt to identify as many factors as possible that may contribute to changes in revenue 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 revenue and expenditures. commercial and residential rent (16%), utility sales (8%), 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. Population Following the strong population growth period of the late 1970's (5.3%) and the 1980's (2.8%), Tempe experienced steady but considerably slower growth. This trend is expected to continue as the City land use approaches build out. Population in Tempe is assumed to increase by Thousands Tempe Population 180 In the graph, General Fund retail sales steadily increased until the nationwide economic Tempe Taxable Sales $ Billions 6.0 5.0 4.8 5.0 5.3 5.1 5.2 5.0 5.3 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 4.2 1996-97 2.0 4.0 1995-96 3.0 1997-98 4.0 5.8 0.0 2004-05 1.0 slowdown in FY 2001-02 through FY 2002-03. Sales that generate tax revenue for the City, had a widespread impact on many funds. The primary categories of sales (based on FY 200405 annual averages) are retail sales (54%), 160 140 120 100 142 80 40 154 156 161 107 60 64 Population increased from 64,000 in 1970 to 161,000 in 2005 2005 2000 1995 1990 0 1980 20 1970 Tempe Taxable Sales Taxable sales in Tempe had steadily increased until the 2001-03 national downturn in the economy. The City took proactive steps to encourage new development. This has resulted in our highest taxable sales to date. As the table below shows, taxable sales in FY 2004-05 were $5.8 billion (45%) higher than total taxable sales in FY 1995-96. 0.05% over the forecast period. In contrast state population growth is assumed to average 2.7% per year over the next five years. This disparity is significant in that several major revenue categories are dependent upon Tempe’s population as a percentage of the state. Continued population growth statewide and in Maricopa County in particular has been credited for much of the increased state revenue 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 2005 Special Census. Our long-range revenue forecasts reflect these economic assumptions and the estimated impact of the Census. 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. After the 1997 peak, building permit activity for 2006 is expected to decline. While we expect redevelopment efforts to sustain some level of construction activity, we have conservatively assumed a level of growth equivalent to the Building Permits 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,429 1,148 1,313 1,267 1,242 2001-02 1,882 1,717 2000-01 1,000 2,532 2,038 1,984 2004-05 2003-04 2002-03 1999-00 1998-99 1997-98 1996-97 0 1995-96 500 projected rate of population growth. State-Shared Revenue For purposes of the forecast, we have assumed that State law related to shared revenue distributions will remain unchanged. It should be noted that all state shared revenue is at the discretion of the state legislature. The last state-share cut affected FY 2001-02 revenue and resulted in a $3.5 million reduction in stateshared revenue for Tempe. The forecast reflects this loss and its impact on subsequent years. The temptation to tap state-shared revenue may persist over the next five years. Therefore our assumption that state revenue distribution formulas will not change may prove to be overly optimistic as the state is faced with the task of balancing its budget. 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 1990-91 through FY 199495, Tempe experienced a decline in assessed valuation resulting from a countywide decrease in assessed valuations reflective of the general decline in the real estate market and a methodological change from a "cost" to an "incomes" approach by the county assessor for valuing commercial real estate. In FY 1999-00, Tempe's secondary assessed valuation was up by 12.9%, following 10.6% growth the prior year. This trend has slowed to 8.2% in FY 2004-05. In November 1999, the Maricopa County Assessor’s Office implemented a two-year cycle of valuations of residential, vacant land, and agricultural properties. As a result, property tax revenue spikes every two years. Consistent with the City's Debt Management Plan, the forecast assumes an annual increase from 4.0% to 5.0% in valuation. 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 3.0% for the forecast period. Some planned, short-term drawdowns of cash balances may occur periodically over the period of the forecast, Valuation Millions reducing interestAssessed earnings. 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 $1,099 FY -9 95 6 FY 96 $1,370 $1,473 $1,520 $993 $913 $888 $1,240 7 -9 FY 97 -9 8 FY 98 9 -9 FY 99 0 -0 FY -0 00 1 FY 01 2 -0 FY 02 -0 3 Financial Overview Fiscal Year 1996-97 Operating Budget $162,042,739 Capital Budget $35,466,698 Total Budget $197,509,437 1997-98 174,865,699 79,717,004 254,582,703 1998-99 190,459,638 87,651,929 278,111,567 1999-00 197,926,204 85,587,326 283,513,530 2000-01 222,169,282 67,408,152 289,577,434 2001-02 234,015,370 85,541,430 319,556,800 2002-03 232,846,185 95,318,794 328,164,979 2003-04 247,565,261 117,968,707 365,533,968 2004-05 260,131,518 176,983,222 437,114,740 2005-06 275,297,746 189,971,703 465,269,449 Major funding sources include $98.2 million in local taxes (sales and property), $38.2 million of intergovernmental revenue, $61.0 million of enterprise revenue, and $70.6 million of special revenue (Transit, Performing Arts, Highway User, Lottery, Rio Salado, Community Development Block Grant and Section 8 Housing). Total budgeted revenue for FY 2005-06 is $465.3 million, with operating revenue of $287.2 million and the remainder from other capital funding sources. General Governmental revenue accounts for $155.7 million of the total operating revenue. Enterprise and special revenue represents the remainder of total operating revenue, most of which derives from water/ wastewater service charges and user fees. Operating Budget 500 Capital Budget 400 300 200 2005-06 2004-05 2003-04 2002-03 2001-02 2000-01 1999-00 0 1998-99 100 1997-98 The FY 2005-06 budget of $465.3 million provides for a $275.3 million operating budget and a $190.0 million capital budget. The operating budget includes $152.7 million of general governmental operations, $62.7 million of enterprise operations (Water/Wastewater, Solid Waste, Cemetery, and Golf) and $59.9 million of special revenue operations (Transportation, Transit, Performing Arts, Redevelopment, and Housing). $ Millions 1996-97 The following financial overview provides a summary of revenue, expenditure, and historical budget trends. Summary overviews of appropriations and revenue provide a base reference for the fund specific forecast models that follow. A ten year history of budget trends is depicted in the following graph. Major Expenditure Assumptions and Economic Outlook Salaries and Wages On the expenditure side, we have assumed salary and wage market adjustments in the FY 2005-06 projection but no future adjustments for the later years. Any planning for the next several years must recognize the importance of compensation because of its significant long term expenditure impact. For example, every one percent change in compensation has an estimated expenditure impact of $850,000 to the General Fund and another $213,600 to the Special and 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. future impacts of new programs are not included. However, projects approved in the prior year Capital Budget are included in the out years of the forecast. Fringe Benefits Health insurance costs are forecasted to increase on average 14.0% for the next five years. Market forces, the movement towards managed care, and an excellent claims history had temporarily moderated the City’s health care costs, but we are now seeing a resumption of growth in excess of general inflation, much of which is derived from higher claims costs. Economic Outlook Our expectation is that health care costs will rise at a rate exceeding the overall Consumer Price Index. Retiree health care cost will continue to rise as our work force matures and greater percentages of employees retire. Inflation (Consumer Price Index) Inflation is expected to fluctuate from 1.75% to 2.50% in the later years of the forecast. Supplemental Limits As a result of the economic downturn, City revenue streams have been affected. For this budget forecast, no new programs were authorized, as our focus is to maintain basic services. 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. Since long-range planning takes place prior to the adoption of the Capital budget, State Expenditure Limitation The City's FY 2005-06 total financial program is estimated at $465.3 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 2005-06. 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 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 ($000) 170,000 150,000 130,000 110,000 90,000 Projected Actual 70,000 50,000 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 Revenue 99/00 00/01 Actual Actual 01/02 Actual 02/03 Actual 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 Expenditures 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 Actual Revised Projected Projected Projected Projected Revenue ($000) Local Taxes 68,567 72,207 66,344 66,841 71,455 75,308 Intergovernmental 36,055 37,490 33,927 35,536 34,076 34,761 Building & Planning 2,958 2,731 2,020 2,585 2,643 2,471 Cultural and Recreation 4,204 4,259 4,457 4,699 5,114 4,963 Fines, Fees and Forfeitures 4,778 4,490 4,577 5,510 5,831 5,829 Business Licenses 605 1,081 1,091 1,263 1,079 1,072 Interest Income 5,940 7,211 6,529 3,452 2,764 2,880 Franchise Fees 1,281 2,045 2,135 1,532 1,505 1,298 Other Revenue Sources 2,246 4,415 2,621 2,780 2,731 2,747 Total Revenue 126,635 135,929 123,702 124,199 127,198 131,328 77,918 38,240 2,395 4,979 5,771 1,091 3,569 1,329 2,637 137,928 80,418 82,886 87,443 35,912 37,706 39,301 2,407 2,419 2,431 5,004 5,029 5,054 5,800 5,829 5,858 1,091 1,091 1,091 3,676 3,796 3,929 1,379 1,426 1,471 2,662 2,683 2,710 138,348 142,864 149,288 Expenditures ($000) Personal Services Materials and Supplies Fees and Services Travel and Training Non-Departmental/Loan Capital Outlay Contingency Maintenance of Effort Internal Services/Adjust Total Expenditures 107,931 7,146 18,455 684 3,835 2,186 1,800 1,850 (5,959) 137,928 113,624 120,083 124,798 7,327 7,525 7,759 18,874 19,328 19,864 697 712 729 3,909 3,992 4,091 2,229 2,276 2,332 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,850 1,850 1,850 (5,989) (6,019) (6,049) 144,321 151,546 157,176 Net Operating Surplus/ (Deficit) 79,005 6,324 15,268 955 2,598 2,687 0 1,850 (10,063) 98,625 86,338 95,095 100,518 98,286 101,274 7,446 6,821 6,275 6,417 6,841 16,750 17,208 16,341 15,996 17,260 1,122 891 606 647 684 2,693 3,265 4,082 3,405 3,708 3,723 2,592 3,779 3,287 1,431 0 0 0 0 661 1,850 1,850 0 0 0 (7,565) (9,452) (5,369) (7,656) (6,557) 112,357 118,269 126,232 120,381 125,302 28,010 23,572 5,433 (2,033) 6,817 6,026 (0) (5,972) (8,682) (7,888) 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. In the beginning of the 2000s, annual operating surpluses started to decline again as revenue growth slowed resulting from a national downturn in the economy. In addition, our share of locally-distributed state income, sales and vehicle license tax revenue declined in FY 200102. Tempe’s declining percentage of statewide population has a direct impact on our state shared revenue, 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 2006-07. In the assumptions related to future revenue and expenditure growth, it appears that over the longterm, 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 revenue, which has come under attack in recent years and may be at risk 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 revenue. Close monitoring of the Legislature's efforts to alter the distribution formulas for stateshared revenue or to enact laws that may narrow the local tax base will be required. Policy choices made now regarding annual supplemental limits will have a significant impact on the long-term condition of the General Fund. The forecast assumes 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 ten years ago to $34.5 million for FYE 2004. Over the next several years, we anticipate some drawdown of fund balances primarily for "pay-as-you-go" capital financing, bringing the General Fund balances in line with the financial policy of 25% of General Fund revenue. FYE 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 Unreserved Fund Balance 23,196,449 28,590,826 30,639,891 34,682,895 38,201,087 38,615,537 36,985,072 35,125,797 34,473,270 34,480,754 Transit Fund: Projected Revenue and Expenditures ($000) 80,000 70,000 60,000 Actual 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 Projected 10,000 0 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 Revenue 99/00 Actual Revenue ($000) Transit Tax Lottery Transfer In ASU-Flash Transit Interest Income Light Rail Fares Out of Jurisdiction Service Revenue FTA Light Rail Reimbursements Regional Transportation Fund Miscellaneous Revenue Total Revenue Expenditures ($000) Personal Services Materials and Supplies Fees and Services Travel and Training Capital Outlay Debt Service Internal Service Charges Indirect Cost Allocations Total Expenditures 00/01 Actual 01/02 Actual 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 Expenditures 02/03 Actual 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 Actual Revised Projected Projected Projected Projected 26,384 27,310 25,230 25,141 26,741 27,102 325 319 300 290 282 271 316 310 345 352 481 478 1,936 4,229 3,475 919 778 1,422 0 0 0 0 0 0 27,996 264 496 1,691 0 29,116 259 508 1,518 0 30,208 253 521 1,471 0 31,039 248 534 1,418 1,522 5,907 6,027 6,214 6,322 9,035 31,752 27,204 26,012 24,497 0 165 170 173 1,969 625 491 212 739 1,090 877 30,076 34,344 33,586 32,498 35,043 52,058 1,658 70,049 1,702 66,691 1,743 66,704 1,802 72,064 1,110 1,282 1,482 1,477 1,785 1,945 29 29 27 9 1,550 1,683 11,927 15,515 18,343 18,534 20,177 20,330 53 37 20 8 19 17 170 3 9 12 24 41 4,748 4,772 2,443 1 0 5,460 588 621 504 207 237 242 154 181 235 244 428 437 18,779 22,440 23,063 20,492 24,222 30,154 2,271 1,951 23,966 17 115 3,829 305 445 32,898 2,351 1,990 25,158 17 117 7,982 311 453 38,378 2,493 2,031 25,761 18 120 9,469 317 463 40,673 2,596 2,082 32,538 19 122 9,469 325 474 47,626 Net Operating Surplus/ 11,297 11,904 10,523 12,006 10,821 21,903 (Deficit) 37,151 28,312 26,031 24,438 489 1,685 4,025 5,057 5,671 0 0 0 0 0 16,001 0 0 0 0 0 Transit Fund Trend/Forecast Since the transit tax is a component of the overall City sales tax, the growth trend projected in General Fund sales tax revenue is mirrored here in the Transit Fund. The projected increase in revenue growth in the later years of the forecast can be attributed to an increase in federal reimbursements received in conjunction with construction of the City’s light rail project. 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, the acquisition of new buses, and the implementation of a light rail system. The forecast is for planned fund surpluses from FY 2005-06 through FY 2008-09. 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 $47.6 million. FYE 97 Unreserved Fund Balance $8,552,661 98 18,437,544 99 19,946,528 00 20,958,629 01 29,318,960 02 40,943,760 03 04 48,999,032 42,109,647 Performing Arts Fund: Projected Revenue and Expenditures ($000) 10,000 9,000 8,000 Actual 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 Projected 2,000 1,000 0 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 Revenue 99/00 Actual 00/01 Actual 01/02 Actual 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 Expenditures 02/03 Actual 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 Actual Revised Projected Projected Projected Projected Revenue ($000) Performing Arts Tax Facility Revenue Interest Income Total Revenue 0 0 0 0 2,608 0 7 2,615 5,006 0 202 5,208 5,010 0 112 5,123 5,280 0 98 5,378 5,420 0 238 5,658 5,600 0 282 5,881 5,824 440 332 6,596 6,042 456 322 6,820 6,208 473 289 6,970 Expenses ($000) Personal Services Materials and Supplies Fees and Services Travel and Other Capital Outlay Debt Service Internal Service Charges Indirect Cost Allocations Total Expenses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 3 17 108 0 0 2 0 147 112 2 4 10 0 0 6 0 134 145 1 11 4 0 1,204 8 0 1,373 203 1 43 2 0 1,234 22 0 1,504 314 2 130 9 0 3,521 20 0 3,997 685 23 215 9 1,500 4,815 280 0 7,527 1,535 24 238 9 500 5,611 150 0 8,067 1,603 24 246 9 0 5,604 150 0 7,636 1,654 25 256 9 0 5,606 150 0 7,699 Net Operating Surplus/ (Deficit) 0 2,468 5,074 3,750 3,874 1,661 (1,646) (1,471) (816) (729) Performing Arts Fund Trend/Forecast The Performing Arts Fund receives revenue from the Performing Arts Tax. This tax, which represents 0.1% of retail taxable sales and is collected as a portion of the City Sales Tax, was approved by voters in January 2001. Monies received from this tax are dedicated to the construction and operating expenses of the Tempe Center for the Arts. Since the performing arts tax is a component of the overall City sales tax, the growth trend projected in General Fund sales tax revenue is mirrored in the Performing Arts Fund. The expenditure growth pattern reflects the opening of the Tempe Center for the Arts (TCA) in the spring of 2006. Beginning in FY 2005-06, 16 new full-time positions, and related capital equipment will be added to prepare for the fulltime operation of the TCA. These costs represent the operating impacts of this capital project as identified in prior years’ Capital Improvement Programs. As the rate of expenditure growth outpaces revenue from FY 2005-06 through FY 2008-09, the projected level of expenditures relies on drawing down fund balance. A large part of this deficit condition during the forecast period is the result of capital equipment purchases in FY 200506 and FY 2006-07. Due to the one-time nature of these purchases, the deficit is expected to continue but not grow. FYE 02 03 04 Unreserved Fund Balance 7,116,094 10,865,891 14,339,689 Transportation Funds: Projected Revenue and Expenditures ($000 ) 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 Projected 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 Actual 500 0 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 Revenue 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 Expenditures 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Revised Projected Projected Projected Projected Revenue ($000) Highway User Revenue Tax State Lottery Proceeds Maintenance of Effort Transfer Lottery Transfer to Transit Total Revenue 9,854 10,286 10,985 900 870 846 11,161 821 11,939 799 10,641 783 11,147 768 11,679 752 1,850 1,850 1,850 0 0 (325) (319) (300) (287) (282) 13,575 13,713 12,453 10,869 11,549 0 (271) 11,711 1,850 (264) 14,324 1,850 (259) 13,016 1,850 (253) 13,512 1,850 (248) 14,033 Expenditures ($000) Personal Services Materials and Supplies Fees and Services Capital Outlay Debt Service Loan Repayment Internal Service Charges Indirect Cost Allocations Total Expenditures 3,141 3,270 3,326 3,540 523 578 448 448 1,434 1,506 1,545 1,465 254 539 159 204 4,000 4,722 4,500 4,000 356 356 356 356 1,586 618 681 640 978 1,152 1,078 1,109 12,273 12,742 12,094 11,765 3,470 433 1,460 503 2,000 310 883 682 9,756 3,809 441 1,605 274 2,000 310 978 746 10,162 4,093 469 1,686 370 3,750 310 1,110 619 12,407 4,241 478 1,755 378 3,750 310 1,132 631 12,674 4,500 488 1,830 385 3,750 310 1,155 645 13,063 4,689 500 1,916 395 3,750 310 1,184 661 13,405 1,793 1,549 1,917 342 449 628 Net Operating Surplus/ (Deficit) 11,074 11,225 976 958 1,302 971 360 (896) 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 revenue 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 forecast period, limited resources will be available to address transportation capital project needs. One approach now in place to minimize operating deficits is to cap debt service at payments of $3.75 million for three years beginning in FY 2005-06. Any excess General Obligation debt service requirements beyond this cap will be absorbed by the Debt Service Fund during the three year period. 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 03 04 Unreserved Fund Balance $3,686,673 3,300,576 3,326,715 4,092,879 5,792,212 7,592,808 8,444,881 9,254,027 7,325,855 8,010,238 Water/Wastewater Fund: Projected Revenue and Expenses ($000) 60,000 55,000 50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 Actual Actual 25,000 20,000 99-00 00-01 01-02 Projected 02-03 03-04 04-05 Revenue 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 Expenses 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Revised Projected Projected Projected Projected 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 Revenue ($000) Charges for Service-Water 25,950 24,263 25,051 25,669 26,183 27,361 28,052 28,191 28,330 28,470 Charges for ServiceWastewater Interest Income 18,437 754 17,000 17,281 15,841 16,958 16,857 17,633 18,163 18,254 18,345 3,328 4,921 3,665 886 942 1,004 886 889 849 Land and Facility Rental 495 500 515 520 520 520 520 520 520 520 Loan Repayment 362 342 321 299 146 130 114 97 79 57 2,589 115 1,931 477 242 61 61 61 62 62 49,724 47,422 47,324 44,808 44,890 46,710 47,796 48,012 48,185 48,300 Other Miscellaneous Rev. Total Revenue Expenses ($000) Personal Services 7,623 7,777 8,887 9,552 11,234 11,843 12,405 12,876 13,660 Materials and Supplies 1,995 1,632 1,704 1,378 2,431 1,492 Fees and Services 7,885 8,961 9,411 8,777 10,850 10,539 11,219 10,766 11,125 11,528 79 90 111 80 109 Depreciation Expense Share of 91st Avenue Depreciation Debt Srvc Intrst/Fiscal Agent Fees Internal Service Charges 8,605 8,135 8,181 9,009 3,096 (1,630) 1,875 3,831 1,420 3,967 1,488 Indirect Cost Allocations 2,269 2,684 Travel and Training 1,650 1,732 84 2,335 83 2,381 84 14,233 86 88 9,240 9,910 12,072 12,026 12,029 15,426 1,764 1,482 1,482 1,482 1,482 1,482 4,212 1,356 3,915 1,354 4,750 1,388 7,553 1,485 7,881 10,311 11,695 1,575 1,606 1,640 12,922 1,681 3,155 2,588 1,876 2,870 1,828 1,482 1,903 1,951 Total Expenses 36,804 33,104 38,892 38,417 42,579 47,496 50,880 53,395 56,050 61,801 Net Operating Surplus/ (Deficit) 12,920 14,318 8,432 6,391 2,311 1,864 (786) (3,084) (5,383) (7,865) (13,500) 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 latest water and sewer rate increase went into effect November 1, 2004. However, the need for further rate adjustments in the water and sewer service areas will be reviewed annually. A new rate structure may have the effect of encouraging customers to reduce discharges or at least alter the strengths of discharges, both of which could substantially reduce revenue. Such changes should produce reductions in the City's shared cost of operating the 91st Avenue facility, although those reductions may not mirror revenue losses. Thus, the long-term outlook for this fund could change substantially depending to large extent on 91st Avenue costs. As the long-range forecast predicts, the Water/ Wastewater Fund has entered a deficit condition in FY 2004-05. This fund could continue to operate under a deficit condition through FY 2008-09 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. 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 During the early 1990’s, there was a drawdown of Water/Wastewater Fund balances resulting from pay-as-you-go financing for infrastructure improvements. These fund balances have since been built back up to $67 million at FYE 04. Over the period of this forecast, healthy fund balances should be retained, notwithstanding the impact of compliance driven contingencies. The $67 million fund balance provides 154% or 562 days of coverage to operating expenses in this fund, providing a degree of flexibility likely to be required in the future. FYE 95 Unreserved Retained Earnings 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 59,841,408 03 04 65,158,188 66,963,366 Solid Waste Fund: Projected Revenue and Expenses ($000) 14,000 13,000 12,000 11,000 10,000 9,000 8,000 Actual Projected 7,000 6,000 5,000 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 Revenue 02/03 Actual 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 Expenses 99/00 Actual 00/01 Actual 01/02 Actual 03/04 Actual 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 Revised Projected Projected Projected Projected 9,407 9,595 9,771 10,460 10,870 11,758 12,564 13,000 13,094 Sludge Disposal 123 92 208 37 145 90 95 96 96 97 Interest Income 100 71 36 3 9 27 31 30 32 32 Other Revenue Sources 193 24 11 49 0 224 120 0 0 0 9,823 9,782 10,026 10,549 11,024 12,099 12,810 13,126 13,222 13,317 3,029 3,206 3,332 3,516 3,899 3,960 4,157 4,231 4,498 4,700 342 322 341 246 227 169 188 192 196 201 Fees and Services 2,875 3,192 3,244 3,159 3,266 3,349 3,529 3,624 3,723 3,825 Depreciation 1,206 1,390 869 919 903 986 1,125 1,177 1,162 1,213 137 137 137 137 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,616 1,749 1,680 1,641 1,699 2,086 2,136 2,178 2,224 2,279 708 661 706 610 918 997 646 659 672 689 9,913 10,658 10,310 10,230 10,912 11,548 11,780 12,060 12,475 12,907 Revenue ($000) Charges for Services Total Revenue 13,189 Expenses ($000) Personal Services Materials and Supplies Loan RepaymentInterest Only Internal Service/Adj. Indirect Cost Allocations Total Expenses Net Operating Surplus (90) (876) (284) 319 112 551 1,030 1,066 747 410 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 August 1, 2004. An additional rate increase has been approved by the Mayor and Council and will be effective November 1, 2005. These rate increases have eliminated the deficit condition in the Solid Waste fund. Furthermore, it appears that there will continue to be a surplus in this fund over the projected forecast period. Solid waste rates will be subject to annual rate reviews to ensure that the fund remains fully selfsufficient and to smooth the effect of potential rate adjustments on the City’s residential and commercial customers. Unreserved Retained Earnings There is a $1,138,305 fund balance in the Solid Waste fund, providing 9.9% coverage to estimated FY 2004-05 expenses of $11.5 million. With environmental mandates always present, this enterprise operation will require as much financial flexibility as possible for contingent compliance driven costs. FYE 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 Unreserved Retained Earnings $1,542,782 1,135,131 1,623,386 1,979,294 2,168,155 1,162,872 451,358 20,065 469,027 1,138,305 Golf Fund: Projected Revenue and Expenses ($000) 3,000 2,800 2,600 2,400 2,200 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 Actual Projected 1,200 1,000 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 Revenue 99/00 Actual 00/01 Actual 01/02 Actual 02/03 Actual 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 Expenses 03/04 Actual 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 Revised Projected Projected Projected Projected Revenue ($000) Greens Fees Pro Shop/Restaurant Interest Income Other Revenue Sources Total Revenue 1,942 284 86 (20) 2,292 1,838 229 92 0 2,160 1,774 350 33 0 2,157 1,850 76 12 0 1,938 1,801 219 8 0 2,028 1,850 210 12 0 2,072 1,850 210 13 0 2,073 1,859 211 11 0 2,081 1,869 212 9 0 2,090 1,878 213 9 0 2,100 Expenses ($000) Personal Services Materials and Supplies Fees and Services Depreciation Debt Service Interest Internal Service Charges Indirect Cost Allocations Total Expenses 834 188 326 354 55 134 229 2,120 888 229 320 313 49 150 237 2,185 941 214 355 374 44 223 291 2,442 1,006 283 321 370 38 140 278 2,436 1,057 271 314 364 32 109 206 2,354 1,106 149 422 345 23 140 210 2,396 974 192 371 358 16 111 188 2,210 1,034 196 380 453 79 114 191 2,447 1,089 200 390 467 166 116 195 2,624 1,141 205 403 498 162 119 200 2,727 Net Operating Surplus/ (Deficit) 172 (25) (285) (498) (326) (324) (137) (366) (534) (627) Golf Fund Trend/Forecast Over the forecast period, we expect revenue growth to generally follow the historical patterns, although other unpredictable factors such as weather conditions and competition from other courses in the Valley, may improve or worsen usage of the municipal golf courses. 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 are conducted of the Golf Fund. In addition, due to ongoing operating shortfalls, special attention has been given to operating cost reductions and review of contracts with Golf program vendors to ensure future fund viability. 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. Growth in the balance continued through FY 1998-99, at which point weakness in the golf industry combined with rising operating costs resulted in ongoing operating deficits. This balance built in the earlier years has provided some flexibility as solutions for future fund stability are sought. FYE 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 Unreserved Fund Balance 50,000 351,158 896,542 1,397,897 1,638,174 1,538,156 893,591 791,701 680,101 604,703 Rio Salado and Community Facilities (CFD) District Funds ($000) 4,500 4,000 3,500 Projected 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 Actual 500 0 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 Revenue 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 Expenditures 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Revised Projected Projected Projected Projected Revenue ($000) Sales Tax Property Tax Transient Lodging Tax Interest Revenue Sale of Real Estate Other Revenue CFD Revenue Total Revenue 583 0 109 473 888 333 173 2,559 734 693 0 0 60 89 628 451 267 0 38 36 166 171 1,894 1,440 390 40 123 133 0 36 230 953 341 62 136 135 0 74 226 975 353 68 140 130 789 60 277 1,817 365 68 143 100 0 60 292 1,028 376 71 146 100 0 60 294 1,048 389 74 149 100 0 60 295 1,067 400 77 152 100 0 60 297 1,086 Expenditures ($000) Personal Services Materials and Supplies Fees and Services Travel and Training Capital Outlay Internal Service Charges CFD Administrative Credit CFD Operating and Maintenance Total Expenditures 540 16 176 46 146 96 (440) 1,940 2,520 535 410 530 10 22 21 427 481 557 6 12 4 43 32 19 53 106 94 (420) (431) (411) 1,945 1,941 1,999 2,598 2,573 2,812 577 15 481 3 10 260 (365) 2,335 3,316 582 22 669 6 0 250 (448) 2,490 3,572 660 32 672 11 0 249 (448) 2,590 3,765 683 33 685 11 0 254 (457) 2,615 3,823 724 33 699 11 0 259 (467) 2,642 3,902 754 34 717 12 0 265 (478) 2,668 3,972 Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) 39 (704) (1,133) (1,859) (2,342) (1,755) (2,737) (2,776) (2,835) (2,886) Rio Salado and Community Facilities District Funds Trend/Forecast The 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. Urban development will increase both tax and property revenues. Future projects not included in the forecast are: • Hayden Ferry Lakeside, which broke ground on its first condominium tower. The 45 units are selling at prices between $250,000 and $2.5 million; • Mondrian condominiums are under construction; and • Northshore condominiums which are 75% sold. CFD revenue includes assessment collections from property owners and boat permits, concessions, and special event fees. Unreserved Fund Balance The unreserved fund balance reached a high of $5.2 million in FY 1998-99. The variation depicted in the unreserved fund balance is due to planned drawdowns to fund capital and land purchase costs. Although unreserved fund FYE 97 Unreserved Fund Balance $1,138,546 98 4,480,474 99 5,220,120 00 1,282,512 01 5,032,088 02 2,062,140 03 04 0 0 balance has been exhausted, the Rio Salado and Community Facilities District funds still have a designated fund balance of $8,759,029 for operating and maintenance costs. 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 fiscal challenges. Many recommendations are intended to adjust expenditure growth to keep the rate of expenditure growth in line with anticipated revenue growth. Expenditure Control/Supplemental Limits Decreasing personnel growth has the advantage of providing both near term benefits and longterm 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. Increase the Property Tax Rate Given the number of unfunded Capital Improvement Program projects, the City should increase its property tax rate by $0.05 to $1.40/ $100 of assessed value, earmarking the increase to debt service requirements of the new Police capital projects. The $0.05 change in the property tax rate increases the revenue by $950,000, capable of financing $7.0 million in projects over a 20 year period. 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 forecasts. Modified base budgets incorporate historical spending patterns, price adjustments, and long-range forecasts, thereby limiting budgetary growth within departments. Continue to Limit Midyear Adjustments Even as the City effectively manages supplemental additions through the normal 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. 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. Comprehensive Financial Plan The Comprehensive Financial Plan, along with the Debt Management Plan, have served as the cornerstones of the long-term fiscal strength of the City. We recommend a continued update of this financial capacity study to provide a longterm perspective to the policy decisions of today. 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. 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. Protect State-Shared Revenue It is recommended that we continue our efforts in coalition with the League of Arizona Cities and Towns to protect state-shared revenue. They are very likely to continue to be at risk over the next few years. A freeze of state-shared revenue or a significant change in distribution methodologies could pose a costly financial risk to General Fund and Transportation revenue. 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. 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. Rio Salado Financial Plan We recommend the continuation of the Rio Salado Project Financial Plan, which addresses operating, maintenance costs and debt service requirements. The City has created a Community Facilities District, a legal entity with assessment and taxing authority, that will provide part of the financial strategy. 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. Water/Wastewater Infrastructure Costs Careful financial planning will be required to address the increasing capital costs associated with water infrastructure and sewage treatment, primarily at the regional 91st Avenue Plant. We recommend a financial plan that minimizes sudden spikes in rates and controls expenditure growth. 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. 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. 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. 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. Total Revenue Total revenue for FY 2005-06 is $465.3 million reflecting $287.2 million in operating revenue and $178.1 million from bond proceeds, fund balances and other funding sources. The FY 2005-06 operating revenue total represents 8.8% growth over the FY 2004-05. The growth in operating revenue sources is indicative of recent economic improvement from the 2001 recession, while the increase in bonding and other funding sources is directly related to the growth in the budget. FY 2005-06 Bonds/ CIP Fund Balances 38.0% Other 6.4% Transportation 18.2% Operating Revenue 62.0% Enterprise 21.2% General Governmental 54.2% TOTAL REVENUE 2004-05 Budget 2005-06 Budget $89,638,845 33,897,635 7,519,651 10,188,871 46,377,633 5,533,300 11,712,361 602,204 58,484,714 $98,221,427 38,239,707 7,477,396 11,719,000 52,247,245 5,881,072 11,731,640 735,500 60,964,340 $263,955,214 $1,641 $287,217,327 $1,777 Bond/Note Proceeds 113,032,768 102,302,061 CIP Other Funding 40,517,237 49,149,034 Fund Balances 19,609,521 26,601,027 $437,114,740 $465,269,449 $2,718 $2,879 OPERATING REVENUE General Governmental Local Taxes, Licenses and Permits, and Debt Intergovernmental Charges for Services Miscellaneous Transportation/Transit Performing Arts CDBG/Section 8 Housing Rio Salado Special Revenue Enterprise TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE Operating Revenue Per Capita TOTAL REVENUE Total Revenue Per Capita Total Revenue by Source Local Taxes 28% User Charges 13% Bonds 26% Intergovernmental 15% All Other 4% CIP– Other Funding 14% Local Taxes 28% User Charges 13% Bonds 22% 2004-05 Budget Revenue Source All Other 7% CIP– Other Funding 16% 2005-06 Budget Where the Money Comes From 2003-04 2004-05 Actual Budget Local Taxes Local Sales Taxes $60,926,575 $60,150,000 Transit Tax 26,740,623 26,858,153 Other Local Taxes 26,726,778 28,848,868 Performing Arts 5,279,580 5,343,800 User Charges 41,081,390 42,847,966 Water/Wastewater 9,905,810 9,900,000 Solid Waste 5,113,578 5,238,551 Community Services 2,642,589 2,281,100 Building/Trades & Planning/Zoning Intergovernmental State-Shared Revenue 34,076,257 33,897,635 HURF/LTAF 11,827,540 11,739,643 CDBG/Section 8 Housing 11,158,504 11,712,361 Transit State & Federal 6,579,945 5,955,394 All Other Interest Revenue 6,629,684 4,985,544 Miscellaneous Revenue 6,036,705 7,788,984 Fines and Forfeitures 5,858,482 5,292,138 Licenses and Permits 1,079,490 1,115,077 Bonds/Note Proceeds 77,971,520 113,032,768 CIP - Outside Revenue 8,049,874 40,517,237 Other Fund Balance 526,269 19,609,521 * Includes Federal and State Grants and Residential Development Tax and Fees. Total Revenue Intergovernmental 14% $348,211,193 $437,114,740 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget $64,254,000 27,102,000 28,603,768 5,420,000 $66,170,000 27,996,400 31,536,127 5,599,500 42,783,898 10,660,901 5,197,133 2,470,550 43,943,620 11,456,951 5,012,896 2,464,500 34,761,000 11,981,815 11,712,361 6,602,928 38,239,707 12,737,393 11,731,640 6,368,909 5,712,298 8,314,382 5,886,372 1,071,694 113,032,768 40,517,237 19,609,521 6,571,467 10,284,567 6,012,750 1,090,900 102,302,061 49,149,034 26,601,027 $445,694,626 $465,269,449 Components of Total Revenue FY 2005-06 Total Revenue $465,269,449 Operating Budget Revenue $287,217,327 Capital Budget Revenue $178,052,122 General Governmental Special Revenue Enterprise Bond/Note Proceeds CIP– Outside Revenue Other Fund Balances $155,657,530 $70,595,457 $60,964,340 $102,302,061 $49,149,034 $26,601,027 Local Taxes/ Licenses & Permits/Debt $98,221,427 Transit Water/Wastewater Excise Bonds Federal Funds ______________________ Intergovernmental $38,239,707 ______________________ Charges for Services $7,477,396 ______________________ $37,922,748 ______________________ Highway User Revenue $13,789,041 ______________________ $11,731,640 $2,073,194 _______________ ______________________ $3,569,155 $735,500 $5,988,750 ______________________ Other $2,161,095 $12,809,949 ______________________ Golf Rio Salado Fines and Forfeitures Solid Waste CDBG/ Section 8 Housing Interest ______________________ $45,953,569 ______________________ ______________________ $33,678,912 ______________________ $47,649,034 ______________________ Water/Wastewater Bonds Development Fees $50,598,544 $1,500,000 ______________________ Tax-Supported General Obligation Bonds $18,024,605 Cemetery $127,628 Performing Arts Tax $5,881,072 ______________________ Local Transportation Assistant Fund (LTAF) $535,456 General Governmental, the largest operating revenue category, represents the principal operating fund of the City. This category supports basic functions of the City, which include Police, Fire, Community Services, and Development Services. Comparative Operating Revenue by Major Source and Fund 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Budget $60,926,575 $60,150,000 8,251,333 2,277,294 1,505,133 8,700,091 2,250,000 1,732,700 8,700,091 2,354,000 1,297,700 9,345,934 2,402,000 1,328,567 Total Local Taxes Intergovernmental Revenue State Sales Tax State Income Tax Vehicle License Tax Total Intergovernmental 72,960,335 72,832,791 76,605,791 79,246,501 13,345,152 14,303,004 6,428,101 34,076,257 13,697,342 14,600,293 5,600,000 33,897,635 14,074,950 14,586,050 6,100,000 34,761,000 15,538,331 16,601,376 6,100,000 38,239,707 Building & Trades/Planning & Zoning 2,642,589 2,281,100 2,470,550 2,464,500 Cultural and Recreational Registration Fees Recreation Admission Charges Library Fines and Fees Other Cultural and Rec Fees Total Cultural and Recreational 3,868,210 297,467 408,808 539,093 5,113,578 4,017,400 295,200 462,451 463,500 5,238,551 4,113,729 495,248 333,722 254,434 5,197,133 3,913,300 295,200 345,196 459,200 5,012,896 Fines, Fees and Forfeitures Traffic Fines Criminal Fines Parking Fines Other Fines, Fees and Forfeitures 1,531,611 1,016,539 468,363 2,841,969 1,440,000 864,000 422,000 2,566,138 1,500,000 1,016,000 468,400 2,901,972 1,520,000 992,000 520,000 2,980,750 5,858,482 5,292,138 5,886,372 6,012,750 1,079,490 1,115,077 1,071,694 1,090,900 443,299 2,763,994 2,255,213 5,462,506 500,000 2,188,068 2,708,665 5,396,733 500,000 2,880,044 2,247,007 5,627,051 500,000 3,569,155 2,137,095 6,206,250 127,193,237 126,054,025 13,059,814 650,879 13,710,693 14,517,177 673,800 15,190,977 Revenue Source 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget General Fund Local Taxes City Sales Tax Primary Property Tax Transient Lodging Tax Franchise Fees Total Fines, Fees and Forfeitures Business/Non-Business Licenses $64,254,000 $66,170,000 Other Revenue Sources SRP Payment in Lieu of Taxes Interest Income Other Miscellaneous Revenue and Loan Total Other Revenue Total General Fund Debt Service Fund Secondary Property Tax SRP Payment in Lieu of Taxes Total Debt Service Fund 131,619,591 138,273,504 14,517,177 673,800 15,190,977 16,707,531 676,495 17,384,026 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised 26,740,623 26,858,153 27,102,000 27,996,400 Lottery Transfer In 281,938 285,700 271,000 263,730 ASU-Flash Transit 481,476 386,252 477,623 496,403 Interest Income 1,546,797 1,061,807 1,422,012 1,690,921 Federal and State Funding 6,098,469 5,569,142 6,125,305 5,872,506 32,886 762,636 658,560 1,602,788 35,182,189 34,923,690 36,056,500 37,922,748 10,981,726 10,903,791 11,160,663 11,938,207 Revenue Source 2005-06 Budget Transit Fund Transit Tax Miscellaneous Revenue Total Transit Fund Transportation Funds Highway User Revenue Tax Maintenance of Effort State Lottery Proceeds Other Revenue Total Transportation Funds Rio Salado Fund 1,850,000 563,876 550,152 2,905 550,152 535,456 834 834 11,548,507 11,453,943 11,711,649 14,324,497 City Sales Tax 341,156 223,000 353,000 364,600 Transient Lodging Tax 135,805 159,500 140,000 143,000 Primary Property Tax 62,065 92,600 68,000 68,000 134,803 77,554 130,000 100,000 65,454 49,550 849,012 59,900 Total Rio Salado Fund Performing Arts 739,283 602,204 1,540,012 735,500 Performing Arts Tax 5,279,580 5,343,800 5,420,000 5,599,500 233,837 189,500 237,524 281,572 5,513,417 5,533,300 5,657,524 5,881,072 11,158,504 11,712,361 11,712,361 11,731,640 Residential Service 5,849,909 5,800,000 6,379,778 6,783,831 Commercial Service 4,055,901 4,100,000 4,281,123 4,673,120 Roll-Off Service 899,576 915,000 907,579 967,489 Recycling Sludge Disposal 64,887 144,676 60,400 108,900 190,000 90,000 140,000 95,000 Interest Income 22,629 21,709 26,633 30,509 224,175 120,000 12,099,288 12,809,949 Interest Income Miscellaneous Revenue Interest Income Total Performing Arts Total CDBG/Section 8 Housing Funds Solid Waste Fund Other Miscellaneous Revenue Total Solid Waste Fund 11,037,578 11,006,009 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 Cemetery Fund Lot & Burial Sales Total Cemetery Fund Total Revenue - All Funds 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget 17,131,548 6,515,137 296,220 974,608 17,461,525 6,570,358 279,500 1,637,079 17,344,751 6,671,685 303,412 1,567,396 17,842,578 6,854,390 313,412 1,582,046 24,917,513 25,948,462 25,948,462 26,592,426 10,200,476 5,839,617 123,784 9,901,335 5,852,378 1,145,791 10,412,656 6,026,197 396,583 10,696,652 6,272,609 381,933 16,163,877 16,899,504 16,835,436 17,351,194 1,911,997 520,000 542,833 (511,857) 1,436,417 520,000 542,833 61,000 1,004,450 520,000 542,833 61,000 886,116 520,000 542,833 61,000 43,544,363 45,408,216 44,850,963 45,953,569 1,800,754 219,378 15,627 2,035,759 1,850,000 210,000 10,489 2,070,489 1,850,000 210,000 11,635 2,071,635 1,850,000 210,000 13,194 2,073,194 127,628 127,628 $261,663,530 $263,955,214 $272,535,100 $287,217,327 City Sales Tax Restrictions Current rate of 1.8% can be increased only by electorate. Amount Percent Change 1995-96I 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 59,991,774 (5.7) 2002-03 59,855,000 (0.2) 2003-04 60,926,575 1.8 2004-05 est. 64,254,000 5.5 2005-06 est. 66,170,000 3.0 Fiscal Year Proceeds are pledged as security for bond payments due under various bond security agreements. Revenue from a voter-approved 0.5% portion are dedicated to transit purposes and 0.1% dedicated funding for Performing Arts. In addition, all transaction privilege tax revenue generated in the Rio Salado Enterprise Fund Zone are deposited to the Rio Salado Fund for the operating expenses of the Rio Salado project. I 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 1994-95. Account: 4001 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. A downturn in the national economy accounts for the 2001-03 reduction in sales tax collections. The City has fully recovered from this downturn and our FY 2005-06 projection is at its highest level to date for collections. 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 48.5 60.1 60.0 63.6 60.0 59.9 60.9 64.3 66.2 50.5 20.0 10.0 0.0 6 -9 95 9 1 7 -9 96 9 1 8 -9 97 9 1 9 -9 98 9 1 0 -0 99 9 1 1 -0 00 0 2 2 -0 01 0 2 Fiscal Year 3 -0 02 0 2 4 -0 03 0 2 5 -0 04 0 2 t. es 6 -0 05 0 2 t. es City Property Tax Restrictions Fiscal Year 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 est. 2005-06 est. Primary Levy: Limited to annual increase of 2% plus amount generated by new construction. No restriction on usage. Secondary Limit: Restricted for debt service purposes only. No limit on rate. Account: 4012 Percent Change 8.7 4.2 8.0 9.7 9.2 11.2 2.4 7.3 5.6 8.9 12.2 Amount 12,297,510 12,808,631 13,832,004 15,172,288 16,561,936 18,414,400 18,864,580 20,238,875 21,373,212 23,285,268 26,121,465 Assumptions The City’s property tax is levied based on the full cash value of property from the previous February10th 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 2005-06 will total $1.40 per $100 assessed valuation, consisting of $0.52 per $100 of primary assessed valuation for operating and maintenance costs and $0.88 per $100 of secondary assessed valuation to fund principal and interest payments on bonded indebtedness. The City held the aggregate property tax rate at $1.35 for five fiscal years before increasing it by $0.05 in FY 2005-06 to $1.40. The full amount of the increase was applied to the secondary, with the intent that the additional revenue generated be dedicated to repay debt for new public safety communication projects. For FY 2005-06, assessed valuation growth is in accordance with the County’s biennial valuation methodology. These proceeds will go to different funds; primary levy of $9.7 million goes to the General fund and the secondary levy of $16.7 million goes to the Debt Service fund. Major Influences: Development, Assessor Appraisal Methodology, State Policy, Population Growth, and Policy Regarding Property Tax Rates City Property Tax $ Millions 28.0 26.0 24.0 22.0 20.0 18.0 16.0 14.0 26.1 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 12.3 12.8 13.8 15.2 16.6 18.4 18.9 20.2 21.4 23.3 4.0 2.0 0.0 6 -9 95 9 1 7 -9 96 9 1 8 -9 97 9 1 9 -9 98 9 1 0 -0 99 9 1 1 -0 00 0 2 Fiscal Year 2 -0 01 0 2 3 -0 02 0 2 4 -0 03 0 2 5 -0 04 0 2 t. es 6 -0 05 0 2 t. es Transient Lodging Tax Restrictions Current rate of 3% can be increased only by electorate. Fiscal Year Amount Percent Change 1995-96 1,236,458 6.6 Of the total amount collected, 2/3 is pledged to the Tempe Convention and Visitors Bureau (TCVB). Excess unrestricted proceeds are deposited into the General Fund, 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. 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) 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. 2000-01 1,725,597 6.2 2001-02 1,454,927 (15.7) 2002-03 1,911,752 31.4 2003-04 2,413,099 26.2 2004-05 est. 2,494,000 3.4 2005-06 est. 2,545,000 2.0 Account: 4002 Assumptions The tax is imposed on businesses, who charge for lodging for any period of not more than 30 consecutive days. The increase in the revenue projection beginning in 2001 is reflective of a voter approved 1% increase rather than an increase in lodging structures or occupants. Given the landlocked boundaries of the City, it is anticipated that occupants and lodgings will remain relatively constant. Major Influences: Economy, Competition from Hotels Located in Neighboring Cities, and Consumer Price Index Transient Lodging Tax $ Thousands 2,800 2,600 2,400 2,200 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 79.3% * 600 3,185 80.3% * 79.8% * 3,185 72.8% * 66.3% * 3,823 3,505 4,504 67.8% * 58.5% * 64.5% * 64.8% * 68.5% * 68.5% * 4,720 4,504 4,632 4,632 4,935 5,000 400 200 0 1 5 99 -9 6 1 6 99 -9 7 1 7 99 *Percent Occupied/Number of Rooms -9 8 1 8 99 -9 9 1 9 99 -0 0 20 00 01 20 Fiscal Year 01 02 2 2 00 -0 3 2 3 00 -0 4 20 04 - 05 es t. 20 05 - 06 es t. Salt River Project In–Lieu Tax Restrictions No restrictions on usage. Account: 4015 Fiscal Year Amount Percent Change 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 1,110,420 (3.0) 2000-01 967,193 (12.9) 2001-02 1,041,291 7.7 2002-03 1,110,403 6.6 2003-04 1,094,665 (1.5) 2004-05 est. 1,173,800 7.2 2005-06 est. 1,176,495 0.2 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, and deposited into two different funds. For FY 05-06 it is estimated that $500,000 will go to the General fund $676,495 to the Debt Service fund. The SRP In-Lieu payment increase in FY 2005-06 reflects estimated assessed property value increases. Major Influences: Real Property Value and State Policy (assessment ratio) Salt River Project In-Lieu Tax $ Thousands 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 29.0% * 28.0% * 27.0% * 1,323 1,264 1,199 26.0% * 25.0% * 1,144 1,110 25.0% * 25.0% * 25.0% * 25.0% * 25.0% * 25.0% * 967 1,041 1,110 1,094 1,174 1,176 200 0 6 -9 95 9 1 7 -9 96 9 1 8 -9 97 9 1 9 -9 98 9 1 0 -0 99 9 1 *Percents represent the assessment ratio on SRP real property. 01 00 20 02 10 20 Fiscal Year 3 -0 02 0 2 4 -0 03 0 2 05 40 20 t es . 06 50 20 t. es State-Shared Sales Tax Restrictions No restrictions on usage. Must be expended for a public purpose. Account: 4204 Fiscal Year 1995-96 Amount 11,474,400 Percent Change 4.9 1996-97 10,857,100 (5.4) 1997-98 10,476,954 (3.5) 1998-99 12,292,002 17.3 1999-00 13,511,356 9.9 2000-01 13,951,532 3.3 2001-02 12,148,438 (12.9) 2002-03 12,405,713 2.1 2003-04 13,345,152 7.6 2004-05 est. 14,074,950 5.5 2005-06 est. 15,538,331 10.4 Assumptions The state assesses a 5.6% 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 $398 million for FY 2005-06) on the basis of their population in relation to total state population. Prior to 2000, Tempe accounted for 4.5% of the state’s population, 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. The projected increase of 10.4% is reflective of the strength of the state’s economic recovery since the national recession. Major Influences: Taxable Sales, Population (relative to State) and State Policy State-Shared Sales Tax $ Millions 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 219.9* 230.3* 245.0* 256.1* 252.8* 310.0* 323.3* 315.0* 320.0* 360.0* 398.0* 11.5 10.9 10.5 12.3 13.5 14.0 12.1 12.4 13.3 14.1 15.5 4.0 2.0 0.0 9 19 5- 96 9 19 9 6- 7 9 19 7- 98 9 19 9 8- 9 9 19 0 9- 0 2 0 000 1 2 0 100 2 02 20 03 Fiscal Year *Total state-shared sales tax revenue pool for distribution to cities and towns ($ in millions). 0 20 3- 04 20 5 -0 04 es t. 20 6 -0 05 es t. State-Shared Vehicle License Tax Restrictions No restrictions on usage. Must be expended for a public purpose. Account: 4214 Fiscal Year 1995-96 3,863,003 Percent Change (4.2) 1996-97 4,150,865 7.5 1997-98 3,997,411 (3.7) 1998-99 4,971,529 24.4 1999-00 5,497,492 10.6 2000-01 5,632,181 2.5 2001-02 5,233,512 (7.1) 2002-03 6,247,543 19.4 2003-04 6,428,101 2.9 2004-05 est. 6,100,000 (5.1) 2005-06 est. 6,100,000 0.0 Amount Assumptions Cities and towns receive 25% of the net revenue collected for vehicle licensing within their county. The respective shares are determined by the Cities’ share of population in relation to total incorporated population of the county. The remainder of the revenue collected is shared by schools, counties, and the state. Prior to 2000, Tempe accounted for 4.5% of the state’s population, 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 2005-06, the strength of the state’s economy has offset the effect of the Census, but the City’s near build-out of residential space for commuters will have a leveling effect on future revenue. Major Influences: Population (relative to State), State Policy and Auto Sales State-Shared Vehicle License Tax $ Millions 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 2.0 3.9 4.2 5.5 6.2 5.6 6.4 6.1 6.1 5.2 4.0 1.0 0.0 6 -9 95 9 1 7 -9 96 9 1 8 -9 97 9 1 9 -9 98 9 1 0 -0 99 9 1 1 -0 00 0 2 2 -0 01 0 2 Fiscal Year 3 -0 02 0 2 4 -0 03 0 2 5 -0 04 0 2 t. es 6 -0 05 0 2 t. es State-Shared Income Tax Restrictions No restrictions on usage. Must be expended for a public purpose. 1 During 1995, Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 22 required revenue from taxpayerassessed taxes to be recognized in the accounting period in which they become susceptible to accrual. This resulted in 13 months being recorded in FY 1994-95. Account: 4208 Percent Change Fiscal Year Amount 1995-96 1 9,939,946 (10.8) 1996-97 11,139,519 12.1 1997-98 13,158,548 18.1 1998-99 15,361,479 16.7 1999-00 17,045,903 11.0 2000-01 17,890,338 5.0 2001-02 16,544,791 (7.5) 2002-03 16,882,535 2.0 2003-04 2004-05 est. 14,303,004 14,586,050 (15.3) 2.0 2005-06 est. 16,601,376 13.8 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. Originally, Arizona cities and towns were entitled to receive 15% of the State’s income tax collections; but this percentage is at the legislature’s discretion and has varied from 13.6% in FY 1992-93 to 15.8% in FY 1999-00. Currently, the stateshared revenue is at 15.0%. 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, but with the 2000 Special Census, Tempe’s share fell to 4.0%. This accounts for the decline in FY 2001-02. The FY 2003-04 decrease followed the national downturn in the economy. The projected increase of 13.8% is reflective of the strength of the state’s economic recovery from the national recession. Major Influences: Personal Income, Corporate Net Profits, Population (relative to State) and State Policy State-Shared Income Tax $ Millions 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 13.6% * 13.6% * 15.0% * 15.0% * 15.8% * 15.0% * 15.8% * 15.8% * 15.0% * 15.0% * 15.0% * 4 218.6 257.8 291.2 340.3 377.7 398.5 421.9 436.2 365.0 436.2 421.9 2 0 6 -9 95 19 7 -9 96 19 8 -9 97 19 9 -9 98 19 0 -0 99 19 1 -0 00 20 2 -0 01 20 Fiscal Year 3 -0 02 20 4 -0 03 20 5 -0 04 0 2 t. es 6 -0 05 0 2 * Percent of state income tax collections distributed to cities and towns/Total state-shared tax revenue pool ($ in millions) t. es 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 1995-96 Amount 2,732,022 Percent Change 8.2 1996-97 3,145,907 15.1 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 4,699,196 (5.1) 2003-04 5,113,578 8.8 2004-05 est. 2005-06 est. 4,963,133 4,978,896 (2.9) 0.3 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 classified by 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. Major Influences: Population, Cost Recovery Policy and New Program Development Charges for Services/Recreation and Social Services $ Millions 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 2.7 3.1 3.4 3.3 3.8 4.5 4.3 4.7 5.1 5.0 5.0 1.0 0.0 6 -9 95 9 1 7 -9 96 9 1 8 -9 97 9 1 9 -9 98 9 1 0 -0 99 9 1 1 -0 00 0 2 2 -0 01 0 2 Fiscal Year 3 -0 02 0 2 4 -0 03 0 2 5 -0 04 0 2 t. es 6 -0 05 0 2 t. es Charges for Services/Development Related Restrictions Intended to offset costs related to permitting and planning for residential and commercial development in the City. Accounts: 4102-4112 (Building & Trade Permits) 4401-4405, 4411-4413 (Engineering Fees) 4406-4410, 4414-4418 (Planning & Zoning) Amount Percent Change 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 2,450,574 22.9 2003-04 2,642,589 7.8 2004-05 est. 2,470,550 (6.5) 2005-06 est. 2,394,500 (3.1) Fiscal Year Assumptions Declines in development related permit revenue 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. The impact of this increase is moderated in recent years in light of development activity associated with a landlocked community. 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 2,038* 1,984* 2,532* 1,882* 1,717* 1,417* 1,261* 1,313* 1,147* 1,243* 1,268* $248.5 $406.8 $492.4 $302.8 $317.1 $262.3 $121.2 $199.6 $210.3 $302.2 $308.2 t. es t. es 0.0 6 -9 95 9 1 7 -9 96 9 1 8 -9 97 9 1 9 -9 98 9 1 0 -0 99 9 1 * Number of building permits/Valuation ($ in millions) 1 -0 00 0 2 2 -0 01 0 2 Fiscal Year 3 -0 02 0 2 4 -0 03 0 2 5 -0 04 0 2 6 -0 05 0 2 Fines and Forfeitures Restrictions Fiscal Year No restrictions on usage. Accounts: 4601-4653 Percent Change Amount 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 5,510,475 19.4 2003-04 5,858,482 6.3 2004-05 est. 5,828,972 (0.5) 2005-06 est. 5,771,186 (0.9) Assumptions The fines and forfeitures revenue to the City derive from fines related to parking, traffic, criminal, animal control, defensive driving school, adult diversion, domestic violence, and false alarms, plus revenue 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 increases are based on enhanced collection efforts and rate changes. Major Influences: Population, Crime Rate and Internal Policy (Enforcement, Number of Police Officers) Fees, Fines and Forfeitures $ Millions 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 5.51 4.71 2.00 3.23 3.16 3.64 5.86 5.83 5.77 4.62 4.49 3.86 1.00 0.00 6 -9 95 9 1 7 -9 96 9 1 97 19 98 98 19 99 -0 99 19 0 1 -0 00 0 2 2 -0 01 0 2 Fiscal Year 02 20 03 -0 03 20 4 04 20 5 -0 es t. 05 20 6 -0 es t. Transit Tax Restrictions Amount Percent Change 1997-98 23,212,252 122.6 1998-99 25,300,000 9.0 1999-00 26,384,500 4.3 2000-01 27,310,246 3.5 2001-02 25,229,927 (7.6) 2002-03 25,187,121 (0.2) 2003-04 26,740,623 6.2 2004-05 est. 27,102,000 1.4 2005-06 est. 27,996,400 3.3 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, transit planning, and light rail construction. Account: 4004 Assumptions The Transit Tax represents 1/2 cent of the 1.8% City sales tax. The amount for transit was approved by Tempe voters in September 1996. The additional tax became effective January 1, 1997, thus the revenue for FY 1996-97 only reflects collections over the last half of the fiscal year. Although the estimate for FY 2005-06 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 24.00 20.00 16.00 12.00 8.00 10.43 23.21 25.30 26.38 27.31 25.23 25.19 26.74 27.10 28.00 t. es t. es 0.00 4.00 0.00 6 -9 95 9 1 7 -9 96 9 1 8 -9 97 9 1 9 -9 98 9 1 0 -0 99 9 1 01 00 20 02 10 20 Fiscal Year 3 -0 02 0 2 4 -0 03 0 2 05 40 20 06 50 20 Performing Arts Tax Fiscal Year Amount Percent Change 2000-01* 2,607,541 - 2001-02 4,999,984 91.2% 2002-03 5,010,392 (0.2) 2003-04 5,279,580 5.4 *Collections over a 6 month period 2004-05 est. 5,420,000 2.7 Account: 4005 2005-06 est. 5,599,500 3.3 Restrictions Represents a portion of the City sales tax dedicated by public vote for a Performing Arts center and related activities. Assumptions The Performing Arts Tax represents a voter-approved 0.1% increase to the 1.8% City Sales Tax. These funds are dedicated for construction and operation of the Tempe Center for the Arts. The tax for the performing arts was implemented in January 2001, therefore, FY 2000-01 reflects a partial year. Although the estimate for FY 2005-06 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 Millions 6.00 Performing Arts Tax effective January 1, 2001 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 5.00 2.61* 5.01 5.28 5.42 5.60 1.00 0.00 -9 95 9 1 6 97 69 19 98 79 19 * Collections over a 6 month period 99 89 19 00 99 19 01 00 20 02 10 20 Fiscal Year 03 20 20 t. t. 04 es es 36 5 0 -0 -0 20 05 04 0 0 2 2 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 service on highway and street bonds. Amount 10,238,951 Percent Change 8.4 1996-97 9,788,235 (4.4) 1997-98 8,870,589 (9.4) 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 10,767,285 11,041,067 11,213,830 9,853,831 10,285,028 10,981,726 21.4 2.5 1.6 (12.1) 4.4 6.8 2004-05 est. 2005-06 est. 11,160,663 11,938,207 1.6 7.0 Fiscal Year 1995-96 Account: 4206 Assumptions Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) revenue is comprised primarily of a share of the state-imposed tax on fuel (18 cents per gallon), but also includes a portion of vehicle license taxes and other motor carrier permits and fees. Of the statewide total HURF revenue, 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. Reductions in FY 1996-97 and FY 1997-98 were the result of the 1995 Special Census, which placed Tempe at 4.5% of the state’s population, down from the 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 state population increases have offset the effect of the Census. Major Influences: Population, State Policy, Economy and Gasoline Sales Highway User Tax $ Millions 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 215.3* 225.6* 240.8* 255.3* 265.5* 281.0* 291.0* 294.1* 313.5* 315.5* 338.3* 10.2% 9.8% 8.9% 10.8% 11.0% 11.2% 9.9% 10.3% 11.0% 11.1% 11.9% 2.00 0.00 6 -9 95 19 7 -9 96 19 8 -9 97 19 9 -9 98 19 0 -0 99 19 1 -0 00 20 2 -0 01 20 Fiscal Year 3 -0 02 20 4 -0 03 20 5 -0 04 20 t. es 6 -0 05 20 * Percent of state income tax collections distributed to cities and towns/Total state-shared tax revenue pool ($ in millions) t. es 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. Amount 1,089,151 1,081,122 Percent Change (1.7) (0.7) 1997-98 1,019,776 (5.7) 1998-99 1,000,596 (1.9) 1999-00 976,015 (2.5) 2000-01 957,785 (1.9) 2001-02 900,415 (6.0) 2002-03 870,471 (3.3) 2003-04 845,814 (2.8) 2004-05 est. 821,152 (2.9) 2005-06 est. 799,186 (2.7) Fiscal Year 1995-96 1996-97 Account : 4212 Assumptions Revenue 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 revenue, 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. Revenue 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 revenue, 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 revenue 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 this problem is Tempe’s declining share of statewide population. Major Influences: Population (relative to State) and Lottery Ticket Sales Local Transportation Assistance Fund $$ Thousands Thousands 1,200 1,000 800 600 1,089 1,081 1,020 1,001 976 958 900 870 846 821 400 799 Declining revenue reflects lower statewide Lottery revenue and Tempe’s slower population growth 200 0 6 -9 95 9 1 7 -9 96 9 1 8 -9 97 9 1 9 -9 98 9 1 0 -0 99 9 1 1 -0 00 0 2 2 -0 01 0 2 Fiscal Year 3 -0 02 0 2 4 -0 03 0 2 5 -0 04 0 2 t. es 6 -0 05 0 2 t. es Community Development Block Grant/Section 8 Housing Grant Restrictions Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds are awarded by the federal government and may be used only for the rehabilitation of owner-occupied housing and the removal of “slum and blight”. Section 8 Housing Grants, also federal funds, may be used only for rent and utility subsidies for low income persons. Account : 4202 Community Development Block Grant Percent Change Amount Fiscal Year Section 8 Housing Grant Percent Change Amount 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 2,896,728 34.8 7,227,924 33.2 2003-04 3,174,654 9.6 8,364,970 15.7 2004-05 est. 2,901,168 (8.6) 8,811,193 5.3 2005-06 est. 2,849,008 (1.8) 8,882,632 0.8 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 Section 8 Housing Grant 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 8.4 8.8 8.9 3.2 2.9 2.8 7.2 6.0 4.0 3.9 3.8 2.7 2.9 3.8 2.0 2.0 5.0 4.1 4.6 2.4 2.4 5.4 3.0 2.1 2.9 0.0 -9 95 19 6 7 -9 96 9 1 -9 97 19 8 -9 98 19 9 0 -0 99 9 1 00 20 01 -0 01 0 2 Fiscal Year 2 3 -0 02 0 2 -0 03 20 4 5 -0 04 0 2 t. es 6 -0 05 0 2 t. es Water/Wastewater User Fees Restrictions Fiscal Year Fees can only be used to support the Water/Wastewater enterprise. 1995-96 1996-97 Accounts: 4282, 4284, 4821-4831, 4834-4842 Amount 32,895,352 34,979,993 Percent Change (0.7) 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 40,586,501 (9.0) 2003-04 41,037,476 1.1 2004-05 est. 41,560,201 1.3 2005-06 est. 42,661,141 2.6 Assumptions Water/Wastewater revenue is derived from fees and service charges assessed to residential and commercial customers of the City’s water and wastewater systems. Revenue also includes charges to the City’s residential irrigation customers. Over the past few years, both water and sewer rates have been adjusted to address increased costs resulting from inflation, debt service on capital projects, and environmental regulation compliance. The most recent fee adjustment went into effect on November 1, 2004. Water rates were increased by 4%, irrigation rates were increased by 9%, and sewer rates for residential customers increased by 7.5%. 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. Major Influences: Population, Internal Policy, Water Consumption Patterns and Weather Water/Wastewater User Fees $ Millions 50.00 40.00 30.00 46.30 20.00 32.90 34.98 37.93 45.35 44.59 37.54 40.59 41.04 41.56 42.66 t. es t. es 10.00 0.00 6 -9 95 9 1 7 -9 96 9 1 8 -9 97 9 1 9 -9 98 9 1 0 -0 99 9 1 1 -0 00 0 2 2 -0 01 0 2 Fiscal Year 3 -0 02 0 2 4 -0 03 0 2 5 -0 04 0 2 6 -0 05 0 2 Solid Waste Fees Restrictions Used to defray costs of providing solid waste collection and disposal service. Accounts: 4251-4259 Fiscal Year Amount Percent Change 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 10,496,774 4.7 2003-04 11,014,949 4.9 2004-05 est. 11,848,480 7.6 2005-06 est. 12,659,440 6.8 Assumptions The collection and disposal of solid waste constitutes the City’s second largest enterprise operation. Revenue derives from user fees for residential, commercial, roll-off, and uncontained solid waste service. As the graph below indicates, residential solid waste fees were increased four times starting in FY 1998-99 to address increased landfill and recycling costs. Most recently, residential rates were increased in August 2004 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. Major Influences: Population, Internal Policy, and Commercial Market/Competition Solid Waste Fees $ Millions 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 $12.75 11/01 $11.75 3/98 6.00 $13.96 01/03 $15.29 08/04 4.00 2.00 Monthly residential rate changes are indicated in the FY when rates were modified. 0.00 6 -9 95 19 7 -9 96 19 8 -9 97 19 9 -9 98 19 0 -0 99 19 1 -0 00 20 2 -0 01 0 2 Fiscal Year 3 -0 02 20 4 -0 03 20 5 -0 04 20 t. es 6 -0 05 20 t. es Golf Course Fees Restrictions Revenue is used to defray costs of operating the Rolling Hills and Ken McDonald golf courses. Rolling Hills Percent Change Amount 1,016,217 23.2 1,051,586 3.5 994,964 (5.4) 997,000 0.2 882,082 (11.5) 840,000 (4.8) 767,285 (8.7) 806,588 5.1 847,844 5.1 870,000 2.6 870,000 0.0 Fiscal Year 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 est. 2005-06 est. Ken McDonald Percent Change Amount 1,156,946 6.5 1,294,228 11.9 1,237,961 (4.4) 1,246,000 0.7 1,060,418 (14.9) 1,018,500 (4.0) 1,006,532 (1.2) 1,119,184 11.2 1,172,288 4.7 1,201,635 2.5 1,203,194 0.1 Assumptions Revenue from greens fees account for nearly 87% of golf course revenue, with the rest coming from lease agreements with the pro shops and restaurant concessionaires. Our projection conservatively assumes minimal growth in revenue, 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 2,600 2,400 2,200 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 95 19 96 19 -9 96 7 19 -9 97 8 19 98 99 19 99 00 20 00 Ken McDonald 01 01 20 Fiscal Year 02 20 -0 02 3 20 03 04 20 04 05 t. es 20 05 06 t. es 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 Summary Department Mayor & Council Personal Services Supplies/Services/ Contributions Capital Outlay Internal Services Total 2005-06 Budget $352,806 $55,801 ($21,891) $386,716 City Manager 312,963 13,100 (18,076) 307,987 Internal Audit 404,871 22,752 25,524 453,147 1,484,997 890,525 180,572 2,556,094 357,136 188,331 12,847 558,314 3,450,472 12,607,033 70,461 16,130,966 City Clerk 343,557 336,600 46,600 726,757 City Court 2,590,153 564,326 605,061 3,759,540 Human Resources 2,049,541 773,038 (361,096) 2,461,483 City Attorney 2,376,094 281,975 133,783 2,791,852 Financial Services 4,943,153 3,204,965 (2,404,997) 5,768,121 Information Technology 6,625,167 6,064,970 (12,690,137) Development Services 3,925,055 219,116 650,918 4,795,089 Police 41,410,443 3,582,163 21,150 8,462,186 53,475,942 Fire 15,251,108 1,139,310 689,200 1,153,906 18,233,524 Community Services 13,705,423 3,702,795 40,000 3,014,473 20,462,691 Public Works 23,879,663 37,891,160 4,028,787 (667,234) 65,132,376 Water Utilities 10,846,863 12,825,110 222,100 3,375,861 27,269,934 134,309,465 84,363,070 5,029,237 1,568,761 225,270,533 Community Relations Diversity Program Community Development Total Departmental Debt Service Non-Departmental 900,828 40,817,185 3,172,719 2,084,749 3,051,732 134,903,360 Capital Improvements Total Financial Program 25,000 40,817,185 Contingencies Total Operating Budget 3,000 131,373,077 3,051,732 5,029,237 3,653,494 189,971,703 $134,903,360 $321,344,780 6,158,296 275,297,746 189,971,703 $5,029,237 $1,803,494 $465,269,449 Per Capita Performance Budget The citywide operating budget for FY 2005-06 totals $275.3 million. This represents per capita growth of 5.8%. Budget increases in these departments are primarily due to increased employee compensation, retirement contributions and rising health care costs. The City continues to prioritize the areas of Public Works, Public Safety, and Community Services, accounting for 70% of the total departmental budgets. Department Mayor & Council 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget $2.55 $2.48 $2.54 $2.39 City Manager 1.63 1.70 1.91 1.91 Internal Audit 2.54 2.64 2.64 2.80 15.05 15.39 15.15 15.82 2.93 2.75 3.37 3.45 94.17 99.74 97.55 99.81 City Clerk 4.00 2.83 2.99 4.50 City Court 19.95 20.69 21.71 23.26 Human Resources 15.23 15.86 15.42 15.23 City Attorney 12.84 14.43 14.27 15.18 Financial Services 34.61 36.24 35.96 35.69 0 0 0 0 24.30 28.95 28.80 29.67 Police 295.35 299.47 306.79 330.87 Fire 100.83 98.33 100.77 112.81 Community Services 110.00 116.14 111.67 126.61 Public Works 352.15 367.24 365.60 402.99 Water Utilities 157.18 170.53 165.51 168.73 $1,245.31 $1,295.41 $1,292.65 $1,391.72 308.27 275.03 234.25 252.54 23.07 26.87 24.43 38.10 0 18.27 0 18.88 Capital Improvement Projects 739.08 1,100.51 1,100.51 1,173.73 Total Operating Per Capita $2,315.73 $2,716.09 $2,651.84 $2,874.97 Community Relations Diversity Programs Community Development Information Technology Development Services Total Departmental Per Capita Debt Service Non-Departmental Contingencies Strategic Issues Management/Budgeting Purpose The purpose of a Strategic Issues Management/Budgeting 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. The City Council identifies strategic issues setting the tone at the start of the budget process. The process allows a prioritization of emerging issues, yielding specific priorities and plans which have multiyear operational and budget implications. Strategic Issues Management/Budgeting Process Activity Responsibility Timeframes Identify and prioritize key goals that each Council Committee wants City Council to achieve and see further progress on for the upcoming budget year. Incorporate goals into Council Committee’s work plan. August Council Summit Establish cross-functional teams and/or standing groups to advance each goal identified and develop action plans for each. City Manager Executive Team August Cross-functional Teams September/October Staff Coordinators Executive Team Late October, early November Executive Summit City Council Committee Mid/late November Review strategies, action plans, responsibilities, and associated Council Committee work plan with City Council. Staff Coordinator City Council December/January Incorporate approved goals, strategies, and action plans into operating and capital improvement budget program and structure budget requests. Executive Team December/January Consider FY 2005-06 budget requests from departments (based on FY 2005-06 goals and action plans). City Council Executive Team February Evaluate status of FY 2005-06 goals and action plans with management team (midyear review). City Council Executive Team February (midyear review) Evaluate budget requests and allocate budget resources accordingly (based on approved FY 2005-06 goals and action plans). Executive Team March/April Conduct public sessions on operating and capital improvement budget program (FY 2005-06). City Council Executive Team April/May Adopt budget program. City Council June Review results of goals and action plans established for the fiscal year just completed. Begin process anew for the next budget period. City Council Executive Team August Council Summit Identify and recommend corresponding strategies, action plans, and/ or departmental activities to further bring improvement and/or results to goals identified by each committee. Review strategies, action plans, and or departmental activities recommended by the cross-functional team/groups with the Executive Team. Review strategies/action plans associated with goal with oversight Council Committee for recommendations, and interface to Committee’s work plan. Strategic Issues: Goals and Strategy/Action Plan Neighborhood Quality of Life and Public Safety Committee Goal: To address neighborhood issues Resolve residential rental issues Enforce Nuisance and Property Enhancement Code (party ordinance) Discuss parking in residential areas Review zoning code (3 unrelated) Review ordinance as it applies in residential districts and redevelop and enhance neighborhoodsupportive business districts Discuss Day Resources and Opportunity Center Goal: To identify impact of ASU on neighborhoods Facilitate ASU-City partnerships to improve student housing at ASU and within the City Discuss City support of building on campus housing and ASU imposing sanctions for off campus behavior Goal: To review the development of public safety resources Attend neighborhood meetings Enhance neighborhood policing efforts Facilitate Getting Arizona Involved in Neighborhoods (GAIN) program Provide overview and capability of Fire Department Dive Team activation Discuss concept and update of the Heavy Rescue Truck Review status and compare with other agencies of the Fire Prevention fee structure Provide update of new State law regarding county islands; firefighting; and medical services Discuss Fire Department challenges with new high rise buildings Provide update on the Fire prevention and Public Safety Education Division Provide update on emergency Traffic Signal Preemption for fire apparatus Provide update on assistance provided to the Guadalupe Fire Department Analyze and compare emergency response time Provide medical services update Education Partnership Committee Goal: To advance partnerships between Arizona State University and the City of Tempe Support ASU’s plan of providing more on-campus housing Pursue ASU’s prototype “University school” program Seek opportunities of joint use of ASU sports facilities for local programs Work with ASU and Tempe School Districts to enhance transit opportunities such as “transit training programs” for physically challenged students Promote more Board and Commission applications from ASU students Work with ASU to obtain an accurate count of students residing in Tempe for the 2005 Special Census Coordinate with ASU to continue to offer student intern opportunities within the City of Tempe Capitalize on partnership opportunities (e.g. Presidential Debate, Earned Income Tax Credit Program, Open Horizons, ENLACE, Community for Kids) Support multi-lingual school projects and programs Goal: To strengthen relationships between Tempe schools and the City of Tempe Schedule effective joint meetings between the City Council and school boards Continue to provide school campus officers Utilize the National League of Cities as a resource for joint city/school programs and opportunities Seek improvement of neighborhood schools through communities’ in-schools programs Enhance Kid Zone partnerships and explore extending program to 8th grade Promote Mayor’s Youth Advisory Council Enhance and expand Pappas School partnerships Enhance athletic partnerships with the schools Continue to provide school ground maintenance partnerships Explore service and program opportunities to maximize resources, share resources and enhance efficiencies Promote and support programs that encourage youth to remain in school and prevent school drop-out Goal: To advance community services and programs in collaboration with educational entities serving Tempe Utilize existing forms of communication such as Channel 11, Tempe Today and school distributions to promote education partnerships Develop linkages between City and school district staffs to promote service, programs and information Review internal education opportunities within City of Tempe’s tuition reimbursement program Coordinate human and social services programs and resources between schools and the City where appropriate Coordinate programs and services with Tempe Leadership, YMCA, Boys and Girls Club and other service organizations where appropriate Facilitate mentoring programs by City employees Promote and expand various joint grant opportunities that further City’s goals (e.g., Unity Grants, Minority Achievers) Promote safe activities for youth (e.g., Grad Nite) Promote and encourage community volunteers in support of schools (e.g., Cinderella Affair) Community Services Committee Goal: To review golf course operations and strategies to ensure a positive experience for our citizens Review and analyze enterprise fund viability Explore potential operational structures to enhance efficiencies Review potential golf course enhancements and capital improvements Goal: To assure that community recreational needs are being met through the development, maintenance, improvement of our parks and athletic fields Review the development of the Tempe Sports Complex Develop master plans for various neighborhood parks Assist neighborhood groups that receive grant funding to improve parks Review park improvement projects Review the development of Double Butte Cemetery Examine potential strategies to address the long-range needs of our neighborhood parks Explore opportunities to collaborate with other communities in the master planning of Papago Park Goal: To promote and encourage the development of the Arts and events in Tempe Monitor the development of the Tempe Center for the Arts and the adjacent arts park Explore and review Tempe Center for the Arts operational strategies Pursue the development of Mitchell School as a home for Childsplay Explore opportunities for annual cultural festival in conjunction with the new arts facilities Review and follow-up on issues regarding events identified in the Destination Tempe Task Force summary report Goal: To strengthen and promote Community Service programs and facilities that serve the Public Promote the development and monitor the construction of the North Tempe Multigenerational Center Promote the development of services to seniors through the development of the Connections Café grant from the Virginia Piper Charitable Trust Monitor the implementation of the Library strategic plan Transportation Committee Goal: To ensure that light rail transit (LRT) design and construction activities meet community needs Review Valley Metro Rail (VMR) construction schedule and progress Review and follow-up on VMR construction outreach and mitigation efforts Review station design and integration with the community Review the need for bus pull-outs along Apache Boulevard Goal: To increase transit ridership Monitor bus contractor performance Monitor bus stop and bus pull-out implementation program Review customer education programs for persons with disabilities and schools Review potential changes to the regional bus fare policy Encourage Valley Metro to adopt a free youth pass system (Valley metro technical committee recommendation not to adopt free youth pass received) Monitor the development of the downtown Tempe transit center Evaluate the implementation of additional neighborhood circulators Evaluate the transportation recommendations from the Task Force on Disability Issues Report Goal: To coordinate local and regional transportation decisions Monitor implementation of regional transportation plan (freeways, bus, LRT, dial-a-ride) Explore and recommend modifications to Tempe transportation program to complement regional transportation Support federal funding requests for regional and local transit projects Monitor the regional maintenance facility design and construction activities Goal: To ensure the safe and efficient movement of people and vehicles along the street system Review speed limit alternatives Review the locations for new signal systems and the signal system upgrade Explore opportunity of yield signs on buses Examine leading and lagging left turn signal configurations Review traffic volume and crash analysis Examine the need for underpass/overpass at railroad crossing at Rural Road Evaluate rubberized asphalt as a potential paving surface Evaluate the effect of multiple downtown special events on transportation system Goal: To recognize and encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel as an important part of the transportation system Pursue the development of a transportation overlay district Review sidewalk inventory and develop plan for completion of sidewalk Review the potential for combining the Bicycle Advisory Committee and the Transportation Commission (completed in December 2004) Monitor bicycle facility plan implementation Goal: To expand community partnerships Encourage a dialogue and partnership with ASU on transportation parking, student, faculty, and staff transit pass, Free Local Area Shuttle (FLASH) and bicycle improvements Educate students at all Tempe schools about using bus and LRT Diversity and Human Relations and Resources Committee Goal: To promote a fair, equitable and accessible environment for the City of Tempe through partnerships, resource sharing and community building Enhance and promote accessibility opportunities through the newly established ADA Accessibility Specialist position and the continued partnership with the Mayor’s Commission on Disability Concerns, i.e. Parking accessibility, architectural compliance, and timely response to community concerns Develop and implement a Race Neutral Diversity Supplier Program through partnerships with the Human Relations Commission, City of Tempe’s Diversity Department, Financial Services Department and Public Works Department Develop a diversity newsletter and brochure Identify regional, national, or global issues that may impact Tempe in the near future for proactive action by the Human Relations Committee. Examples: Immigration issues, inter-faith issues Goal: To educate through programming and celebrate through events Tempe’s rich diversity Create a diversity events committee charged with identifying and coordinating celebrations to recognize the multitude of cultures within Tempe Research historical civil rights and diversity related dates to acknowledge and commemorate, i.e. Brown vs. Board of Education, Martin Luther King “I have a dream” speech Collaborate with local school districts and ASU on diversity related programs and initiatives Enhance the Diversity Dialogue and Community Conversation Programs through collaboration with local schools Goal: To conduct human service agency review process on behalf of the City of Tempe Recruit and train citizen review panels, issue request for proposals, review proposals, make funding recommendations to City Council Monitor funded agency services during year Implement new Employee Compensation Fund online application review process and monitoring system Goal: To broaden the base of resources to meet the human service needs of the community Increase participation in the H2O program; continue to see a new match partner Transfer oversight of Arizona Community Foundation and Tempe Community Foundation fund distribution to Tempe Community Council Explore development of Tempe Community Foundation Promote the development of community philanthropy; recognize role models, highlight efforts, and identify opportunities for community participation Goal: To continue implementation of task force recommendations Facilitate recommendations of the Homeless Task Force, especially concerning the needs of those “on the street” in need of day resources Facilitate recommendations from the Task Force on Aging and Disability Issues Goal: To explore and promote affordable housing opportunities in Tempe Help New/Town/Land Trust develop affordable housing capacity Identify opportunities for public and private housing partnerships Goal: To continue identification of unmet human service needs in Tempe Utilize new technology – social indicators, GIS mapping Research and publish reports on pressing issues (e.g., living wage, children and family issues) Collaborate and share information with other human services organizations (e.g., Maricopa Association of Governments, United Way, Cities of Mesa, Scottsdale and Chandler) Technology Advancement, Tourism & Redevelopment Committee Goal: To build a stronger, more diverse technology community in Tempe Participate in technology events and programs that co-brand Tempe with ASU Continue to evolve the “Tempe, the Smart Place to be” marketing kit including electronic media Market “Tempe, the Smart Place to be” to ASU’s science and technology graduate students to further a global workforce in Tempe Develop “Tempe 50” list of ASU technology contacts and cultivate their interest in a business location in Tempe Continue targeted advertising program Explore ways to add technology specialist Goal: To expand tourism outreach activities Research and develop a baseline report on the current tourism economy in Tempe Identify the top 50 ASU decision makers who choose locations for technical conferences, association meetings and develop program to market “Tempe, the Smart Place to be” Incorporate the Tempe Convention & Visitor’s message in city’s retention call program Facilitate development of additional hotel rooms/properties in downtown/Rio Salado area Goal: To invest in Redevelopment Initiatives and Projects Explore ways and means to develop a neighborhood grant program for aging shopping centers in Tempe Develop new housing strategy/program to address future workforce affordability issues in Tempe Prioritize redevelopment projects currently under consideration including potential demonstration project Investigate and make recommendations to apply for grant opportunities in redevelopment areas Pursue economic development tools such as tax increment financing Monitor and facilitate use of the New Markets Tax Credit program in Tempe Goal: To improve and enhance the development process Evaluate the consolidation of the Planning & Zoning Board and the Design Review Board as well as the Plumbing, Electrical, and Mechanical Boards and make a recommendation to Council Study various fees, such as Impact fees and General Plan Amendment Application fees, and make suggestions/recommendation to the Council Evaluate the processing of variances and make suggestions/recommendation to the Council Central City Development Committee of the Whole Goal: To ensure continued quality development of the Tempe Town Lake, Mill Avenue District and Central City core Develop design principles for architecture and urban space development in Central Business District Goal: To identify and facilitate opportunities for Arizona State University (ASU), Downtown Tempe, the City of Tempe and other community partners in the Central City to work together in promoting development of the area Coordinate marketing efforts of Downtown Tempe Community (DTC), ASU, and City of Tempe to comprehensively represent area to targeted markets Convene Downtown, University and City of Tempe Committee (DUC) to address common promotion, events and marketing Goal: To monitor and improve the services and quality of life to residents in the Central City core Provide inputs to ASU Decision Theatre to create 3-D model of proposed development and infrastructure impacts of proposed development to facilitate decision making in Central City Goal: To focus community resources on the preservation of significant historic structures Secure Proposition 202 funds for archeological studies of Flour Mill Prepare National Historic Register nomination of Hayden Butte Ad-Hoc Long-Range Budget and Finance Planning Committee Goal: To review the City’s expenditures Identify streamlining opportunities Goal: To review existing and identify new revenue sources Examine current sales/property tax programs and other general revenue streams Consider new revenue sources Goal: To review the City’s financing protocols Review the update of the City’s Long-Range Financial Capacity Plan Continue to examine impact of mid-decade census to state-shared revenue Evaluate long-term impact of policy decisions made today or in the past Recommend possible deficit reduction proposal to full Council Goal: To evaluate incentive guidelines Review incentive guidelines and propose possible revisions to Council Recommend possible regional economic development strategies to full Council 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 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. 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 many 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 1984 with its participation in an experimental program coordinated by the Innovation Group, a non-profit 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. The City continues to refine 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 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 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 City Attorney Boards and Commissions 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 Court, City Manager 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 Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Contributions Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Mayor and Council Total 2003-04 Actual $315,684 26,483 505 (21,424) 85,118 $406,366 $2.55 2003-04 Actual Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 7 7 2004-05 Budget $305,816 33,601 0 (25,050) 85,133 $399,500 $2.48 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 7 0 7 2004-05 Revised $320,877 27,101 0 (25,940) 86,354 $408,392 $2.54 2005-06 Budget $352,806 33,601 0 (21,891) 22,200 $386,716 $2.39 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 7 0 7 Related Strategic Issue: Ad-Hoc Long-Range Budget and Finance Planning Goal: To represent the citizens of Tempe by providing leadership and public policy decision making necessary to serve the needs of Tempe Objective: To formulate policy to meet the current and anticipated needs of the Tempe community recognizing fiscal and administrative constraints 2003-04 Actual Measures Council & Council Committee Meetings Agenda Items 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget 140 140 150 150 1,700 1,700 1,750 1,750 Related Strategic Issue: Ad-Hoc Long-Range Budget and Finance Planning Goal: To provide effective professional leadership and direction for the implementation of City policy and the coordination and administration of the City organization Objective: To supervise City administration and to oversee citizen boards and commissions 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 Actual Budget Revised Measures Council appointees reviewed 4 4 4 Citizen board and commission oversight 31 31 31 2005-06 Budget 4 31 Related Strategic Issue: Ad-Hoc Long-Range Budget and Finance Planning Goal: To provide municipal governance as defined by the City Charter Objective: To examine and adopt a fiscally sound and balanced budget 2003-04 2004-05 Actual Budget Measures Adopt a balanced budget Yes Yes 2004-05 Revised Yes 2005-06 Budget Yes 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 and efficiently direct the City’s operations and activities in accordance with sound management principles. These efforts will create an organizational culture which results in the delivery of excellent municipal services to the citizens of Tempe. 2003-04 Actual $259,214 6,814 (6,087) $259,941 $1.63 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel City Manager Total 2003-04 Actual Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2 0.5 2 0.5 2004-05 Budget $268,318 13,100 (8,148) $273,270 $1.70 2004-05 Revised $303,161 13,100 (8,931) $307,330 $1.91 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2 0.5 2 0.5 2005-06 Budget $312,963 13,100 (18,076) $307,987 $1.91 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2 0.5 2 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 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita $369,660 3,465 173 31,687 $404,985 $2.54 $371,991 22,752 0 30,502 $425,245 $2.64 $380,812 12,752 0 30,556 $424,120 $2.64 $404,871 22,752 0 25,524 $453,147 $2.80 Authorized Personnel Internal Audit Total 2003-04 Actual Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 4 4 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 4 4 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 4 4 Related Strategic Issue: Ad-Hoc Long-Range Budget and Finance Goal: To provide an internal consulting service to City Administration and the operating departments that assists in evaluating the operations of the various departments and strives to ensure that products and services are provided in an efficient and effective manner Objective: To perform independent evaluation and quality improvement initiatives/studies of City departments, divisions, and systems or units 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget 8 8 8 8 Citywide audit plan 1 1 1 1 Performance and operational audits 2 2 2 2 Internal control review audits 2 2 2 2 Contract compliance audits 1 1 1 1 Self-assessment projects 1 1 1 1 Measures Management advisory services Diversity Program Diversity Program The Diversity Program 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. 2003-04 Actual $249,400 205,922 130 12,574 $468,026 $2.93 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Diversity Total 2003-04 Actual Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 3 3 2004-05 Budget $241,938 188,331 0 11,918 $442,187 $2.75 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 3 0.5 3 0.5 2004-05 Revised $267,628 262,678 0 11,981 $542,287 $3.37 2005-06 Budget $357,136 188,331 0 12,847 $558,314 $3.45 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 4 4 Related Strategic Issue: Diversity & Human Relations and Resources 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 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Budget N/A N/A 520 455 Employee advocacy group participants* N/A N/A 28 28 Mentoring Program Participants* N/A N/A 20 50 Management advisory hours* N/A N/A 1,040 1,235 Diversity training people served* N/A N/A 835 900 Measures Employee Safe Haven/Fact-Finding Investigation and Mediation hours* 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget Related Strategic Issue: Diversity & Human Relations and Resources 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 Measures Fiesta Bowl & Rock and Roll Marathon Thank You Reception participants Tempe Talks: A Diversity Dialogue participants Cesar Chavez Celebration participants* Tempe Talks: A Community Conversation participants Beautification Awards participants* Tardeada participants Boards and Commission Dinner participants * New measure 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget 250 250 250 250 40 75 40 50 0 0 0 100 0 250 8,000 500 80 250 8,500 500 80 250 10,000 500 80 250 11,000 500 Community Relations Community Relations Mayor & Council Staff Government Relations Neighborhood Services Communication & Media Relations The Community Relations Office is comprised of the Mayor and Council’s 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 Council members. 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 of this division. 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. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Contributions Expenditure Total Per Capita Expenditures by Division Community Relations– Admin; Mayor and Council Staff Government Relations Neighborhood Services Communication & Media Relations Expenditure Total 2003-04 Actual Authorized Personnel Community RelationsAdmin; Mayor and Council Staff Full Time 8 Perm FTE 2003-04 Actual $1,432,287 475,109 812 208,590 284,888 $2,401,686 $15.05 2004-05 Budget $1,362,160 543,543 0 200,427 368,328 $2,474,458 $15.39 2004-05 Revised $1,460,739 475,271 0 200,337 300,800 $2,437,147 $15.15 2005-06 Budget $1,484,997 713,471 0 180,572 177,054 $2,556,094 $15.82 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget $809,511 $841,995 $748,597 $945,408 386,511 221,595 984,068 $2,401,685 419,674 233,681 979,108 $2,474,458 440,936 281,783 965,831 $2,437,147 358,920 201,846 1,049,920 $2,556,094 2004-05 Revised Temp FTE Full Time 0.98 8 Perm FTE 2005-06 Budget Temp FTE Full Time 0.98 7 Government Relations 2 2 1 Neighborhood Services 2 2 2 Communication & Media Relations Total Perm FTE Temp FTE 0.98 6 0.85 6 0.85 6 0.85 18 1.83 18 1.83 16 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 Council committees. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Contributions 2003-04 Actual $547,870 172,396 14,339 2004-05 Budget $639,445 132,300 0 2004-05 Revised $585,966 91,800 0 2005-06 Budget $642,953 209,000 32,500 812 0 0 0 74,094 70,250 70,831 60,955 $809,511 $841,995 $748,597 $945,408 $5.07 $5.24 $4.65 $5.85 Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Community Relations Admin; Mayor and Council Staff Total 2003-04 Actual Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 8 0.98 8 0.98 7 0.98 8 0.98 8 0.98 7 0.98 Government Relations The Government Relations Division is responsible for the following activities: (1) coordination of all state and federal legislative activities; (2) oversight of all Maricopa Association of Governments programs and other intergovernmental activities; (3) review and coordination of various transportation and air quality issues, in conjunction with the Transportation Division; (4) staff assistance on special projects to the City Manager, and Mayor and City Council; and (5) serve as a liaison to the Tempe Sports Authority. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Contributions 2003-04 Actual $153,395 9,728 198,749 2004-05 Budget $97,237 12,727 286,328 2004-05 Revised $118,275 13,955 285,100 2005-06 Budget $122,866 171,388 42,121 Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita 24,639 $386,511 $2.42 23,382 $419,674 $2.61 23,606 $440,936 $2.74 22,545 $358,920 $2.22 Authorized Personnel Government Relations Total 2003-04 Actual Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2 2 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2 2 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 1 1 Related Strategic Issue: Neighborhood Quality of Life and Public Safety Goal: 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 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget 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. 2003-04 Actual $194,770 7,016 19,809 $221,593 $1.39 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Neighborhood Services Total Full Time 2 2 2003-04 Actual Perm Temp FTE FTE 2004-05 Budget $191,096 23,350 19,235 $233,681 $1.45 2004-05 Revised $249,309 13,350 19,124 $281,783 $1.75 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2 2 2005-06 Budget $175,692 13,350 12,804 $201,846 $1.25 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2 2 Related Strategic Issue: Neighborhood Quality of Life and Public Safety 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 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Actual Budget Revised Budget Measures Participating households 37,250 38,000 37,500 37,875 2.0% (1.3)% 1.0% Percent change 51 65 46 50 Grant applications received 7,530 11,000 10,100 10,000 Households awarded grants $225,000 $225,000 $225,000 $225,000 Grant funds awarded $150,000 $150,000 $125,000 $150,000 Matching funds received 41,700 47,500 47,500 45,000 Mailing sent by office Capital Improvements Program-Neighborhood Services Project Title Maryanne Corder Neighborhood Improvement Program Total - Neighborhood Services Projects 2005-06 225,000 225,000 2006-07* 2007-08* 2008-09* 2009-10* 225,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 Total 1,125,000 1,125,000 *Amounts for FY 2006-07 through FY 2009-10 represent estimates of future capital costs based on the planned scope of the project, and are subject to future review, revision, and adoption in future operating budgets. 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. 2003-04 Actual $536,252 285,967 71,800 90,049 $984,068 $6.17 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Contributions Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Communication & Media Relations Total Full Time 2003-04 Actual Perm Temp FTE FTE 2004-05 Budget $434,382 375,166 82,000 87,560 $979,108 $6.09 2004-05 Revised $507,189 356,166 15,700 86,776 $965,831 $6.01 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2005-06 Budget $543,486 375,166 47,000 84,268 $1,049,920 $6.50 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 6 0.85 6 0.85 6 0.85 6 0.85 6 0.85 6 0.85 Related Strategic Issue: Neighborhood Quality of Life and Public Safety 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 television programming services 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Actual Budget Revised Budget Measures 12 12 12 12 Tempe Today water bill newsletter 12 12 12 12 Newsbreak city employee newsletter 12 12 12 12 Newspaper advertisements 144 144 144 144 Press releases 85 85 85 85 Informational publications 15 15 15 20 Major publication ads 1,000 1,600 1,000 900 Fiesta Bowl media packets 12 12 12 12 Water bill insert flyers 8 8 8 8 Newsletters for other divisions 3 3 2 2 City, Transit & Fire Performance Reports 10 10 10 10 Special Projects 10 10 10 10 Major event graphic support 100 100 100 100 Audio/visual equipment & staging 60 60 60 60 Still photography assignments 300 300 300 300 Video productions on Tempe 11 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, and 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. 2003-04 Actual $296,406 295,682 0 46,335 0 $638,423 $4.00 Expenditure by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Contributions Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel City Clerk Total 2003-04 Actual Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 4 0.58 4 0.58 2004-05 Budget $316,158 94,600 0 44,486 0 $455,244 $2.83 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 4 0.58 4 0.58 2004-05 Revised $330,345 106,600 0 44,293 0 $481,238 $2.99 2005-06 Budget $343,557 336,600 0 46,600 0 $726,757 $4.50 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 4 0.58 4 0.58 Related Strategic Issue: Neighborhood Quality of Life and Public Safety Goal: To continue providing an effective microfilming and Public Safety program through the development of a computerized indexing system Objective: To maintain a sufficient level of microfilming for various departments in accordance with the State of Arizona Department of Library and Archives 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Actual Budget Revised Budget Measures Rolls microfilmed 81 80 87 90 Percent change (1.0%) 7.4% 12.5% Related Strategic Issue: Neighborhood Quality of Life and Public Safety Goal: To monitor and maintain all council and citywide contracts and agreements, process all ordinances and resolutions, and advertise and post all bids Objective: 1) To effectively maintain and monitor all contracts/agreements for the city and ensure that an original signed and executed copy is on file in the clerk’s office; 2) effectively process all ordinances and resolutions including advertising, signatures, recording with the county recorder, distributing to all code users and keeping current files; and 3) advertise and post all bids in accordance with state statutes 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Actual Budget Revised Budget Measures Contracts and agreements processed 221 300 239 300 Ordinances and resolutions processed 179 400 108 200 Bids advertised and posted 118 150 92 150 City Court Presiding Judge City Judges Hearing Officers Court Administration Criminal Division Civil Division City Court is a municipal limited jurisdiction court that deals with criminal misdemeanor, civil traffic cases, code enforcement and zoning violations as well as Orders of Protection and Injunctions Against Harassment. City Court consists of three divisions including (1) Administration, (2) Criminal, and (3) Civil. 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 and financial services to enforce court orders by collecting fines, fees, surcharges and restitution. 2003-04 Actual $2,283,325 403,561 497,057 $3,183,943 $19.95 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel City Court Total Full Time 33 33 2003-04 Actual Perm Temp FTE FTE 2004-05 Budget $2,338,237 512,529 476,809 $3,327,576 $20.69 2004-05 Revised $2,498,931 514,045 478,738 $3,491,714 $21.71 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 33 0.65 33 0.65 2005-06 Budget $2,590,153 564,326 605,061 $3,759,540 $23.26 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 33 0.65 33 0.65 Related Strategic Issue: Neighborhood Quality of Life and Public Safety Goal: To improve efficiency and effectiveness in the City Court system’s adjudication process Objective: To ensure 100% processing of court filings to prevent a backlog 2003-04 2004-05 Actual Budget Measures Total number of filings* 115,720 N/A Total number of dispositions* 112,996 N/A Clearance ratio* 98% N/A *New measure 2004-05 Revised 131,100 128,478 98% 2005-06 Budget 131,100 129,789 99% Human Resources Human Resources Manager Administration Classification/ Compensation & Recruitment/Testing Employee Benefits & Services Tempe Learning Center The Human Resources Department consists of four divisions: Administration; Classification/ Compensation and Recruitment/Testing; Employee Benefits and Services; and the Tempe Learning Center (TLC). The department directly and indirectly serves 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. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Material and Supplies 2003-04 Actual $1,895,134 113,815 2004-05 Budget $1,901,774 82,817 2004-05 Revised $1,968,575 83,002 2005-06 Budget $2,049,541 81,612 629,695 816,132 678,219 691,426 (208,254) (249,373) (249,960) (361,096) $2,430,391 $15.23 $2,551,350 $15.86 $2,479,836 $15.42 $2,461,483 $15.23 Fees and Services/Travel Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Human Resources Tempe Learning Center Total Full Time 16 2003-04 Actual Perm Temp FTE FTE 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 16 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 15 2 0.5 2 0.5 3 0.5 18 0.5 18 0.5 18 0.5 Related Strategic Issue: Diversity & Human Relations and Resources Goal: To attract and retain a diverse and qualified workforce Objective: To achieve a low annual turnover rate of less than 10% of the total workforce 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 Actual Budget Revised Measures Employee Turnover Rate 4.8% 8.0% 6.5% Comparative Benchmark 2005-06 Budget <10% Related Strategic Issue: Diversity & Human Relations and Resources Goal: To reduce the number of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaints and formal grievances filed against the City Objective: To ensure fair and equitable internal conflict resolution practices by promoting ways in which employees can resolve conflict through the Human Resources’ mediation program, safe havens, education and coaching 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Actual Budget Revised Budget Measures Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Complaints 5 4 4 0 Formal Grievances 3 6 6 0 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 six-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 a mandatory skills training series for managers and supervisors, educational partnerships for academic degree and vocational/technical certifications, and workshops targeting specific training needs. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Materials and Supplies Fees and Services/Travel Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Tempe Learning Center Total 2003-04 Actual $732,527 28,603 38,635 (77,763) $722,002 $4.53 2003-04 Actual Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2 2 2004-05 Budget $630,937 28,365 54,770 (78,721) $635,351 $3.95 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2 2 2004-05 Revised $718,586 28,075 49,060 (78,356) $717,365 $4.46 2005-06 Budget $763,794 10,777 29,444 (126,818) $677,197 $4.19 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 3 3 Related Strategic Issue: Diversity & Human Relations and Resources Goal: To support the City’s mission, values and strategic initiatives through employee development Objective: To provide employees with the tools and resources they need to support the City’s mission, values and strategic initiatives by providing a learning environment that will prepare employees for the future while ensuring that services provided are inclusive and meet organizational objectives 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Actual Budget Revised Budget Measures Mandatory Skills Training I 140 85 85 85 Mandatory Skills Training II 311 85 85 85 Mandatory Skills Training III 488 250 250 250 Customized Classes (e.g. Field Services and Water Utilities) 500 500 500 500 City Attorney City Attorney Deputy City Attorney City Prosecutor Civil Division Criminal Division The City Attorney, appointed by the Mayor and City Council under the City Charter, is legal advisor and attorney for the City. Activities include presentation and defense of the City’s legal interests and rights and prosecution for misdemeanor complaints. The City Attorney also is responsible for attending City Council meetings and serving as legal counsel during such meetings. Services are as follows: (1) support the legislative and administrative processes (ordinances, opinions, litigation, contracts, legal research, liens); (2) present and defend the City’s legal interests and rights before all courts, legislative and administrative tribunals; and (3) prosecute complaints (misdemeanor traffic and criminal, municipal and superior courts). 2003-04 Actual $1,800,218 132,575 53 115,878 $2,048,724 $12.84 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Materials and Supplies Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel City Attorney Total 2003-04 Actual Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 21 0.75 0.62 21 0.75 0.62 2004-05 Budget $1,957,040 250,364 0 112,698 $2,320,102 $14.43 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 21 0.75 0.62 21 0.75 0.62 2004-05 Revised $2,021,692 162,089 0 111,735 $2,295,516 $14.27 2005-06 Budget $2,069,161 250,346 0 133,767 $2,453,274 $15.18 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 21 0.75 0.62 21 0.75 0.62 Related Strategic Issue: Neighborhood Quality of Life and Public Safety 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 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 Actual Budget Revised Measures Lawsuits: Pending civil lawsuits 41 60 64 Forfeiture actions 82 35 59 Property hearings 74 70 75 Lawsuits filed by/against City 29 45 45 Percent change in caseload (7.1%) 7.5% 2005-06 Budget 50 50 74 40 1.9% Related Strategic Issue: Neighborhood Quality of Life and Public Safety 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 research on written and verbal legal opinions 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Actual Budget Revised Budget Measures Ordinances, resolutions and contracts reviewed/drafted 400 700 347 500 Written and verbal legal opinions 2,500 2,541 3,230 4,000 Percent Change 1.7% 29.2% 57.4% Related Strategic Issue: Neighborhood Quality of Life and Public Safety Goal: To prosecute misdemeanors effectively and efficiently with an emphasis on serious crimes, and provide support and assistance to victims Objective: 1) To obtain early resolution of criminal cases consistent with doing justice and speedy resolution of cases at arraignment by effectively managing cases per attorney; 2) increase emphasis on driving under the influence (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 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Measures Actual Budget Revised Budget Criminal, criminal traffic and DUI cases 14,501 12,000 15,909 17,500 Per attorney 2,417 2,000 2,652 2,917 DUI cases (included above) 1,934 1,600 2,162 2,378 Criminal traffic trials 95 60 112 123 Criminal trials (other than traffic) 190 180 259 285 Victim contacts 14,292 17,000 15,356 16,900 Percent of cases going to trial 2% 2% 2% 2% Financial Services Financial Services Administration Risk Management Central Services Tax and License Accounts Payable Claims Purchasing Business Licensing General Ledger Safety Reprographics Audit Accounting Payroll Budget Customer Services Revenue Collections The Financial Services Department is comprised of Administration, Accounting, Budget, Risk Management, Central Services, Customer Services and Tax & License. The department’s operational functions include all finance, accounting, budget, revenue audit and collections, purchasing, reprographics, business licensing responsibilities, and customer service billing operations. Though the main funding source for Financial Services is the General Fund, funding is also provided from the Risk Management Fund and the Water/Wastewater Fund. The following services are provided by the Financial Services Department: 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, Comprehensive Financial Planning, 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, and irrigation services. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Expenditures by Division Financial Services Administration Accounting Budget Risk Management* Central Services Tax and License Customer Services** Total 2003-04 Actual $4,460,242 2,630,497 63,201 (1,630,420) $5,523,520 $34.61 2004-05 Budget $4,734,156 3,193,914 60,900 (2,160,874) $5,828,096 $36.24 2004-05 Revised $4,765,983 3,157,301 24,400 (2,164,015) $5,783,669 $35.96 2005-06 Budget $4,943,153 3,204,965 25,000 (2,404,997) $5,768,121 $35.69 2003-04 Actual $243,159 859,301 277,006 149 1,038,882 1,422,573 1,669,540 $5,523,520 2004-05 Budget $272,096 915,609 282,030 0 1,106,212 1,517,659 1,734,48 $5,828,096 2004-05 Revised $286,298 901,853 287,081 0 1,108,718 1,490,323 1,709,396 $5,783,669 2005-06 Budget $175,954 936,783 337,566 0 1,180,891 1,471,271 1,665,656 $5,768,121 * Funded by the Risk Management Fund **Funded by the Water/Wastewater Fund Authorized Personnel Financial Services-Admin. Accounting Budget Risk Management Central Services Tax and License Customer Services Total 2003-04 Actual Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2 10 0.63 4 3 0.5 11 0.62 17 20 67 0.5 1.25 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2 10 0.63 4 3 0.5 11 0.62 17 20 67 0.5 1.25 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2 10 0.63 4 3 0.5 11 0.62 17 20 67 0.5 1.25 Related Strategic Issue: Ad-Hoc Long-Range Budget and Finance Planning Goal: 1) To effectively perform accounts payable, payroll and other accounting functions for City departments; and 2) maintain adequate internal controls, adhere to generally accepted accounting principles, and ensure the safety of the City's investments Objective: To maintain the Government Finance Officers Association Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Actual Budget Revised Budget Measures Accounting GFOA Certificate of Achievement Compliance with State and Federal Reporting Requirements (941, W-2, 1099, etc.) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Investment Policy Compliance Yes Yes Yes Yes Unqualified Audit Opinion Maintain Effective System of Internal Controls Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Related Strategic Issue: Ad-Hoc Long-Range Budget and Finance Planning 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 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Actual Budget Revised Budget Measures Administration and Budget Fund balance coverage 27.4% 25.0% 29.8% 29.8% Long-term net-direct debt per capita $490.58 $547.24 $453.33 $490.33 General Obligation Bond Ratings AA+/Aa1/ AA+/Aa1/ AA+/Aa1/ AA+/Aa1/ (Standard and Poors/ Moodys/ Fitch) AAA AAA AAA AAA Related Strategic Issue: Ad-Hoc Long-Range Budget and Finance Planning Goal: To minimize the City's exposure to liability and worker's compensation claims through a proactive approach to risk management, loss prevention and employee safety education Objective: To minimize the City's liability and worker's compensation claims paid as measured by claims per capita and claims per employee 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Actual Budget Revised Budget Measures Risk Management General and property liability claims $459,816 $725,000 $185,304 $650,000 Worker's compensation claims $734,744 $1,100,000 $609,347 $800,000 Cost of general and property liability claims per capita $2.88 $4.55 $1.15 $4.02 Cost of general and property liability claims per 100 employees Cost of worker's compensation claims per 100 employees $27,986 $40,278 $11,264 $38,393 $44,719 $66,666 $37,042 $47,253 Related Strategic Issue: Ad-Hoc Long-Range Budget and Finance Planning Goal: To procure low cost, quality goods and services for City departments, while ensuring that purchases are made in a timely and ethical manner Objective: 1) To procure at least 45% of lower cost items through annual contracts; and 2) maintain compliance with the American Bar Association's Model Procurement Code 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Actual Budget Revised Budget Measures Central Services Conformity to American Bar Association Model Procurement Code Conform Conform Conform Conform Lower cost purchases made through annual contracts 45% 45% 45% 45% Bid award recommendations accepted by City Council 95% 95% 100% 95% Maintain an automated bidder registration program and Procurement Office webpage Maintained Maintained Maintained Maintained Maintain and monitor a city procurement card program Maintained Maintained Maintained Maintained Comparative Benchmark Related Strategic Issue: Ad-Hoc Long-Range Budget & Finance Planning Goal: To implement the city’s tax ordinances by ensuring that all businesses and individuals subject to the tax ordinances pay taxes as prescribed Objective: To maximize the productivity of the Tax and License staff as measured by taxable accounts and collections per employee 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Actual Budget Revised Budget Measures Tax and License Sales tax license holders (accounts) 14,133 14,000 14,337 14,500 Taxable sales per capita ($) 32,163 32,544 33,116 34,424 831 824 2.9% 843 5.8% 853 $4,621,556 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 Percent Change* Accounts per Tax and License employee Collections for Auditors and Revenue Collectors ($) *New measure Related Strategic Issue: Ad-Hoc Long-Range Budget and Finance Planning Goal: To provide efficient and timely services to the City’s utility customers Objective: 1) To maximize employee productivity as measured by accounts per employee and accounts per Customer Service Representative; and 2) ensure prompt and accurate customer service by keeping the call abandonment rate at no more than 10% Measures Customer Services Utility services accounts Percent change Utility services accounts per Customer Services employee Percent of calls abandoned 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget 41,632 41,300 0% 2,065 10% 41,600 0% 2,080 10% 41,700 0% 2,085 10% 2,082 Related Strategic Issue: Ad-Hoc Long-Range Budget and Finance Planning 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 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Actual Budget Revised Budget Measures Cost per utility services account (annual) $40.10 $40.55 $41.09 $39.94 Percent change 1.1% 1.3% (1.6)% Capital Improvements Program-Financial Services Project Title Leased Office Space Total - Financial Services Projects 2005-06 2006-07** 2007-08** 2008-09** 2009-10** 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 Total 875,000 875,000 **Amounts for FY 2006-07 through FY 2009-10 represent estimates of future capital costs based on the planned scope of the project, and are subject to future review, revision, and adoption in future capital budgets. Information Technology Information Technology Administration Application Services Technical Services Customer Support IT User Education PC Services Applications Services Systems & Network Administration Data Management Data Center Operations Public Access Systems Telecom Operations Project Management The Information Technology Department (ITD) 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. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel 2003-04 Actual $6,026,158 2004-05 Budget $6,274,422 2004-05 Revised $6,390,745 2005-06 Budget $6,625,167 5,038,584 1,530,513 5,953,660 0 5,837,337 0 6,064,970 0 (12,595,255) (12,228,082) (12,228,082) (12,690,137) $0 $78.91 $0 $76.04 $0 $76.02 $0 $78.52 2003-04 Actual Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE Administration Customer Spt/Application Svcs/ Data Mgmt/Public Access Systems/Project Mgmt PC Services Systems & Network Administration/Data Ctr Ops Telecommunications 4 4 4 37 8 37 8 37 8 14 10 17 6 18 5 Total 73 72 72 Related Strategic Issue: Technology Advancement and Redevelopment 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 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Measures Actual Budget Revised Budget 2,227 2,247 2,259 2,259 Personal computer inventory 0.9% 1.4% 5.3% Percent change 2,925 2,945 2,905 2,852 Telephone inventory 0.68% (0.70%) (3.20%) Percent change Cost per computer Comparative Benchmark $4,151 $4,187 $4,493 $4,493 and terminal workstation Comparative Benchmark Capital Improvements Program - Information Technology Project Title 2005-06 Replacement of A/C Units in Data Center 90,000 Total - Information Technology Projects 90,000 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Total 90,000 90,000 Development Services Development Services Manager Administration Curent and Advanced Planning Planning/Building Safety Administration Customer Service Counter and Permits Plan Check Inspection The Development Services Department is responsible for enhancing the quality of Tempe’s living environment and its economic base. The major divisions include Administration, Current and Advanced Planning, Planning/Building Safety Administration, and Customer Service Counter and Permits. Services provided are as follows: (1) assisting our customers through the city’s development entitlement process; (2) current planning and administrative support for Design Review, Board of Adjustment, Planning Commission, and City Council; (3) professional advisement on the change or adoption of codes and ordinances, rules and regulations applicable to new development, redevelopment, construction and property conservation; (4) review and approval of building plans and specifications of all proposed construction; (5) issuance of building, fire and engineering permits for development; (6) on-site building inspections; and (7) development of long-range, strategic, and local area planning documents for the City of Tempe. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita 2003-04 Actual $3,210,224 111,244 557,203 $3,878,671 $24.30 2004-05 Budget $3,863,715 214,030 577,818 $4,655,563 $28.95 2004-05 Revised $3,831,319 214,030 586,536 $4,631,885 $28.80 Expenditures by Division 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised Development Services - Admin. $226,096 $671,529 $662,838 $549,589 Building Safety and Permits 2,511,658 0 0 Planning Planning/Building Safety Administration Inspection Current and Advanced Planning Customer Service Counter Plan Check Total 1,140,917 0 0 0 0 0 211,941 272,326 438,337 960,292 1,328,350 581,889 901,562 $4,655,563 991,558 1,268,182 562,907 874,074 $4,631,885 991,401 1,259,259 640,592 915,911 $4,795,089 Authorized Personnel Development Services - Admin. Building Safety and Permits Planning Planning/Building Safety Admin. Inspection Current and Advanced Planning Customer Service Counter Plan Check Total 0 0 0 0 $3,878,671 2003-04 Actual Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 1 29 1.00 16 1.86 46 2.86 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 6 5 12 12 6 9 50 1.86 1.00 2.86 2005-06 Budget $3,925,055 219,116 650,918 $4,795,089 $29.67 2005-06 Budget 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 4 5 12 12 6 9 48 1.86 1.00 2.86 Related Strategic Issue: Technology Advancement and Redevelopment Goal: To verify through formal plan check and permit processes that plans, specifications, 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 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Actual Budget Revised Budget Measures 1,675 1,580 1,693 1,700 Building plans submitted 157 145 157 158 Plans checked per month (weighted) Average plan review time (days): 20 20 20 20 New commercial building 12 12 12 12 New residential construction Related Strategic Issue: Technology Advancement and Redevelopment Goal: To perform on-site inspections of commercial and residential buildings, and to inspect damaged buildings for compliance Objective: To consistently perform at least 33 inspections per inspector per day on a sustained basis without reducing the level of service or quality of inspections 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Actual Budget Revised Budget Measures 66,232 46,000 63,122 69,000 Number of inspections performed 54.1 33.0 41.8 45.7 Inspections per inspector per day *Comparative benchmark Capital Improvements Program-Development Services Project Title America West Airlines - 1st Street Redevelopment Downtown Public Parking Total - Development Services Projects 2005-06 2006-07** 2007-08** 2008-09** 2009-10** 862,750 200,000 862,750 200,000 862,750 200,000 862,750 200,000 Total 862,750 200,000 4,313,750 1,000,000 1,062,750 1,062,750 1,062,750 1,062,750 1,062,750 5,313,750 **Amounts for FY 2006-07 through FY 2009-10 represent estimates of future capital costs based on the planned scope of the project, and are subject to future review, revision, and adoption in future capital budgets. Community Development Community Development Manager Administration Economic Development Rio Salado Community Design and Development Neighborhood Enhancement Redevelopment/ Revitalization Redevelopment/ Special Projects Community Devel. Block Grants Section 8 Special Housing Community Development is responsible for a wide range of activities that focus on promoting Tempe as a favorable place for business location and expansion. Its divisions and their respective functions include: Economic Development: Working with prospective businesses, coordinating regional and local entities in attracting quality companies, broadening the Tempe tax base, and encouraging educational, cultural and recreational opportunities that make for a well-balanced city and contribute to the quality of life; Rio Salado: Management of the Rio Salado Town Lake project and coordinating development in the Rio Salado region; Community Design and Development: Provide low interest housing rehabilitation loans and rental assistance for the elderly, persons with disabilities and low-income individuals and families; administer redevelopment and historic preservation programs; develop neighborhood plans and low income housing plans; and Neighborhood Enhancement: Receive and investigate complaints of all alleged city code violations, and initiate action to abate violations; recommend codes and ordinances, rules and regulations applicable to construction and property preservation. Expenditure by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Contributions Expenditure Total Per Capita Expenditures by Division Community Development- Admin Neighborhood Enhancement Redevelopment/Special Projects Redevelopment/Revitalization Rio Salado Downtown Management Matching Funded-Home Program Community Development Block Grant Section 8 Housing Total Authorized Personnel Community Development- Admin Neighborhood Enhancement Redevelopment/Special Projects Redevelopment/Revitalization Rio Salado Downtown Management Housing Services (Section 8/CDBG) Total 2003-04 Actual $3,380,285 10,736,779 15,598 250,407 648,531 $15,031,600 2004-05 Budget $3,230,674 11,994,178 4,800 93,975 717,199 $16,040,826 2004-05 Revised $3,029,759 11,827,010 3,350 97,343 730,410 $15,687,872 2005-06 Budget $3,450,472 11,980,105 3,000 70,461 626,928 $16,130,966 $94.17 $99.74 $97.55 $99.81 2003-04 Actual $766,238 982,177 0 0 974,643 1,051,106 100,316 2004-05 Budget $769,371 1,023,938 1,035,432 226,740 1,122,426 0 150,558 2004-05 Revised $758,260 1,018,931 703,517 262,127 1,082,118 0 150,558 2005-06 Budget $995,952 1,089,962 905,583 232,431 1,175,398 0 0 2,782,928 8,374,191 $15,031,600 2,901,168 8,811,193 $16,040,826 2,901,168 8,811,193 $15,687,872 2,849,008 8,882,632 $16,130,966 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE Time FTE FTE 4 4 13 13 8 11 14 50 0.49 0.49 8 11 14 50 0.49 0.49 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 6 1.0 11 7 2 8 0.49 16 50 1.49 Related Strategic Issue: Central City Development Committee of the Whole Goal: 1) To foster good communication between existing businesses and local government; and 2) increase job opportunities for residents Objective: 1) To retain existing businesses in Tempe; and 2) hold quarterly business round-table meetings with Mayor and City Council 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Actual Budget Revised Budget Measures Calls on existing Tempe businesses 120 120 120 100 Quarterly business round-table meetings with Mayor and City Council 4 4 4 3 Opportunities to retain Tempe businesses 5 5 5 15 Related Strategic Issue: Central City Development Committee of the Whole Goal: To diversify the Tempe economy Objective: To continue to "trigger" development in Tempe, including the Rio Salado project area 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Actual Budget Revised Budget Measures New research and development operations 1 1 1 3 New office users 6 6 6 6 New sales tax generator 4 4 4 5 Jobs generated by new companies 3,000 3,000 3,000 2,200 New businesses brought to Tempe 10 10 10 10 Successful business retentions and expansions 5 5 5 5 Related Strategic Issue: Central City Development Committee of the Whole Goal: To increase use of Tempe Town Lake and the surrounding Rio Salado parks Objective: To increase revenue from annual and daily boat permits, boating classes, and park reservations/permits 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 Actual Budget Revised Measures 2005-06 Budget Boat permit revenue Boating class revenue $26,250 $25,000 $22,142 $26,085 $7,160 $4,500 $8,463 $8,375 $884 $2,460 $2,400 $885 $5,423 $5,188 $5,370 $6,100 $22,470 $12,240 N/A N/A $22,381 $12,000 $20,000 $12,000 Rio Salado park permit revenue Rental charges (vendors) Boat Storage-Operations Center* Boat Storage-Marina* *New measure Capital Improvements Program-Community Development Project Title Economic Development Commercial Center Façade Program CDBG Share*** 2005-06 2006-07** 2007-08** 2008-09** 2009-10** Total Subtotal Economic Development Rio Salado Rio Salado Ancillary Projects Subtotal Rio Salado Total-Community Development Projects 99,090 99,090 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 499,090 499,090 199,090 200,000 200,000 100,000 100,000 799,090 **Amounts for FY 2006-07 through FY 2009-10 represent estimates of future capital costs based on the planned scope of the project, and are subject to future review, revision, and adoption in future capital budgets. ***Amounts budgeted in Community Development Block Grant operating appropriations. Redevelopment/Housing (Section 8, CDBG & HOME) The Housing Services Division provides the following services: (1) rehabilitation of structures with low-interest loans; (2) Section 8 rental assistance for the elderly, persons with disabilities and lowincome 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. 2003-04 Actual $1,021,582 9,884,807 3,751 3,629 243,350 0 $11,157,119 $69.90 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Contributions Contingencies Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Community Development Block Grant & HOME Section 8 Housing Total 2003-04 Actual Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 5 9 14 2004-05 Budget $901,490 10,366,023 3,000 0 234,950 206,898 $11,712,361 $72.83 2004-05 Revised $1,040,545 10,352,076 3,000 0 234,950 81,790 $11,712,361 $72.83 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 5 9 14 2005-06 Budget $841,827 10,564,620 3,000 11,911 273,802 36,480 $11,731,640 $72.59 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 5 11 14 Related Strategic Issue: Central City Development Committee of the Whole Goal: To preserve the City's neighborhoods and standard housing stock by providing housing assistance to low income people in Tempe, at standards required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Objective: To increase the number of houses rehabilitated using federal Community Development Block Grant and HOME program funding, while maximizing staff productivity and controlling administrative costs Measures Single family houses rehabilitated: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Home Occupancy Made Easier (HOME) Program Funds Households assisted per FTE staff – CDBG O&M expenditures per household assisted - CDBG First-time Homebuyer Program (HOME) Households Assisted per FTE 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 Actual Budget Revised 2005-06 Budget 21 60 32 20 17 26 $36,334 $40,040 22 30 22 15 60 30 20 $32,800 15 15 60 20 26 $40,040 30 15 Related Strategic Issue: Central City Development Committee of the Whole Goal: To provide decent, safe and sanitary housing for the City's low and moderate income citizens Objective: To provide rental subsidies and family self-sufficiency guidance to low income people living in private rental housing within Tempe 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 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Actual Budget Revised Budget 1,008 1,022 1,082 1,082 325 1,300 115.2 $8,164 400 1,000 113.6 $7,364 350 1,500 119.0 $7,727 350 1,500 119.0 $7,727 Police Office of the Chief Patrol Division Support Services Division Investigations Division The Police Department consists of the following divisions: 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. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Comparative Benchmark Comparative Benchmark Expenditures by Division Office of the Chief Patrol Support Services Investigations Total Authorized Personnel Full Time Office of the Chief Patrol Support Services Investigations 12 211 133 159 Total 515 2003-04 Actual Perm Temp FTE FTE 2003-04 Actual $37,002,820 3,077,049 2,038 7,060,001 2004-05 Budget $38,016,998 2,843,971 0 7,300,233 2004-05 Revised $38,780,924 3,165,207 0 7,391,731 2005-06 Budget $41,410,443 3,582,163 21,150 8,462,186 $47,141,908 $295.35 $48,161,202 $299.47 $49,337,862 $306.79 $53,475,942 $330.87 2003-04 Actual $3,340,406 19,257,011 9,782,413 14,762,078 $47,141,908 2004-05 Budget $3,188,938 20,161,104 9,710,645 15,100,515 $48,161,202 2004-05 Revised $3,383,302 20,835,942 10,169,309 14,949,309 $49,337,862 2005-06 Budget $4,296,052 21,795,379 10,975,702 16,408,809 $53,475,942 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 1.0 3.29 1.70 1.26 12 211 133 159 1.0 6.25 515 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 1.0 3.29 1.70 1.26 13 218 137 156 3.29 1.70 1.26 1.0 6.25 524 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. 2005-06 Highlights: Funding was appropriated for a full-time benefitted Assistant City Attorney position. This position will provide dedicated legal assistance to the Police Department. Currently, the City Attorney's office provides support when needed. This reactive response does not provide the Police Department or the City the support needed to minimize risk and potential litigation. 2005-06 Capital Budget Operating Impacts: As part of the Capital Improvements Program Budget, funding was approved for software maintenance expense associated with the Technology Integrated Police System. 2003-04 Actual $875,441 1,588,362 301 876,302 $3,340,406 $20.93 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Office of the Chief Total 2003-04 Actual Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 12 12 2004-05 Budget $917,987 1,361,059 0 909,894 $3,188,940 $19.83 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 12 12 2004-05 Revised $899,527 1,582,868 0 900,907 $3,383,302 $21.04 2005-06 Budget $1,125,517 2,014,096 3,150 1,153,289 $4,296,052 $26.58 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 13 13 Related Strategic Issue: Neighborhood Quality of Life and Public Safety 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 2.01 sworn full-time equivalents (FTE) per 1,000 capita Measures Part 1 Crimes-Property Clearance Rate Part 1 Crimes-Persons Clearance Rate Part I Crimes Per 1,000 Capita Citizen satisfaction O&M Cost Per Capita Sworn FTE’s per Capita (1,000) Percent change Comparative Benchmark Non-Sworn FTE’s per Capita (1,000) Comparative Benchmark 2003-04 Actual 14,923 14.4% 997 38.8% 99 82 $295.35 2.09 1.10 2004-05 Budget 19,367 18.7% 1,552 61.8% 90 90 $299.47 2.11 1.0% 1.09 2004-05 Revised 12,288 14.9% 1,040 30.8% 86 86 $306.79 2.03 (2.9%) 1.09 2005-06 Budget 14,402 14.6% 918 34.8% 95 84 $330.87 2.01 (4.7%) 1.13 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) to 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. 2005-06 Highlights: Funding was appropriated for four non-recurring full-time Police Officer positions to increase the number of Police Officer overhires from eight to twelve. Additional officers are needed as 24 Police Officers have joined the Deferred Retirement Option Program (D.R.O.P). This funding will allow the Department to maintain staffing levels while hiring and training replacements for retirees. 2003-04 Actual Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Patrol Total 2003-04 Actual Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 211 3.29 211 3.29 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget $15,410,118 $16,056,516 $16,653,502 $17,350,666 196,102 264,348 270,788 292,660 0 0 0 18,000 3,650,791 3,840,240 3,911,652 4,134,053 $19,257,011 $120.65 $20,161,104 $125.36 $20,835,942 $129.56 $21,795,379 $134.85 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 211 3.29 211 3.29 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 218 3.29 218 3.29 Related Strategic Issue: Neighborhood Quality of Life and Public Safety 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 Watch Program Measures Priority Zero calls answered* Percent change Citizen calls for police service Percent change Average response time to emergency calls (minutes) Operating expenses per citizen calls Neighborhoods with Crime Watch Program Percent change Comparative Benchmark 2003-04 Actual 4,523 2004-05 Budget 5,153 2004-05 Revised 4,462 2005-06 Budget 4,492 131,901 13.9% 135,000 (1.4%) 124,923 (12.8%) 128,412 2.3% (5.3%) (4.9%) 4:59 $150.46 300 4:43 $391.87 330 4:42 $420.29 321 (10.5%) (1.5%) 7.0% 4:41 $361.08 335 * Priority zero calls are citizen calls for service that were responded to by patrol and have received a priority designation. They are the highest priority calls that represent life threatening emergencies. Support Services The Support Services Division is comprised of Personnel Services, Communications, Records, Operations Support, Public Information, and Volunteers in Policing. Support Services is responsible for providing comprehensive support services to the entire Police Department. Services provided by this division are as follows: (1) to answer all incoming calls and provide 24-hour dispatch service; (2) to provide radio communications between the police station and all patrol field units; (3) to provide full service police records management services; (4) to respond to media requests for information; (5) to recruit, test, and hire sworn police officers and civilian personnel; (6) to provide in-service training programs; (7) to investigate internal complaints and liaison with the Tempe Citizens’ Panel for Review of Police Complaints and Use of Force; (8) to provide jail and booking service and transport all prisoners to the City Court; (9) to update and implement organizational policy and procedure; (10) to process and maintain all impounded property; and (11) to provide crime scene photography and evidence collection services. 2005-06 Highlights: Funding was appropriated for two non-recurring full-time Communications Dispatch I/II positions. These positions are intended to be overhires to supplement current staffing. The Communication Division has experienced increased service demands requiring inordinate amounts of scheduled overtime to meet minimum staffing needs, which contributed to increased leave use and individuals leaving the Department for other opportunities. 2005-06 Capital Budget Operating Impacts: As part of the Capital Improvements Program Budget, funding was approved for film and recording supplies associated with the Police Logging Recorder project. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised $8,377,515 $8,457,107 $8,768,084 $9,330,476 534,309 410,343 551,582 466,531 1,737 0 0 0 868,852 843,195 849,643 1,178,695 $9,782,413 $61.29 $9,710,645 $60.38 $10,169,309 $63.23 $10,975,702 $67.91 Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Support Services Total 2003-04 Actual Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 133 1.0 1.70 133 1.0 1.70 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 133 1.0 1.70 133 1.0 1.70 2005-06 Budget 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 137 1.70 137 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. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Investigations Total 2003-04 Actual Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 159 1.26 159 1.26 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget $12,339,745 758,277 1,664,056 $14,762,078 $92.48 $12,585,389 808,221 1,706,905 $15,100,515 $93.90 $12,459,811 759,969 1,729,529 $14,949,309 $92.96 $13,603,784 808,876 1,996,149 $16,408,809 $101.52 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 159 1.26 159 1.26 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 156 1.26 156 1.26 Related Strategic Issue: Neighborhood Quality of Life and Public Safety Goal: To investigate and clear cases assigned to the Criminal Investigations Division Objective: To effectively manage property caseload per investigator 2003-04 2004-05 Actual Budget Measures Property cases assigned 2,931 3,100 Cases per investigator 195 117 Percent change (40.0%) 2004-05 Revised 2,550 170 (12.8%) 2005-06 Budget 2,600 177 51.3% Related Strategic Issue: Neighborhood Quality of Life and Public Safety Goal: To investigate and clear cases assigned to the Criminal Investigations Division Objective: To effectively manage persons caseload per investigator 2003-04 2004-05 Actual Budget Measures Persons cases assigned 2,242 2,200 Cases per investigator 160 170 Percent change 6.3% 2004-05 Revised 2,097 150 (6.3%) 2005-06 Budget 2,342 167 (1.8%) Capital Improvements Program-Police Department Project Title Apache Boulevard Police Substation Police/City Radio System Replacement Police CAD/RMS/FRWS System TIPS (Technology Integrated Police System) Police Logging Recorder Laptop Refresh Total - Police Department Projects 2005-06 2006-07* 12,372,814 2007-08* 1,285,800 150,000 2,559,648 2,000,000 6,777,622 4,000,000 150,000 149,000 150,000 200,000 14,107,614 4,709,648 10,977,622 2008-09* 2009-10* Total 12,372,814 3,663,649 1,285,800 15,572,519 6,150,000 150,000 150,000 800,000 149,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 5,213,649 1,435,800 36,444,333 Capital Improvements Program-Operating Impacts Project Title Apache Boulevard Police Substation TIPS (Technology Integrated Police System) Police Logging Recorder Laptop Refresh Total - CIP Operating Impacts 2005-06 2006-07* 2007-08* 2008-09* 2009-10* Total 421,232 408,413 430,543 461,511 1,721,699 5,000 200 5,000 23,200 10,000 24,360 5,200 449,432 442,773 10,000 24,360 15,000 479,903 10,000 220 15,000 486,731 40,000 72,340 30,000 1,864,039 *Amounts for FY 2006-07 through FY 2009-10 represent estimates of future operating and capital costs based on the planned scope of the project, and are subject to future review, revision, and adoption in future operating and capital budgets. Fire Fire Chief Administration Fire Prevention/ Public Safety Ed Emergency Services Medical Services Training/ Professional Dev Special Ops/ Em Mgmt Support Services Personnel/Safety/ Customer Service Fire Inspection Fire Suppression Continuous Quality Impvmnt Recruit Training Emergency Management Apparatus Maintenance Phys Training/ Wellness Public Education Emergency Medical Svcs Infection Control Officer Development Hazardous Material Facility Maintenance Safety Volunteer Budget/ Finance Managed Healthcare Min Company Standards Technical Rescue Supply Professional Conduct Fire Investigation Project Planning PM & EMT Cert & Ed Incident Analysis CAD Liaison Disp Comm Technical Services Recruitment Employment New Construction Transport Contract Mgt Driver/Apparatus Ops Training Special Events Citizen CPR First Aid Instr Trng Facility Management Media/Public Relations Promotion The Fire Department consists of Administration and Fire Prevention, Emergency and Medical Services, Training and Professional Development, Special Operations, Support Services, and Personnel Safety Divisions. The Department’s operational areas include administrative services, fire suppression, emergency management, emergency medical services, hazardous materials control, technical rescue, communications, equipment and facilities maintenance, training, fire prevention and inspection, and public safety education. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Contributions Capital Outlay Internal Services 2003-04 Actual $12,985,914 1,035,402 11,982 929,729 1,130,253 2004-05 Budget $13,318,244 985,682 13,000 294,000 1,202,583 2004-05 Revised $13,579,969 1,089,768 14,509 294,000 1,226,920 2005-06 Budget $15,251,108 1,126,310 13,000 689,200 1,153,906 Expenditure Total Per Capita $16,093,279 $100.83 $15,813,509 $98.33 $16,205,166 $100.77 $18,233,524 $112.81 Expenditures by Division Admin and Fire Prevention Emergency and Medical Svcs Training and Professional Dev Special Operations Support Svcs and Personnel Safety 2003-04 Actual $2,406,953 11,010,717 317,006 269,638 2,088,966 2004-05 Budget $2,519,934 11,398,838 311,619 253,841 1,329,277 2004-05 Revised $2,674,122 11,369,884 359,622 289,379 1,512,159 2005-06 Budget $2,627,009 13,048,858 362,796 297,145 1,897,716 Total $16,093,279 $15,813,509 $16,205,166 $18,233,524 Comparative Benchmark Authorized Personnel Administration and Fire Prevention/Personnel Safety 2003-04 Actual Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 17 Emergency and Medical Services Training and Professional Dev Special Operations Support Services 128 3 3 5 Total 156 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 17 1.0 128 3 3 5 1.0 156 0 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 17 1.0 1.0 141 3 3 5 1.0 1.0 169 1.0 0 0 1.0 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. 2005-06 Highlights: Funding was appropriated for one full-time non-benefitted position to supplement fire inspection staff. The Commission of Fire Accreditation International recommends inspections every two years; current staffing levels allow inspections every three years. 2003-04 Actual $1,504,994 135,679 0 766,279 $2,406,953 $15.08 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Administration and Fire Prevention/Personnel Safety Total 2003-04 Actual Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2004-05 Budget $1,462,704 185,727 0 871,503 $2,519,934 $15.67 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2004-05 Revised $1,627,028 166,497 0 880,597 $2,674,122 $16.63 2005-06 Budget $1,684,809 189,686 21,700 730,814 $2,627,009 $16.25 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 17 17 17 1.0 17 17 17 1.0 Related Strategic Issue: Neighborhood Quality of Life and Public Safety Goal: To provide high quality cost efficient fire services Objective: To efficiently manage resources to meet the needs of citizens with 9.22 sworn full-time equivalents (FTE) per capita and .15 fire stations per square mile 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Actual Budget Revised Budget Measures Department cost per fire employee 117,469 115,427 118,286 122,373 Firefighters per capita (10,000) 8.58 8.52 8.52 9.22 Non-Firefighters per capita (10,000) 1.19 1.18 1.18 1.24 Companies per capita (10,000) 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 Fire Stations per capita (10,000)/sq mile .38/.15 .37/.15 .37/.15 .37/.15 Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating 2 2 2 2 Operating Expenditures per $100,000 of property protected 153 138 142 153 (9.64%) 2.48% 8.19% Percent Change Comparative Benchmark 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 Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Emergency and Medical Services Total 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget $10,573,938 404,561 32,218 $11,010,717 $68.98 $10,974,416 395,422 29,000 $11,398,838 $70.88 $10,922,534 418,350 29,000 $11,369,884 $70.70 $12,551,290 405,068 92,500 $13,048,858 $80.74 2003-04 Actual Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 128 128 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 128 128 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 141 141 Related Strategic Issue: Neighborhood Quality of Life and Public Safety Goal: To provide efficient response to fire, medical, hazardous materials, and rescue emergencies Objective: To reduce safe emergency responses by an average of four seconds Measures Responses to fire alarms Responses to emergency medical incidents Responses to special operations incidents Responses to other emergency services Average emergency response time in minutes (from call receipt to arrival)* % of emergency responses taking 5.0 minutes or less Calls per capita (1,000) Percent change Comparative Benchmark *Calls do not include alarm processing time 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget 2,123 13,068 151 1,637 2,450 12,900 80 2,100 2,100 13,300 135 1,600 2,150 13,400 140 1,700 4:25 4:25 4:21 4:21 70% 82 74% 80 (2.5%) 71% 83 1.2% 71% 83 0.0% 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. This section also provides oversight and maintenance of Department personnel certifications. Expenditures by Type Personal Services 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget $265,896 $257,343 $306,819 $302,993 51,110 54,276 52,803 59,803 $317,006 $1.99 $311,619 $1.94 $359,622 $2.22 $362,796 $2.24 Supplies and Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Training and Professional Development Total 2003-04 Actual Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 3 3 3 3 3 3 Related Strategic Issue: Neighborhood Quality of Life and Public Safety Goal: To provide training and evaluation standards for all phases of emergency services Objective: 1) To evaluate all Emergency Services Division personnel quarterly for compliance with Tempe Fire Department standards relating to fireground, EMS and special operations procedures; and 2) maintain current percentages of completion 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 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 100% 100% 100% 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. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services 2003-04 Actual $228,414 2004-05 Budget $211,706 2004-05 Revised $249,618 2005-06 Budget $254,860 29,242 29,135 25,252 29,285 11,982 13,000 14,509 13,000 $269,638 $1.69 $253,841 $1.58 $289,379 $1.80 $297,145 $1.84 Contributions Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Special Operations Total Full Time 3 3 2003-04 Actual Perm Temp FTE FTE 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 3 3 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 3 3 Related Strategic Issue: Neighborhood Quality of Life and Public Safety Goal: Objective: To provide efficient response to emergencies that involve hazardous materials To effectively manage the number of first responders 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 Actual Budget Revised Measures First responders 101 101 101 Hazardous materials technicians 24 24 24 First responders per technician 4.3 4.2 4.2 2005-06 Budget 101 24 4.2 Support Services and Personnel Safety Primary responsibilities of Support Services and Personnel Safety include equipment maintenance and repair, apparatus construction management, maintaining the Department’s communications systems, and writing equipment bid specifications. In addition, the division orders and distributes fire-fighting supplies to the City’s six fire stations. 2003-04 Actual Expenditures by Type Personal Services 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget $412,672 $412,075 $473,970 $457,156 Supplies and Services 414,809 321,122 426,866 442,468 Capital Outlay 897,511 265,000 265,000 575,000 Internal Services 363,974 331,080 346,323 423,092 $2,088,966 $13.09 $1,329,277 $8.27 $1,512,159 $9.40 $1,897,716 $11.74 Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Support Svcs and Personnel Safety Total 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Full Perm Time FTE FTE Time FTE 5 5 1.0 1.0 5 5 1.0 1.0 Temp FTE 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 5 5 1.0 1.0 Related Strategic Issue: Neighborhood Quality of Life and Public Safety Goal: 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 (PM) schedule 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Actual Budget Revised Budget Measures Vehicles maintained 25 23 27 28 Percent change (8.0%) 8.0% 21.8% Preventive maintenance inspections 211 276 210 250 Percent completed within PM schedule 100% 100% 100% 100% Capital Improvements Program-Fire Department Project Title Replacement of Self Contained Breathing Apparatus Radio Replacement for Conversion to 800 Megahertz Renovations to Fire Station 4 Total - Fire Department Projects 2005-06 2006-07* 2007-08* 2008-09* 2009-10* 625,000 625,000 140,000 765,000 Total 402,000 402,000 140,000 402,000 1,167,000 *Amounts for FY 2006-07 through FY 2009-10 represent estimates of future capital costs based on the planned scope of the project, and are subject to future review, revision, and adoption in future capital budgets. 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. 2003-04 Actual Expenditures by Type 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Contributions $12,360,114 2,479,615 118,504 2,573,463 26,305 $13,226,734 2,879,181 0 2,509,115 62,324 $12,724,771 2,650,691 16,669 2,504,805 62,324 $13,705,423 3,610,471 40,000 3,014,473 92,324 Expenditure Total Per Capita $17,558,001 $110.00 $18,677,354 $116.14 $17,959,260 $111.67 $20,462,691 $126.61 2003-04 Actual $517,341 5,980,049 4,342,603 1,407,720 5,310,287 $17,558,001 Expenditures by Division Administration Parks and Recreation Library Cultural Services Social Services Total Authorized Personnel 2003-04 Actual Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2004-05 Budget $515,485 6,111,150 4,512,145 2,075,033 5,463,541 $18,677,354 2004-05 Revised $522,324 6,077,896 4,377,070 1,623,625 5,358,345 $17,959,260 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2005-06 Budget $570,539 6,340,430 4,545,036 3,351,027 5,655,719 $20,462,691 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE Admin. and Parks & Recreation 37 3.25 67.87 37 3.25 67.87 42 2.0 67.87 Library 34 4.75 9.84 34 4.75 9.84 33 6.0 9.84 Cultural Services 14 1.5 8.0 14 1.50 8.00 31 0.50 21.30 41 126 2.15 11.65 81.49 167.20 41 126 2.15 11.65 81.49 167.20 42 148 Social Services Total 3.15 81.49 11.65 180.50 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. This division also provides resources to coordinate improvements and expansions at the Double Butte Cemetery. This program is funded by the Cemetery Fund. 2005-06 Capital Budget Operating Impacts: The approved amount includes funding for operation and maintenance costs associated with the Double Butte Cemetery Expansion and Improvement project. These costs total $127,628 in FY 2005-06, and include funding for 2 additional full time positions, computer leasing costs, and one time capital equipment. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Contributions Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Administration Parks and Recreation Total 2003-04 Actual $4,524,036 1,201,433 118,309 627,307 26,305 $6,497,392 $40.71 2003-04 Actual Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 3 0.52 34 3.25 67.35 37 3.25 67.87 2004-05 Budget $4,767,509 1,156,640 0 640,162 62,324 $6,626,635 $41.21 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 3 0.52 34 3.25 67.35 37 3.25 67.87 2004-05 Revised $4,737,257 1,157,186 13,909 629,544 62,324 $6,600,220 $41.04 2005-06 Budget $4,853,256 1,177,990 40,000 747,339 92,324 $6,910,909 $42.76 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 3 0.52 39 2 67.35 42 2 67.87 Related Strategic Issue: Community Services Goal: To provide quality recreation services to the community, and to coordinate the effective use of community facilities Objective: To provide recreational opportunities at a cost that compares favorably with other cities as measured by cost per capita 2003-04 Actual $31.73 $2,139,869 40% Measures O&M cost per capita Parks & Recreation revenue Cost Recovery Comparative Benchmark 2004-05 Budget $36.43 $2,235,600 37% 2004-05 Revised $36.43 $2,235,600 37% 2005-06 Budget $36.43 $2,235,600 37% Capital Improvements Program-Parks and Recreation Project Title 2005-06 2006-07* 2007-08* 2008-09* 2009-10* Total Tempe Diablo Stadium Renovation 10,000,000 10,000,000 Double Butte Cemetery Expansion 1,400,000 1,400,000 Acquisition and Development of Victory Acres Property* Neighborhood Park Improvements 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,250,000 Sports Facility Relamping 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 300,000 Golf Course Improvements 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 Kiwanis Recreation Center Tennis Court Resurfacing 565,000 565,000 Kiwanis Recreation Center Wave Equipment Restoration 60,000 415,000 475,000 Kiwanis Park Batting Range Netting 30,000 30,000 Total - Parks & Recreation Projects 11,760,000 360,000 1,015,000 775,000 360,000 14,270,000 Capital Improvements Program-Operating Impacts Project Title Double Butte Cemetery Expansion Acquisition and Development of Victory Acres Property Kiwanis Recreation Center Wave Equipment Restoration Total - CIP Operating Impacts 2005-06 2006-07** 2007-08** 2008-09** 2009-10** 127,628 122,782 122,782 122,782 122,782 127,628 122,782 122,782 Total 608,598 20,300 20,300 40,600 3,000 146,082 31,000 174,082 34,000 683,198 * Amounts budgeted in Community Development Block Grant operating appropriations **Amounts for FY 2006-07 through FY 2009-10 represent estimates of future operating and capital costs based on the planned scope of the project, and are subject to future review, revision, and adoption in future operating and capital budgets. 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. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Library Total 2003-04 Actual $2,629,805 736,026 195 976,577 $4,342,603 $27.21 2003-04 Actual Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 34 4.75 9.84 34 4.75 9.84 2004-05 Budget $2,808,297 771,980 0 931,868 $4,512,145 $28.06 2004-05 Revised $2,660,695 772,872 2,760 940,743 $4,377,070 $27.22 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 34 4.75 9.84 34 4.75 9.84 2005-06 Budget $2,750,247 771,980 0 1,022,809 $4,545,036 $28.12 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 33 6 9.84 33 6 9.84 Related Strategic Issue: Community Services 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 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget 1,056,297 1,035,890 1,045,733 1,045,780 141,509 $3.09 0.30 147,160 4.0% 1,330,774 (5.3)% 162,181 4.8% $3.37 0.29 155,121 9.6% 1,377,210 3.4% 175,036 13.4% $3.17 0.30 8.8 8.0 6.5 156,672 0.65% 1,404,754 5.6% 176,786 0.09% $3.23 0.30 8.69 1,404,318 154,712 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. 2005-06 Capital Budget Operating Impacts: As part of the Capital Improvements Program Budget, funding was approved for operating and maintenance expenses to coincide with the opening of the Tempe Center for the Arts, which is slated for the end of FY 2005-06. These appropriations total $1,239,877 in FY 2005-06. Of this amount, a portion is dedicated for the purchase of one-time capital equipment to outfit the Center, and the remainder will provide salary and benefit costs in support of 16 new full time positions added in FY 2005-06. Expenditures by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Internal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Cultural Services Performing Arts Total 2003-04 Actual $1,039,621 153,114 214,986 $1,407,720 $8.82 2003-04 Actual Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 11 1.0 8 3 0.5 14 1.5 8 2004-05 Budget $1,371,754 492,591 210,688 $2,075,033 $12.90 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 11 1.0 8 3 0.5 14 1.5 8 2004-05 Revised $1,163,382 254,321 205,922 $1,623,625 $10.10 2005-06 Budget $1,694,757 1,195,032 461,238 $3,351,027 $20.73 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 12 0.5 8.03 19 13.27 31 0.5 21.30 Related Strategic Issue: Community Services 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 Museum 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Actual Budget Revised Budget Measures Objects catalogued 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 Visitors to Historical Museum and Peterson House 23,492 19,000 22,000 22,000 Related Strategic Issue: Community Services Goal: To provide quality arts programming to the community, facilitate the effective use of arts facilities, and provide a diverse array of arts opportunities Objective: 1) To support arts programming through grants funding of arts organizations and schools; and 2) offer a wide array of quality arts programming and classes 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Actual Budget Revised Budget Measures Program enrollment 4,329 5,500 6,146 6,000 Percent Change 27.1% 11.8% (2.3)% Arts Classes revenue $130,160 $138,000 $138,000 $138,000 Grants provided to Art Organizations and Schools $105,752 $122,500 $127,580 $100,000 Participants reached through grants 138,000 245,267 210,000 240,000 Capital Improvements Program-Cultural Services Project Title Performing Arts Center Total-Cultural Services Projects 2005-06 2006-07 22,228,912 22,228,912 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Total 22,228,912 22,228,912 Capital Improvements Program-Operating Impacts Project Title Performing Arts Center Total - CIP Operating Impacts 2005-06 2006-07* 2007-08* 2008-09* 2009-10* 1,239,877 1,642,000 1,218,000 1,279,000 1,323,590 1,239,877 1,642,000 1,218,000 1,279,000 1,323,590 Total 6,702,467 6,702,467 *Amounts for FY 2006-07 through FY 2009-10 represent estimates of future operating costs based on the planned scope of the project, and are subject to future review, revision, and adoption in future operating budgets. 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. 2005-06 Capital Budget Operating Impacts: As part of the Capital Improvements Program Budget, funding was approved for operating and maintenance expenses to coincide with the opening of the North Tempe Multigenerational Center. These costs total $110,944 in FY 2005-06 and include funding for 2.5 full time positions. 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget $4,166,652 $4,279,174 $4,163,437 $4,407,163 Supplies and Services 389,042 457,970 466,312 465,469 Internal Services 754,593 726,397 728,596 783,087 $5,310,287 $33.27 $5,463,541 $33.97 $5,358,345 $33.32 $5,655,719 $34.99 Expenditures by Type Personal Services Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Social Services/Administration Social Services/ KID ZONE Total 2003-04 Actual Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 22 2.15 15.56 19 65.93 41 2.15 81.49 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 22 2.15 15.56 19 65.93 41 2.15 81.49 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 23 3.15 15.56 19 65.93 42 3.15 81.49 Related Strategic Issue: Education Partnerships Goal: To promote and enhance quality of life through education partnerships and community based programs that provide a safe and healthy environment for our citizens Objective: To maintain and expand the quality of Community Service programs offered to the public at a level of satisfaction that supports our mission and values and to support school and community based programs through grant funding of substance abuse prevention, delinquency prevention and crime victim assistance 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Actual Budget Revised Budget Measures Kid Zone Participants N/A N/A 244,424 246,800 Percent change Escalante Usage contacts Teen Contacts* Care 7 number served 1.0% 142,374 149,402 143,797 144,515 N/A N/A 6,580 6,580 3,500 3,500 3,250 3,000 Related Strategic Issue: Education Partnerships Goal: 1) To improve public safety by redirecting adult/youth first-time offenders into positive community activities; 2)To address social issues of domestic violence and alcohol and drug abuse by providing assessment and referral services to offenders; 3) To provide case management services to monitor offenders’ compliance with assigned programs; and 4) To provide the court system with an alternative mechanism for processing offenders that is effective and cost-saving 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 85% for screening services clients, and 4) to attain a success rate of 95% for Home Detention clients 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Actual Budget Revised Budget Measures New Adult Diversion Program 820 850 850 925 New Probation 344 300 300 325 Substance Abuse Screenings 1,334 1,000 1,320 1,350 Home Detention Program* 55 N/A 60 70 Minor in Possession of Alcohol* 454 N/A 475 475 Percent Program Completion: Adult/Youth Diversion Program 85.2% N/A 77.5% 77.5% Probation Services 62.1% 60% 60% 60% Substance Abuse Screening services 87.7% 80% 85% 85% Home Detention Program* 98.2% N/A 95% 95% * New measure Capital Improvements Program-Social Services Project Title North Tempe Multigenerational Center Total-Social Services Projects 2005-06 2006-07 750,000 750,000 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Total 750,000 750,000 Capital Improvements Program-Operating Impacts Project Title North Tempe Multigenerational Center Total - CIP Operating Impacts 2005-06 2006-07* 2007-08* 2008-09* 2009-10* Total 110,944 236,009 236,009 236,009 236,009 1,058,917 114,881 236,009 236,009 236,009 236,009 1,058,917 *Amounts for FY 2006-07 through FY 2009-10 represent estimates of future operating costs based on the planned scope of the project, and are subject to future review, revision, and adoption in future operating budgets. Public Works Public Works Manager Administration Engineering Field Services Fleet Services Transportation Streets & Traffic Operations Administration Solid Waste Fleet Maintenance Traffic Engineering Traffic Operations Private Dev and Utilities Facility Management Auto Parts Transit Street Maintenance Capital Improvements Parks & Golf Course Mtnce Fuel Information and Technical Svcs 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 two 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: Traffic Engineering 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. 2003-04 Actual $21,227,085 34,463,310 1,440,644 (922,771) 0 $56,208,268 $352.15 Expenditure by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Contributions Expenditure Total Per Capita Expenditures by Division Administration and Engineering Field Services: Administration & Solid Waste Facility Management Parks and Golf Course Maintenance Fleet Services Transportation Streets and Traffic Operations Total Authorized Personnel Administration and Engineering Field Services Fleet Services Transportation Streets and Traffic Operations Total 2003-04 Actual $1,294,662 2004-05 Budget $1,445,440 10,657,583 4,564,197 8,634,766 (233) 24,084,414 6,972,879 $56,208,268 11,146,985 4,870,419 9,074,682 0 24,896,356 7,625,500 $59,059,382 2003-04 Actual Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 34 212 33 35 52 366 0.50 0.49 8.69 0.50 0.50 1.00 2004-05 Budget $22,842,874 34,920,361 1,858,270 (562,123) 0 $59,059,382 $367.24 9.68 2004-05 Revised $21,997,656 35,608,550 1,925,270 (736,205) 0 $58,795,271 $ 365.60 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 34 211 33 37 51 366 0.50 0.49 8.69 0.50 0.50 1.00 9.68 2004-05 Revised $1,522,111 2005-06 Budget $23,879,663 37,885,160 4,028,787 (667,234) 6,000 $65,132,376 $402.99 2005-06 Budget $1,821,678 11,143,383 13,033,574 4,575,523 5,185,493 8,697,910 9,594,071 0 0 25,481,006 27,737,208 7,375,338 7,760,352 $58,795,271 $65,132,376 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 34 211 33 39 52 369 1.00 0.49 8.69 0.50 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. 2005-06 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 Multigenerational Center, Kyrene Water Reclamation Facility Expansion, Johnny G. Martinez Water Treatment Plant Expansion, Light Rail and Transit Center, and the Police Property Facility/Police Substation on Apache Boulevard. Managing the design/construction of these City projects, as well as the increase of over 200% in new development and redevelopment over the past four years by private developers and residents, presents a challenging opportunity in light of a 25% reduction in staffing levels for the Engineering Division. 2003-04 Actual $2,556,811 295,114 1,383 (1,558,646) 0 $1,294,662 $8.11 Expenditure by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Contributions Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Administration Engineering Total 2003-04 Actual Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 3 0.49 31 34 0.49 2004-05 Budget $2,587,126 435,767 0 (1,577,453) 0 $1,445,440 $8.99 2004-05 Revised $2,655,914 441,016 0 (1,574,819) 0 $1,522,111 $9.47 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 3 0 0.49 31 34 0.49 2005-06 Budget $2,824,655 435,767 0 (1,438,744) 0 $1,821,678 $11.27 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 3 0 0.49 31 34 0.49 Related Strategic Issue: Central City Development Committee of the Whole Goal: To efficiently provide for improved community quality of life by strategic planning, budgeting, design, and construction of capital improvement projects which address recreational, municipal facilities, public utilities, transportation, and public safety needs Objective: To commit 90% of funding for budgeted projects within 18 months Measures CIP dollars budgeted Projects budgeted Engineering Services and Architect Consultants managed Projects committed within 18 months 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget $117.9M $176.9M $176.9M $182.4M 74 65 63 66 125 120 106 110 90% 90% 90% 90% Related Strategic Issue: Central City Development Committee of the Whole Goal: To insure that the construction of private developments and related utility work is coordinated with the City’s infrastructure, transportation plan and quality standards, and is in compliance with applicable codes and ordinances Objective: 1) To issue 350 private development and 120 new private development permits; and 2) spend 5,200 staff hours inspecting the work for all utility and private development construction activity 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Measures Actual Budget Revised Budget Private development permits issued 341 275 420 350 New private developments 93 150 120 120 Value of projects designed $223M $90M $230M $230M 7,280 6,240 5,200 5,200 Staff hours for inspection Related Strategic Issue: Central City Development Committee of the Whole Goal: 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 service Objective: To maintain a database of the facility type, condition, and history which is used to prioritize projects that will minimize disruption of service, extend the useful life, and maintain quality service to the public Measures (In millions) Pavement maintained (square yards) Concrete curbs maintained (linear feet) Sidewalk maintained (square yards) Funds required for preventive maintenance 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget 11.9 13.1 11.9 11.9 5.0 6.4 5.0 5.3 4.0 8.9 4.0 4.2 $2.1 $5.2 $3.4 $3.6 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 section include: (1) plastic solid waste containers provided to all residential customers, residential solid waste collected and transported to the transfer station; (2) commingled residential recyclables collected at curbside; (3) metal bulk solid waste containers provided to commercial customers, commercial solid waste collected and transported to transfer station; (4) commercial cardboard and paper recycling program; (5) uncontained/bulk item solid waste collected from residential customers and transported to transfer station; and (6) container repair program featuring repair and maintenance of 90 and 300 gallon plastic solid waste containers, roll off containers and various sizes of solid waste metal containers. 2005-06 Highlights: Since this budget does not include new programs or significant increases in resources, staff will continue to strengthen the comprehensive solid waste services program by evaluating and potentially shifting existing resources. Key goals include reducing overtime in the commercial area and working with Financial Services to improve the solid waste billing process. Expenditure by Type Personal Services 2003-04 Actual $4,231,773 2004-05 Budget $4,371,279 2004-05 Revised $4,390,879 2005-06 Budget $4,596,870 Supplies and Services 3,340,181 3,236,723 3,258,560 3,732,662 460,063 489,950 489,950 1,905,181 2,625,566 3,049,033 3,003,994 2,798,861 0 0 0 0 $10,657,583 $11,146,985 $11,143,383 $13,033,574 $66.77 $69.31 $69.29 $80.64 Capital Outlay Internal Services Contributions Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Field Services Administration 2003-04 Actual Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 5 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 5 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 5 Solid Waste 65 0.50 65 0.500 65 0.50 Total 70 0.50 70 0.50 70 0.50 Related Strategic Issue: Neighborhood Quality of Life and Public Safety 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 by effectively and efficiently managing solid waste collected; and 2) to divert 27% of residential waste stream 2003-04 Actual Measures Residential households serviced 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget 32,914 33,740 33,790 33,800 Residential contained/recycling $3,809,229 $4,163,542 $4,040,739 $5,084,952 Residential uncontained/green waste $1,880,752 $1,958,964 $1,924,602 $2,229,813 Residential contained 40,660 41,112 41,160 41,225 Residential uncontained 22,388 19,081 19,062 20,000 Recycling 13,918 13,547 13,984 14,500 Residential contained/recycling $69.79 $67.74 $73.28 $91.25 Residential uncontained $84.01 $100.15 $101.00 $111.50 27% 24% 25% 27% 255 255 255 255 Total O&M: (Including Admin. & Support Services) Tons of solid waste collected: Collection cost per ton: Residential diversion rate (recycling) Residential Contained Solid Waste tons per capita (1,000) Related Strategic Issue: Neighborhood Quality of Life and Public Safety Goal: To properly collect and dispose of all solid waste generated by commercial customers and multi-family housing units within the City Objective: To continue to provide quality and timely collection service to all commercial accounts and minimize collection cost per ton to $55.76 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Actual Budget Revised Budget Measures Commercial accounts serviced per month 2,381 2,390 2,380 2,385 Percent change Total O&M–Commercial 0.40% (0.04%) (0.20%) $4,483,672 $4,630,757 Tons of solid waste collected 84,186 112,544 90,415 95,000 Collection cost per ton $44.95 $39.27 $52.10 $55.76 Comparative Benchmark $4,710,242 $5,297,065 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. 2005-06 Highlights: Funding has been approved for two full-time Custodians and one part-time Facilities Technician II to maintain the new North Tempe Multigenerational Center. Expenditure by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Contributions Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Facility Services Custodial Services Total 2003-04 Actual $2,785,669 2,161,975 674 (384,121) 0 $4,564,197 $28.60 2003-04 Actual Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 19 38 0.49 57 0.49 2004-05 Budget $2,957,378 2,262,806 0 (349,765) 0 $4,870,419 $30.29 2004-05 Revised $2,597,340 2,324,949 0 (346,766) 0 $4,575,523 $28.45 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 19 0 38 0.49 57 0.49 2005-06 Budget $3,125,102 2,341,874 0 (281,483) 0 $5,185,493 $32.08 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 19 0.50 40 0.49 59 0.50 0.49 Related Strategic Issue: Community Services Goal: To provide efficient maintenance and custodial services to all City facilities while maintaining a safe, clean and productive work environment Objective: 1) To hold facility maintenance costs per square foot maintained to $2.65; and 2) provide manpower coverage between 50,000 to 55,000 square foot per 10 hour shift for routine maintenance functions 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Actual Budget Revised Budget Measures Facility Maintenance Total O&M $3,181,503 $3,130,857 $3,423,582 $3,471,490 Full-time Equivalents (FTE’s) 18.5 18.5 18.5 19.0 Buildings maintained 80 80 81 82 Square feet maintained 1,262,085 1,262,085 1,270,485 1,288,147 Percent change 0.0% 0.01% 0.01% O&M per square foot maintained $2.52 $2.48 $2.69 $2.65 Square feet maintained per FTE 68,220 68,220 68,675 67,792 Related Strategic Issue: Community Services Goal: To provide efficient maintenance and custodial services to all City facilities while maintaining a safe, clean and productive work environment Objective: 1) To hold custodial costs per square foot per year between $1.50 and $2.00; and 2) maintain square footage per custodian between 18,000 to 18,500 per 8 hour shift for routine cleaning Measures Custodial Services Total O&M Full-time Equivalents Total square feet Total square feet cleaned Percent change Number of buildings cleaned O&M per square foot cleaned Square feet cleaned per FTE 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget $1,444,264 37.5 1,262,085 916,917 $1,540,085 37.5 1,262,085 916,917 0.0% 68 $1.67 24,451 $1,558,069 37.5 1,270,485 925,317 0.01% 69 $1.68 24,675 $1,713,589 39.5 1,288,147 942,979 0.02% 70 $1.81 23,872 68 $1.57 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. Expenditure by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Contributions Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Parks Maintenance Pest Control Baseball Facility Golf Courses Landscape Maintenance Rio Salado Double Butte Cemetery Total 2003-04 Actual $4,409,936 3,709,285 3,531 512,014 0 $8,634,766 $54.10 2003-04 Actual Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 46 5.12 5 8 0.56 22 2.42 1 0 4 0.10 1 87 8.20 2004-05 Budget $4,802,318 3,226,538 0 1,045,826 0 $9,074,682 $56.43 2004-05 Revised $4,520,989 3,121,905 0 1,055,016 0 $8,697,910 $54.09 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 46 0 5.12 4 8 0.56 22 2.42 1 0 4 0.10 1 86 8.20 2005-06 Budget $4,625,839 3,314,808 82,500 1,570,924 0 $9,594,071 $59.36 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 49 0 5.12 8 21 1 4 1 84 0.56 2.42 0 0.10 8.20 Related Strategic Issue: Community Services 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) 2003-04 Actual 12,184,819 Percent change Landscape maintained (acres) 280 2004-05 2004-05 Budget Revised 11,461,990 13,504,782 2005-06 Budget 13,548,592 (6%) 11% 18% 254 310 311 Related Strategic Issue: Community Services Goal: To provide recreational facilities for leisure opportunities that are accessible, attractive, enjoyable and safe Objective: To provide facilities to meet the public’s recreational needs and maintain high standards for all recreational use 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Actual Budget Revised Budget Measures Total acres maintained 1,369 1,089 1,369 1,369 Per employee: Stadium 15.63 15.00 15.63 15.63 Parks/Special Facilities 18.49 21.57 20.66 20.66 8.64 10.37 10.56 11.18 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 81,471 85,000 78,000 78,000 (4.3%) (4.3%) 0.0% 95,000 70,000 70,000 (3.5%) (0.4%) 0.0% 170 150 60 Golf courses Parks/Special Facilities maintained Golf course rounds of play: Ken McDonald (18 hole rounds) Percent change Rolling Hills (9 hole rounds) 70,315 Percent change Diablo stadium special events 204 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; (7) equipment specifications preparation, and (8) vehicle disposal. 2005-06 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 2005-06 budget cycle. Expenditure by Type Personal Services 2003-04 Actual $2,029,853 2004-05 Budget $2,253,019 2004-05 Revised $2,078,667 2005-06 Budget $2,278,628 Supplies and Services 2,042,805 2,274,631 2,386,457 2,530,502 395,160 953,420 1,120,420 1,555,680 (4,768,051) (5,481,070) (5,585,544) (6,364,810) 0 0 0 0 $(233) $0 $0 $0 Capital Outlay Internal Services Contributions Expenditure Total Authorized Personnel 2003-04 Actual Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE Fleet Services 33 0.5 33 0.5 33 0.5 Total 33 0.5 33 0.5 33 0.5 Related Strategic Issue: Neighborhood Quality of Life and Public Safety Goal: To maintain the City’s fleet at the lowest cost and highest quality of service and vehicle condition Objective: 1) To contain the growth in maintenance and repair, fuel and capital costs as measured by cost per mile; and 2) adhere to a vehicle replacement policy that prevents higher repair and maintenance costs resulting from fleet vehicles with excessive mileages Measures Cost per mile (maintenance and repair, fuel and capital cost): Police patrol sedans ($) 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 front loaders (miles) Solid Waste side loaders (miles) Solid Waste rear loaders (miles) 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget 0.56 0.43 2.79 0.48 0.40 2.94 0.56 0.44 3.06 0.61 0.47 3.19 40,404 46,345 69,848 100% 41,000 51,425 69,635 100% 40,145 51,177 68,578 100% 38,000 51,000 68,500 100% 100,000 100,000 7 years / 140,000 8 years / 140,000 12 years / 140,000 100,000 100,000 7 years / 140,000 8 years / 140,000 12 years / 140,000 100,000 100,000 7 years / 140,000 8 years / 140,000 12 years / 140,000 100,000 100,000 7 years / 140,000 8 years / 140,000 12 years / 140,000 Related Strategic Issue: Neighborhood Quality of Life and Public Safety Goal: To utilize equipment and personnel resources in an efficient and effective manner Objective: 1) To maximize utilization of fleet mechanic time; and 2) target 70% mechanic productivity rate as measured by percent of mechanic work hours spent on direct repair and maintenance of vehicles 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Measures Actual Budget Revised Budget Annual vehicle utilization (miles): Police patrol sedans 1,129,336 1,300,000 1,201,846 1,201,846 Light duty trucks 918,368 967,610 908,220 908,220 Solid Waste trucks 635,963 650,000 642,336 642,336 Miles per mechanic hour: Police patrol sedans 434 400 481 481 Light duty trucks 486 542 529 529 Solid Waste trucks 72 70 68 68 Mechanic utilization rate 66% 68% 70% 70% Vehicles per mechanic 62 62 63 63 Comparative Benchmark Capital Improvements Program-Public Works Project Title Highline Western Canal Storm Drain Improvements Storm Drain Improvements Fleet Vehicle Fueling Site Relocation City Facilities Rehabilitation Historic Properties Preservation HVAC Equipment Replacement Energy Upgrade and Retrofit Various Park Landscaping Improvements Carpet Replacement - Library Total - Public Works Projects 2005-06 2006-07* 2007-08* 2008-09* 2009-10* Total 3,440,000 200,000 416,389 200,000 35,000 35,000 32,000 50,000 200,000 91,745 300,000 35,000 35,000 32,000 50,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 300,000 35,000 35,000 32,000 50,000 300,000 35,000 35,000 32,000 50,000 300,000 35,000 35,000 32,000 50,000 3,440,000 1,150,000 508,134 1,400,000 175,000 175,000 160,000 250,000 4,408,389 743,745 702,000 702,000 702,000 7,258,134 *Amounts for FY 2006-07 through FY 2009-10 represent estimates of future capital costs based on the planned scope of the project, and are subject to future review, revision, and adoption in future capital budgets. 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. 2005-06 Highlights: Funding was approved for one full-time Light Rail Transportation Planner to assist the existing light rail team in managing ongoing construction activities within the City, and to convert a part-time Administrative Assistant position to full-time. Expenditure by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Contributions Expenditure Total Per Capita Authorized Personnel Studies and Design Transit Total 2003-04 Actual $2,295,623 21,021,935 24,959 741,897 0 $24,084,414 $150.89 2003-04 Actual Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 7 28 0.5 35 0.5 2004-05 Budget $2,634,308 21,500,103 41,100 720,845 0 $24,896,356 $154.81 2004-05 Revised $2,630,246 22,084,496 41,100 725,164 0 $25,481,006 $158.44 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 9 0 28 0.5 37 0.5 2005-06 Budget $3,112,736 23,436,274 117,100 1,065,098 6,000 $27,737,208 $171.62 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 9 0 30 39 Related Strategic Issue: Transportation 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 2003-04 Actual Measures Total O&M (bus) 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget $18,786,180 $19,490,741 $20,082,281 $20,939,125 Total O&M (dial-a-ride) $710,338 $1,150,430 $1,151,113 $974,019 Vehicle revenue miles (bus) 5,891,872 5,800,000 5,387,726 5,489,762 20,949 $3.19 $33.91 1.58 0.10 41,779 20,000 $3.36 $57.52 1.63 0.11 42,604 17,025 $3.73 $67.61 1.46 0.10 43,000 19,000 $3.81 $48.70 1.55 0.10 44,000 Vehicle revenue hours (dial-a-ride) O&M per vehicle revenue mile (bus) O&M per vehicle revenue hour (dial-a-ride) Boardings per vehicle revenue mile (bus) Boardings per vehicle revenue mile (dial-a-ride) Annual boardings (dial-a-ride) Related Strategic Issue: Transportation Goal: Objective: 1) To attract people to use the transit system; 2) operate a reliable bus system; and 3) operate a reliable dial-a-ride system 1) To increase bus boardings by 8%; 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) 2003-04 Actual 7,359,216 93% 95% 2004-05 Budget 9,450,000 28% 95% 95% 2004-05 Revised 7,851,872 7% 95% 94% 2005-06 Budget 8,500,000 8% 95% 95% Related Strategic Issue: Transportation Goal: Objective: To provide outstanding customer service to bus and dial-a-ride customers To meet contract standards by limiting bus service complaints to 15 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 2003-04 Actual 16.7 1.0 2004-05 Budget 25.0 3.0 2004-05 Revised 16.3 2.3 2005-06 Budget 15.0 3.0 Related Strategic Issue: Transportation 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 2003-04 Actual 4 2004-05 Budget 5 2004-05 Revised 2 2005-06 Budget 4 1,750 3,125 78% 2,000 14% 2,500 25% Related Strategic Issue: Transportation Goal: 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 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget Traffic calming/speed hump studies conducted 40 50 40 50 Speed humps installed Traffic calming projects (other than speed humps) Arterial street pedestrian crossings designed Arterial street pedestrian crossings constructed Public outreach events held 35 80 35 40 6 2 1 8 6 2 2 8 6 2 1 8 9 3 3 9 Capital Improvements Program-Transit Project Title Central Phoenix & East Valley Light Rail Transit Transit Regional Maintenance Facility Tempe Transit Center Midlife Scheduled Fleet Replacement Bus Replacement and Purchase Municipal Arts Program-Transit Curry Road Pedestrian Improvement Project University Drive Pedestrian Improvement Project Tempe Canal Multi Use Path: Phase II College Ave. Streetscape & Pedestrian Improvements Apache Boulevard-Mill/Terrace Western Canal Multi-Use Path Rio Salado Multi-Use Path Tempe/Phoenix Mid-Block Crossing Treatments Crosscut Cana1 Transportation Management Center- Equipment Broadway Road Streetscape & Pedestrian Improvements Total - Transit Projects 2005-06 2006-07* 2007-08* 2008-09* 2009-10* Total 46,098,663 87,692,000 48,859,000 17,788,000 10,854,033 3,900,000 21,595,957 2,000,000 32,449,990 5,900,000 2,935,000 1,460,000 668,077 1,683,000 4,618,000 23,110,000 2,818,807 1,185,560 523,790 200,437,663 6,000,000 15,650,000 254,880 186,500 560,000 560,000 560,000 560,000 240,000 2,160,000 2,400,000 150,000 50,000 1,100,000 200,000 1,300,000 1,750,000 3,000,000 250,000 1,300,000 300,000 300,000 200,000 1,100,000 1,400,000 300,000 1,600,000 25,000 670,025 1,400,000 695,025 300,000 3,000,000 3,300,000 67,475,773 119,741,517 52,902,815 25,742,880 18,836,500 284,699,485 Capital Improvements Program-Operating Impacts Project Title Central Phoenix & East Valley Light Rail Transit Transit Regional Maintenance Facility Tempe Transit Center Tempe Canal Multi-Use Path: Phase II Western Canal Multi-Use Path Rio Salado Multi-Use Path Tempe/Phoenix Crosscut Cana1 Total - CIP Operating Impacts 2005-06 2006-07* 85,325 2007-08* 2009-10* Total 3,545,000 7,214,000 10,759,000 984,271 1,015,051 1,046,829 88,312 91,403 94,602 3,046,151 359,642 10,400 28,600 85,325 2008-09* 10,400 28,600 10,400 28,600 31,200 85,800 10,400 5,200 1,111,583 4,690,454 8,410,031 10,400 5,200 14,297,393 *Amounts for FY 2006-07 through FY 2009-10 represent estimates of future operating and capital costs based on the planned scope of the project, and are subject to future review, revision, and adoption in future operating and capital budgets. 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. 2005-06 Highlights: As construction of the light rail transit system through Tempe proceeds, the number of traffic signals to be maintained will increase. This budget cycle includes an additional Traffic Signal Technician I/II to keep pace with our signal maintenance responsibilities. Additionally, this budget includes funding to continue an aggressive street maintenance program on local and major streets, including routing of cracks, edge milling, and crack filling in preparation of pavement sealing. 2005-06 Capital Budget Operating Impacts: As part of the Capital Improvements Program Budget, funding was approved for contracted services, pole painting, electricity, and water, sewer, and refuse expenses associated with the following capital projects: Street Light Upgrades/New Installations, New Signs/Modular Upgrades, and Streets Modular Trailer Expansion. Expenditure by Type Personal Services 2003-04 Actual $2,917,420 2004-05 Budget $3,237,446 2004-05 Revised $3,123,621 2005-06 Budget $3,315,833 Supplies and Services 1,892,014 1,983,793 1,991,167 2,093,273 Capital Outlay Internal Services 254,874 373,800 273,800 368,326 1,908,570 2,030,461 1,986,750 1,982,920 0 0 0 0 $6,972,879 $7,625,500 $7,375,338 $7,760,352 $43.69 $47.42 $45.86 $48.02 Contributions Expenditure Total Per Capita 2003-04 Actual Perm FTE Temp FTE Temp FTE 2005-06 Budget Full Time Perm FTE 24 25 0 Traffic Operations 26 24 25 Total 50 49 50 Authorized Personnel Street Maintenance Full Time 2004-05 Revised Full Time 25 Perm FTE 0 Temp FTE Related Strategic Issue: Transportation Goal: To perform preventative maintenance and/or minor construction on existing streets and alleys (paved and unpaved) to ensure safety to the public Objective: 1) To efficiently 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 Street Maintenance (Construction) Total O&M: Crack filling Utility cut repairs Asphalt milling Square yards of crack seal installed Street utility cuts repaired (square feet) Asphalt milling (linear feet) Cost per square yard of cracks filled Cost per utility cut repaired (square feet) Cost per square foot of asphalt milled 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget $382,775 $456,694 $143,818 $422,292 $147,732 Complete $406,338 $208,874 $115,279 $452,351 $349,423 $192,984 1,056,317 63,919 316,800 1,462,153 26,740 Complete 1,115,105 111,413 201,147 1,565,378 87,666 436,599 $0.36 $7.14 $0.45 $0.29 $5.52 Complete $0.36 $1.87 $0.57 $0.28 $3.99 $0.44 Related Strategic Issue: Transportation Goal: 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 Sweeping (Right-of-Way) Total O&M Curb miles of street swept Cost per curb mile swept 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget $427,121 50,324 $8.49 $431,001 50,324 $9.35 $357,870 41,935 $8.53 $438,745 50,324 $8.72 Related Strategic Issue: Transportation Goal: To reconstruct unimproved alleys, returning them to original grades, reducing dust particulates and providing adequate run off of storm water to ensure the safety for the public and City service vehicles Objective: 1) To improve alley roadways for City service vehicles; and 2) reconstruct 1,013,760 square feet (16 miles) of alley roadway per year 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Measures Actual Budget Revised Budget Alley Reconstruction Total O&M $511,952 N/A $513,939 $438,745 Square feet constructed 441,522 N/A 421,890 50,324 Cost per square foot* $1.16 N/A $1.22 $0.52 Miles of alley 7 N/A 7 16 Comparative Benchmark * New measure Related Strategic Issue: Transportation Goal: To improve and ensure the safety and efficiency of the city’s transportation system Objective: 1) To paint 1.5M linear ft. of roadway striping and 300 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; and 5) replace structurally deficient street light poles 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Actual Budget Revised Budget Measures Lane lines striped annually (linear feet) Crosswalks striped Develop infrastructure management system Preventative maintenance of street signs Intersections upgraded (rewired) Traffic control cabinets upgraded Traffic control cabinets preventative maintenance Light Emitting Diode (LED) retrofits Street light lamp upgrades* (mercury vapor to high pressure sodium) Evaluate structural integrity of streetlights Replace structurally deficient street poles * Eliminated through Budget Reduction Program 1,800,000 485 20% 18 2 Complete 360 5 1,800,000 485 Complete 20 2 Complete 360 Complete 1,418,356 286 Complete 28 4 Complete 370 Complete 1,500,000 300 Complete 24 4 Complete 378 Complete 41 0 160 0 0 160 3 0 19 10 0 10 Capital Improvements Program-Streets and Traffic Operations Project Title Streets Local and Major Street Reconstruction Major Street Renovation Local Street Renovation Minor Concrete Improvements Neighborhood Transportation Management City Facilities Parking Lots Streets Modular Trailer Expansion 5th and Farmer Railroad Sign Relocation Bridge Maintenance Various Street Landscaping Minor Street and Alley Improvements Streets Subtotal Traffic Operations New Signals/Modular Upgrades Utility Undergrounding Streetlight Upgrades/New Installations Antique Streetsign and Frames Replacement Installation of ADA Pedestrian Push Buttons Traffic Operations Subtotal Total Streets and Traffic Projects 2005-06 2006-07* 2007-08* 2008-09* 2009-10* 2,051,316 1,129,156 1,059,156 1,541,954 692,307 324,265 1,255,062 553,948 605,045 325,000 162,500 162,500 188,000 100,000 100,000 182,728 26,028 60,436 164,420 120,000 100,000 50,000 50,000 75,000 37,500 37,500 40,000 20,000 20,000 Total 896,469 973,354 6,109,451 192,299 1,000,000 3,750,825 398,818 562,500 3,375,373 162,500 162,500 975,000 100,000 100,000 588,000 30,133 113,000 412,325 164,420 120,000 50,000 50,000 300,000 37,500 37,500 225,000 20,000 20,000 120,000 6,043,480 2,771,439 2,418,902 1,887,719 3,018,854 16,140,394 320,000 300,000 300,000 160,000 150,000 150,000 160,000 175,000 150,000 25,000 12,500 12,500 945,000 12,500 485,000 12,500 510,000 160,000 175,000 150,000 160,000 175,000 150,000 960,000 975,000 900,000 50,000 12,500 497,500 12,500 497,500 50,000 2,935,000 6,988,480 3,256,439 2,928,902 2,385,219 3,516,354 19,075,394 Capital Improvements Program-Operating Impacts Project Title Streets Streets Modular Trailer Expansion Streets Operating Impacts 2005-06 2006-07* 2007-08* 2008-09* 2009-10* Total 4,800 4,800 4,800 4,800 4,800 4,800 4,800 4,800 4,800 4,800 24,000 24,000 Traffic Signals-Street Lighting New Signals/Modular Upgrades Streetlight Upgrades/New Installations Traffic Operations Impacts 5,840 16,440 22,280 6,480 8,940 15,420 6,480 8,940 15,420 6,480 16,440 22,920 5,840 8,940 14,780 31,120 59,700 90,820 Total - CIP Operating Impacts 27,080 20,220 20,220 27,720 19,580 114,820 *Amounts for FY 2006-07 through FY 2009-10 represent estimates of future operating and capital costs based on the planned scope of the project, and are subject to future review, revision, and adoption in future operating and capital budgets. Water Utilities Water Utilities Manager Administration Operations Water Resources Environmental Services Environmental Health & Safety In December 2000, the City Council approved the establishment of a Water Utilities Department. This department consists of five major divisions: Administration, Operations, Water Resources, Environmental, and Environmental Health and Safety (EHS). The Administration Division provides services to ensure that the utility remains competitive. This includes organizational development, legal and secretarial support, and operation of the City Warehouse. The Operations Division is comprised of Plant Operations, Transmission & Collection, Technical Support and Engineering. Water Resources is responsible for water resource management and planning, water rights and administration, water supply acquisition, the water conservation program and hydrology services. The Environmental Division includes water regulatory compliance, laboratory services, administration of industrial pretreatment and stormwater programs, and managing environmental issues related to federal and state superfund sites within Tempe. The EHS Division is responsible for the Household Product Collection Center, providing educational information on environmental issues and internal environmental health and safety training. 2005-06 Highlights: Funding was approved for a Water Security Networked Video Server to provide additional security monitoring, to increase funding for the existing Residential Landscape Rebate Program, and to purchase a vehicle for the Stormwater Investigators. In addition, as part of the Water Utilities Department’s succession planning, funding for two full-time Plant Operator positions was approved on a recurring basis through FY 2008-09. 2005-06 Capital Budget Operating Impacts: As part of the Capital Improvements Program Budget, funding was approved for one full-time Plant Operator and one full-time Plant Electrician in conjunction with the Kyrene Water Reclamation Facility (KWRF) Expansion. Expenditure by Type Personal Services Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Internal Services Contributions Expenditure Total Per Capita Expenditures by Division Administration Operations Water Resources Environmental Services Environmental Health & Safety Total Authorized Personnel Administration Operations Water Resources Environmental Services Environmental Health & Safety Total 2003-04 Actual $9,408,105 11,930,995 184,874 3,562,784 1,000 $25,087,758 $157.18 2003-04 Actual $4,527,758 17,262,897 682,727 2,081,871 532,505 2004-05 Budget $9,564,944 13,375,231 216,670 4,267,659 500 $27,425,004 $170.53 2004-05 Budget $5,079,884 18,752,583 1,157,457 2,034,938 400,142 $25,087,758 $27,425,004 2003-04 Actual Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 13 0.49 90 4 20 0.5 3 130 0.5 0.49 2004-05 Revised Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 12 0.49 90 4 20 0.5 4 130 0.5 0.49 2004-05 2005-06 Revised Budget $10,281,699 $10,846,863 11,997,894 12,825,110 57,199 222,100 4,278,985 3,375,861 1,000 0 $26,616,777 $27,269,934 $165.51 $168.73 2004-05 Revised $5,080,242 17,846,703 1,023,496 2,178,724 487,612 2005-06 Budget $4,216,435 19,281,498 1,073,629 2,165,005 533,367 $26,616,777 $27,269,934 2005-06 Budget Full Perm Temp Time FTE FTE 12 0.49 94 4 20 0.5 4 134 0.5 0.49 Related Strategic Issue: Neighborhood Quality of Life and Public Safety Goal: To provide a safe and adequate domestic water supply to all citizens in Tempe, while at the same time minimizing cost Objective: 1) To monitor increases in water treatment costs for the Johnny G. Martinez and South Tempe Plants; and 2) maintain an O&M per 1,000 gallons treated under eighty cents 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Actual Budget Revised Budget Measures Water Treatment Total O&M $11,867,825 $13,835,894 $13,010,323 $13,673,008 Number of customer accounts 41,813 41,642 41,532 41,532 Total gallons treated (Million gallons- MG) 17,920 18,810 17,000 18,000 O&M per 1,000 gallons treated $0.66 $0.74 $0.77 $0.76 Percent Change 12.1% 16.7% 2.7% O&M per customer account $283.83 $307.09 $313.26 $329.22 Percent Change 8.2% 10.4% 7.2% Related Strategic Issue: Neighborhood Quality of Life and Public Safety Goal: To maintain the water distribution system to assure an adequate supply of drinking water to our customers, and reduce the cost of maintaining the water distribution system Objective: 1) To maintain water distribution costs; and 2) retain the same response time 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 Actual Budget Revised Measures Water Distribution Total O&M $4,080,015 $4,122,410 $4,347,887 Number of miles of waterline 750.0 750.0 848.3 O&M per mile of distribution system $5,440 $5,497 $5,125 Percent Change 1.0% (5.8%) Service calls responded to within 30 minutes and repaired in 24 hours 100% 100% 100% 2005-06 Budget $4,457,795 848.3 $5,255 (4.4%) 100% Related Strategic Issue: Neighborhood Quality of Life and Public Safety Goal: To reduce operating and maintenance costs of the wastewater collection system Objective: To achieve wastewater collection costs that are less than $10,000 2003-04 2004-05 Actual Budget Measures Wastewater Collection Total O&M $4,883,694 $4,737,266 Miles of mains in collection system 500.0 500.0 O&M per mile $9,767 $9,475 Percent Change (3.0%) Comparative Benchmark 2004-05 Revised $4,778,224 502.2 $9,515 (2.6%) 2005-06 Budget $5,059,263 502.2 $10,074 6.3% Related Strategic Issue: Neighborhood Quality of Life and Public Safety 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 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget Number of SIU’s 45 37 46 46 Total inspections 87 76 92 92 Number of sampling visits 755 488 700 544 Percent of permitted industries in significant noncompliance 2% 0% 0% 0% Related Strategic Issue: Neighborhood Quality of Life and Public Safety Goal: To develop an ongoing Public Information program as required by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the 91st Avenue National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit Objective: 1) To continue with the informational newsletter for industries operating in Tempe and prepare one for school age children; and 2) develop public information/pollution prevention outreach program for civic groups and local schools Measures 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget Total newsletters 5 5 5 5 Total brochures 4 4 4 4 Related Strategic Issue: Neighborhood Quality of Life and Public Safety 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 Measures 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 Budget Amount of hazardous waste generated by City facilities (lbs.):* Recycled hazardous waste* Incinerated hazardous waste* Reduction of hazardous waste generated 10,000 74,731** 20,000 25% 3% 7% 0% 5% 7% 25% 0% 25% *New Measure in FY 2004-05 **In FY 2004-05, major reconstruction occurred at water facilities; chlorine was replaced with new water treatment chemicals, accounting for 75% of the material generated. Capital Improvements Program-Water Utilities Project Title 2005-06 2006-07* 2007-08* Water Johnny G. Martinez Water Treatment Plant: 15 MGD Expansion 7,000,000 19,000,000 16,632,643 Apache Boulevard Waterline Replacement 3,500,000 Utility Services and Warehouse Building 2,200,000 425,000 Rural-Lemon-Terrace Water & Sewer Improvement 2,410,000 Enterprise Geographical Information System 900,000 900,000 WL Upgrades/Extensions 850,000 850,000 850,000 SCADA Remote Terminal Units Replacement 400,000 Distribution System Fittings 250,000 250,000 250,000 South Tempe Water Treatment Plant Capital Equipment Replacement 150,000 150,000 150,000 Johnny G. Martinez Water Treatment Plant Capital Equipment Replacement 150,000 150,000 150,000 CAP Capital Charge 126,000 126,000 126,000 Membrane Conversion at South Tempe Water Treatment Plant New Production Wells Update Integrated Master Plan 300,000 Water Projects Subtotal 17,936,000 21,851,000 18,458,643 Wastewater Kyrene Water Reclamation Facility Expansion 21,000,000 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant 12,500,000 Kyrene Reclaimed Water Transmission/Distribution Line 6,700,000 Southern Avenue Interceptor Rehabilitation/All Phases 1,114,688 Sewerline Upgrades and Extension 750,000 Wastewater Projects Subtotal 42,064,688 2008-09* 2009-10* 2,367,357 Total 45,000,000 3,500,000 2,625,000 2,410,000 850,000 850,000 1,800,000 4,250,000 250,000 250,000 400,000 1,250,000 150,000 150,000 750,000 150,000 126,000 150,000 126,000 750,000 630,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 1,000,000 20,000,000 1,000,000 300,000 84,665,000 14,893,357 11,526,000 21,000,000 6,500,000 16,000,000 16,500,000 13,500,000 65,000,000 6,700,000 1,114,688 537,125 537,125 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 8,364,688 17,287,125 17,787,125 14,250,000 3,303,626 3,750,000 99,753,626 Total - Water/Wastewater Projects 60,000,688 30,215,688 35,745,768 32,680,482 25,776,000 184,418,626 Capital Improvements Program-Operating Impacts Project Title 2005-06 2006-07* 2007-08* 2008-09* 2009-10* Total Wastewater Program Kyrene Water Reclamation Facility Expansion 131,714 111,714 111,714 111,714 111,714 578,570 Total - CIP Operating Impacts 131,714 111,714 111,714 111,714 111,714 578,570 *Amounts for FY 2006-07 through FY 2009-10 represent estimates of future operating and capital costs based on the planned scope of the project, and are subject to future review, revision, and adoption in future operating and capital budgets. 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. Budget Resolution Property Tax Ordinance Schedule A Summary Schedule of Estimated Revenue and Expenditures/Expenses Adopted Budgeted Expenditures/ Expenses 2004-05 $125,500,350 Fund General Unaudited Actual Expenditures/ Expenses 2004-05 $124,641,295 Fund Balance/ Retained Earnings 7-1-2005 $41,167,650 Direct Property Tax Revenue 2005-06 $9,345,934 Special Revenue 60,144,937 55,107,150 48,710,401 68,000 Debt Service 13,478,666 13,274,518 12,939,224 16,707,531 176,983,222 126,670,575 26,593,567 0 61,007,565 56,771,702 60,740,328 0 $437,114,740 $376,465,240 $190,151,170 $26,121,465 Capital Projects Enterprise Total Fund General Special Revenue Debt Service Estimated Revenue Proceeds Other than From Other Property Financing Taxes Sources 2005-06 2005-06 $128,927,570 $0 TOTAL Total Financial Budgeted Resources Expenditures/ Available Expenses 2005-06 2005-06 $179,441,154 $138,273,504 70,527,457 0 0 (14,946,360) 104,359,498 59,927,996 676,495 0 3,700,000 (1,237,750) 32,785,500 14,411,213 0 151,451,095 13,484,117 191,528,779 189,971,703 60,964,340 0 (1,000,007) 120,704,661 62,685,033 ($17,184,117) $628,819,592 $465,269,449 Capital Projects Enterprise Interfund Transfers 2005-06 In (Out) $0 $0 $261,095,862 $151,451,095 $17,184,117 0 Expenditure Limitation Comparison 2004-05 2005-06 1. Budgeted Expenditures/Expenses $437,114,740 $465,269,449 2. Less: Estimated Exclusions* (198,017,838) (220,711,800) 239,096,902 244,557,649 $239,096,902 $244,557,649 3. Total Estimated Expenditures/Expenses Subject to Expenditure Limitation 4. Expenditure Limitation * FY 2005-06 Estimate from the League of Arizona Cities and Towns. Schedule B Summary of Tax Levy and Tax Rate Information Estimated 2005-06 Fiscal Year 2004-05 Fiscal Year 1. Maximum Allowable Primary Property Tax Levy (A.R.S. 42-17051(A)) $9,413,934 2. Amount Received from Primary Property Taxation in the 2004-05 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 8,792,691 9,413,934 14,517,177 16,707,531 $23,309,868 $26,121,456 4. Property Taxes Collected* A. Primary Property Taxes 1. 2004-05 Levy 2. Prior Years' Levies 3. Total Primary Property Taxes 8,792,691 0 8,792,691 B. Secondary Property Taxes 1. 2004-05 Levy 2. Prior Years' Levies 3. Total Secondary Property Taxes C. Total Property Taxes Collected 14,517,177 0 14,517,177 23,309,868 5. Property Tax Rates A. City Tax Rate 1. Primary Property Tax Rate 2. Secondary Property Tax Rate 3. Total City Tax Rate 0.5293 0.5227 0.8207 0.8773 $1.3500 $1.4000 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 Revenue Other Than Property Taxes Source of Revenue Budgeted Revenue 2004-05 Estimated Revenue 2004-05 Budgeted Revenue 2005-06 General Fund Local Taxes City Sales Tax $61,011,600 $64,254,000 $66,170,000 Hotel Bed Tax 2,250,000 2,354,000 2,402,000 Franchise Taxes 1,732,700 1,297,700 1,328,567 1,115,077 1,071,694 1,090,900 28,297,635 28,661,000 32,139,707 5,600,000 6,100,000 6,100,000 Charges for Services 7,519,651 7,667,683 7,477,396 Fines and Forfeitures 5,154,793 5,886,372 6,012,750 Interest on Investments 2,188,068 2,880,044 3,569,155 500,000 500,000 500,000 2,846,010 2,247,007 2,137,095 117,353,934 122,919,500 128,927,570 10,903,791 11,161,497 13,789,041 10,903,791 11,161,497 13,789,041 Intergovernmental 550,152 550,152 535,456 Total LTAF 550,152 550,152 535,456 26,858,153 27,102,000 27,996,400 Lottery Transfer In 285,700 271,000 263,730 ASU-Flash Transit 386,252 477,623 496,403 Interest Earned-Trust Investment 1,061,807 1,422,012 1,690,921 Miscellaneous Revenue 6,331,778 6,783,865 7,475,294 Total Transit Fund 34,923,690 36,056,500 37,922,748 Licenses and Permits Business Licenses Intergovernmental Revenue State-Shared County Voluntary Contributions SRP In-Lieu Tax Miscellaneous Revenue Total General Fund Special Revenue Funds Highway Users Revenue Fund Intergovernmental Total Highway Users Revenue Fund Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF) Transit Fund Transit Tax Summary by Fund of Revenue Other Than Property Taxes Source of Revenue Budgeted Revenue 2004-05 Estimated Revenue 2004-05 Budgeted Revenue 2005-06 Rio Salado Fund City Sales Tax 223,000 353,000 364,600 Miscellaneous Revenue 286,604 1,119,012 302,900 509,604 1,472,012 667,500 5,533,300 5,657,524 5,881,072 5,533,300 5,657,524 5,881,072 11,712,361 11,712,361 11,731,640 64,132,898 66,610,046 70,527,457 673,800 673,800 676,495 673,800 673,800 676,495 Total Rio Salado Fund Performing Arts Fund Performing Arts Tax/Interest Income Total Performing Arts Fund Community Dev. Block Grant (CDBG) Total Special Revenue Funds Debt Service Fund SRP In-Lieu Tax Total Debt Service Fund Enterprise Funds Cemetery 127,628 Golf 2,070,489 2,071,635 2,073,194 Water/Wastewater 45,408,216 44,850,963 45,953,569 Solid Waste 11,006,009 12,099,288 12,809,949 58,484,714 59,021,886 60,964,340 $240,645,346 $249,225,232 $261,095,862 Total Enterprise Funds TOTAL ALL FUNDS Schedule D Summary by Fund of Other Financing Sources and Interfund Transfers Fund Proceeds From Other Financing Sources 2005-06 Interfund Transfers 2005-06 In Out Special Revenue Funds HURF/LTAF $(7,204,283) Transit (7,742,077) Total Special Revenue Funds Total Debt Service Fund $3,700,000 Capital Project Funds 13,484,117 Bond/Note Proceeds CIP-Other Funding Total Capital Project Funds (14,946,360) (1,237,750) $102,302,061 49,149,034 151,451,095 13,484,117 Enterprise Funds Water/Wastewater (1,000,007) Total Enterprise Funds Total All Funds (1,000,007) $151,451,095 $17,184,117 $(17,184,117) Schedule E Summary by Department of Expenditures/Expenses Within Each Fund Adopted Budgeted Expenditures/ Expenses 2004-05 Expenditure/ Expense Adjustments Approved 2004-05 Revised Expenditures/ Expenses 2004-05 Budgeted Expenditures/ Expenses 2005-06 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 Community Development Public Works - General Economic Development Non-Departmental Contingencies Total General Fund Special Revenue Funds Highway Users Revenue Fund Transit CDBG Section 8 Housing Rio Salado Performing Arts Total Special Revenue Funds Debt Service Fund Debt Service Total Debt Service Fund Capital Project Funds All Capital Project Total Capital Project Funds Enterprise Funds Water/Wastewater Golf Cemetery Solid Waste Total Enterprise Funds Total All Funds $399,500 273,270 2,474,458 442,187 425,245 455,243 3,327,576 2,551,350 2,320,102 4,093,608 7,092,231 48,161,202 15,813,510 17,863,289 10,900 (105,997) 13,603,422 769,371 4,321,834 1,112,952 125,500,350 184,013 80,000 173,085 (462,250) 558,378 8,287,572 32,166,810 2,901,168 8,811,193 1,498,862 6,479,332 60,144,937 18,130 5,230 5,500 62,438 90,702 55,000 228,700 (5,541) 168,000 73,828 $399,500 307,330 2,446,039 542,287 424,120 481,238 3,491,714 2,479,836 2,295,516 4,074,273 6,767,018 49,337,862 16,205,166 17,483,893 13,217,840 758,260 3,929,403 $386,716 307,987 2,556,094 558,314 453,147 726,757 3,759,540 2,461,483 2,453,274 4,102,465 4,987,775 53,475,942 18,233,524 18,281,121 3,031,242 15,113,763 124,641,295 6,158,296 1,226,064 138,273,504 8,162,055 30,154,141 2,901,168 8,811,193 1,082,118 3,996,475 55,107,150 8,656,870 31,118,922 2,849,008 8,882,632 1,551,834 6,868,730 59,927,996 13,478,666 13,478,666 13,274,518 13,274,518 14,411,213 14,411,213 176,983,222 176,983,222 126,670,575 126,670,575 189,971,703 189,971,703 43,902,601 2,138,875 47,720,279 2,071,538 290,248 12,602,968 62,685,033 $465,269,449 47,773,817 2,480,484 10,753,264 61,007,565 $437,114,740 23,360 291,172 291,172 $872,910 10,730,226 56,771,702 $288,135,463 Budget Basis, Units, and Changes Accounting/Budgetary Basis The City of Tempe’s operating budget is legally adopted by Council resolution each fiscal year on a modified accrual basis, which is consistent with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). With modified accrual basis, revenue is recognized when it become available and measurable and expenditures as they are made. By contrast, Government-wide financial statements in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) must be recorded on a full accrual basis. This is where revenue is recognized as soon as it is earned and expenses are recognized as soon as a liability is incurred, regardless of the timing of related cash inflows and outflows. Fund Statements, in the CAFR, are modified accrual basis for the General Fund, Debt Service Fund, Special Revenue Funds, and Capital Project Funds and accrual basis for Enterprise funds. Budget Units Water/Wastewater, Solid Waste, Golf and Cemetery 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. • 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 revenue 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 • Departments Finally, the Performance Budget section of the operating budget illustrates the distribution of budget appropriations along the major organization units of City departments and their divisions. Changes to the 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 Budget Office 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 relevant Council Committee or full Council 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 Annual Budget. The performance budget focuses on departmental and divisional goals and objectives. Benchmark and other workload data are collected to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of services. This information is published in the performance budget section of our Annual 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 Revenue is presented at several levels within the revenue information section of the Annual Budget. Revenue is given by fund type (General Governmental, Special Revenue, and Enterprise), by revenue category, and by major source. Additionally, all key revenue is 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 revenue is also presented in the Schedules and Summaries section of the Annual Budget. Expenditures are presented at several levels of detail including information by lineitem, organizational unit performance, program, and fund. Line-item detail of expenditures is given in the Annual Line-Item Budget. Performance, program, and fund level expenditure data are presented in the Annual 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 revenue and expenditures, 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. policy, management control, accountability, or other purposes. Our Enterprise Funds include the Water and Wastewater Fund, the Solid Waste Fund, the Cemetery Fund and the Golf Fund. Fund Structure • 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 revenue 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 Revenue Fund, the Local Transportation Assistance Fund, the Transit Fund, Community Development Block Grant and the Housing Assistance Fund. • Proprietary Funds Enterprise Funds: Enterprise Funds are used to account for operations including debt service that are: (a) financed and operated in a manner similar to private businesses, where the intent of the government body is that the costs (expenses, including depreciation) of providing goods or services to the general public on a continuing basis are financed or recovered primarily through user charges; or (b) where the governing body has determined that periodic determination of revenue earned, expenses incurred, and/or net income is appropriate for capital maintenance, public • 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. Annexation Progress 2005City City Limits 1999 Limits 1960 1893 - 1940 Salt River Channel McKellips Rd Salt River Channel Van Buren St S.P. R.R. Curry Rd Sa lt River RedCh Mountain Freeway annel 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 Western Canal Price Rd Warner Rd McClintock Dr Rural Rd Kyrene Rd I-10 Priest Dr Elliot Rd 1980 Ray Rd Salt River Year Area Year Year Year 1893 1.0 1940 1.8 1894 1.8 1950 2.6 2.6 1980 36.0 1900 1900 1.81.8 1955 1955 4.5 4.5 1985 1985 38.5 38.5 Scale 1910 1910 1.81.8 1960 1960 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 25.3 2000 40.0 Year 1893 1894 0 1 mile 1930 1930 Year 1.0 1.8 1.8 1.8 1940 1950 1970 1970 Area 1.8 25.3 Year Year 1975 1975 1980 2005 Area Year 36 36.0 36 40 Channel Tempe Community Profile Date of Incorporation - November 26, 1894 Date Charter Adopted - October 19, 1964 Form of Government - Council - Manager 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, Tempe Beach Park ,and the Town Lake Marina will be joined by the Tempe Center for the Arts in May 2006. This project 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 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 by this research. Tempe DEMOGRAPHICS Area– Square Miles (1) 2005 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 Undeveloped/Agricultural Rights-of-Way Public/Quasi Public Industrial/Commercial Service/Institutional Residential 36.0% 36.0 4.8 15.8 12.1 26.4 4.9 Undev/Agriculture 4.8% Svc/Institutional 4.9% Population (2) 2004 AZ Dept. of Economic Security 2000 U.S. Census 1995 Interim Census 1990 U.S. Census 160,820 1985 1980 1970 1960 1950 132,942 106,743 63,550 24,897 7,906 Interim Census U.S. Census U.S. Census U.S. Census U.S. Census Industrial/Comm Rights-of-Way 15.8% Public/Quasi Public 158,625 153,821 142,165 Building Permits (3) 2003-04 2002-03 2001-02 2000-01 1999-00 1998-99 1997-98 1996-97 1995-96 1994-95 1993-94 Number 1,147 1,313 1,148 1,417 1,717 1,905 2,533 1,984 2,038 2,291 2,298 Value ($000) 210,300 199,570 99,197 262,266 317,143 304,600 492,419 406,821 248,476 275,409 265,148 Elections (5) Registered voters Primary General 74,367 73,352 Primary General 18,591 11,736 Primary General 25% 16% Voter Turnout % Voting DEMOGRAPHICS, continued School Registration (6) Household Income (1999)(%) (10) Tempe Elementary District 13,987 Less than $15,000 14.6 Tempe Union High School District 12,800 $15,000 -$34,999 25.5 ASU University (Spring 2005) 49,171 $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 9.9 (8) Major Employers Arizona State University Wells Fargo Bank 12,569 6,601 Median Household Income $42,3 61 Occupational Composition (%) (11) Sales and Office 29.4 Managerial and Professional 39.7 Service Construction, Extraction, Maintenance 14.6 6.8 Motorola, Inc. 4,779 Production, Transportation, Material Moving Salt River Project 3,331 Farming, Forestry and Fishing 9.4 0.1 Honeywell 3,000 Chase Manhattan Corp. 2,377 Kyrene School Distrct 2,205 Bank One Corp. City of Tempe 2,000 1,693 Industrial Composition (%) (11) Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting and Mining Construction 0.1 5.2 Phillips 66 Company 1,500 Employment Trends(9) Employment 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 135,703 130,818 128,679 126,638 122,854 Unemployment Rate 3.4% 4.2% 4.8% 3.4% 2.3% Manufacturing Wholesale trade 11.4 3.7 Retail trade 11.1 Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities 5.1 Information 3.6 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Rental and Leasing 8.8 Professional, Scientific, Management, Administrative, and Waste Management Services 12.6 Educational, Health, and Social Services Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, Accommodation, and Food Services 19.4 11.8 Other Services 3.6 Public Administration 3.7 ECONOMICS Property Tax Rate (12) Fire Primary Secondary Total Largest Property Taxpayers (13) 0.52 0.88 $1.40 % Secondary Assessed Value Sworn Personnel Non-Sworn Personnel Total Fire Stations 149 20 169 6 Qwest Communications Motorola, Inc. 2.11 1.71 Avg. Emergency Response Time (min.) Arizona Mills LLC 1.53 Response to emergency medical incidents 13,300 Arizona Public Service Company AT&T Britcher Arizona 1.16 1.04 0.86 Total emergency response incidents 15,400 State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance 0.71 Allied Signal Phoenix Coca-Cola 0.63 0.48 Residential Accounts Serviced Commercial Accounts Serviced Solid Waste Collected (tons) Microchip Technology 0.47 4:21 Solid Waste 32,588 2,332 165,286 Parks/Golf Courses City Sales Tax (14) Bond Rating Fitch Standard and Poor's Moody's 1.8% AAA AA+ Aa1 Developed Parks Parks Acres Maintained Municipal Golf Courses: Rounds of Play: Ken McDonald (18 holes) Rolling Hills (9 holes) 46 1,074 2 83,670 86,065 SERVICE STATISTICS Police (15) Sworn Personnel 339 Water/Wastewater Active Accounts Serviced Water Treated and Distributed Non-Sworn Personnel 185 (billions of gallons) 18.9 524 Sanitary Sewers (miles) 549 Total Avg. Emergency Response Time (min.) Crime Index (CY 2004) Part I Crime Per 1,000 Capita 40,822 4:43 14,058 86 Source: (1) Area-Square Miles, City of Tempe-Development Services; (2) Population for 2004 based on estimate by Arizona Department of Economic Security; (3) Building Permits, City of Tempe-Development Services; (4) Land Use, City of Tempe-Development 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) Major Employers, City of Tempe-Community Development; (9) Employment Trends, Arizona Department of Economic Security; (10) Household Income, 1999 Special Census; (11) Occupational, Industrial Composition, 2000 U.S. Census; (12) Property Tax Rate, City of TempeFinancial Services; (13) Largest Property Taxpayers, Maricopa County Treasurer (14) City Sales Tax, Bond Rating, City of Tempe-Financial Services; (15) Police, Fire, Solid Waste, Parks/Golf Courses, Water/Wastewater, City of Tempe Annual Budget-Performance Section. 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 Human Resources Information Technology Development Services Police Fire Community Services Community Development Public Works Admin & Engineering Field Services Fleet Services Transportation Total Public Works Water Utilities Sub Total Total Personnel 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Budget 2004-05 Revised 2005-06 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 2 0.50 2 0.50 2 0.50 2 0.50 3 3 3 0.50 4 4 4 4 4 18 1.83 18 1.83 16 1.83 16 1.83 4 0.58 4 0.58 4 0.58 4 0.58 33 4.20 33 4.20 33 0.65 4.20 33 0.65 4.20 24 0.75 0.62 24 0.75 0.62 24 0.75 0.62 24 0.75 0.62 68 0.50 1.25 68 0.50 1.25 67 0.50 1.25 67 0.50 1.25 4 4 4 1.00 8 0.49 8 0.49 8 0.49 18 0.50 18 0.50 18 0.50 18 0.50 73 73 72 72 84 2.86 84 2.86 86 2.86 48 2.86 515 1.00 6.25 515 1.00 6.25 515 1.00 6.25 524 6.25 156 1.00 156 1.00 156 1.00 169 1.00 1.00 126 11.65 167.22 126 11.65 167.22 130 11.15 167.22 148 11.65 180.49 50 1.49 34 0.49 34 0.49 34 0.49 34 0.49 212 0.50 8.69 212 0.50 8.69 211 0.50 8.69 211 1.00 8.69 33 0.50 33 0.50 33 0.50 33 0.50 87 0.50 87 0.50 88 0.50 91 366 1.00 9.68 366 1.00 9.68 366 1.00 9.68 369 1.00 9.68 130 0.50 0.49 130 0.50 0.49 130 0.50 0.49 134 0.50 0.49 1,643 16.90 195.97 1,643 16.90 195.97 1,645 17.55 196.97 1,693 16.55 211.24 1,855.87 1,855.87 1,859.52 1,920.79 The number of full-time employees for FY 2005-06 totals 1,920.79 full-time equivalents (FTE), including 1,693 fulltime, 16.55 permanent full-time equivalents, and 211.24 temporary full-time equivalent employees. This total translates to a 3.5% increase over the 1,855.87 full-time equivalents budgeted in FY 2004-05. Public Works and Police account for over 47% of the total work force, representing 379.68 and 530.25 full-time equivalents in FY 2005-06. Personnel Schedules Cost Center Position 1110 1210 1212 1213 1219 1214 MAYOR & COUNCIL Mayor Council Member Mayor & Council Department Total Full-Time CITY MANAGER Administration City Manager Executive Assistant to the City Manager/Mayor II Administrative Intern* City Manager Department Total Full-Time City Manager Department Total Temp FTE* DIVERSITY Diversity Manager Diversity Specialist ADA Accessibility Specialist Events Coordinator Executive Assistant Administrative Assistant II ADA Accessibility Specialist** Diversity Department Total Full-Time Diversity Department Total Perm FTE** INTERNAL AUDIT Internal Audit Manager Internal Auditor Contract Administrator Internal Audit Department Total Full-Time COMMUNITY RELATIONS Administration Community Relations Manager Mayor's Chief of Staff Executive Assistant to the City Manager/Mayor II Mayoral/Council Aide II Mayoral/City Council Aide I Executive Assistant Management Intern Administrative Intern* COE* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Communication & Media Relations Communication & Media Relations Director 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Range Actual Budget Revised Budget 99 98 1 6 7 1 6 7 1 6 7 1 6 7 103 28 1 1 0.5 2 0.50 1 1 0.5 2 0.50 1 1 0.5 2 0.50 1 1 0.5 2 0.50 148 36 36 31 26 16 1 0 0 1 0 1 0.00 3 0.00 1 0 0 1 0 1 0.00 3 0.00 1 1 0 0 1 0 0.50 3 0.50 1 1 1 0 1 0 0.00 4 0.00 161 41 31 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 4 163 154 30 30 28 26 15 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 0.49 0.49 8 0.98 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 0.49 0.49 8 0.98 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 0.49 0.49 7 0.98 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 0.49 0.49 7 0.98 154 1 1 1 1 Cost Center Position 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Range Actual Budget Revised Budget Media Services Coordinator Communications Relations Coordinator Media Services Producer I/II+ Media Services Assistant * Media Services Intern* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 1215 1216 40 36 29 1 2 2 0.19 0.66 6 0.85 1 2 2 0.19 0.66 6 0.85 1 2 2 0.19 0.66 6 0.85 1 2 2 0.19 0.66 6 0.85 Neighborhood Program Neighborhood Program Director Neighborhood Services Specialist Total Full-Time 154 37 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Government Relations Government Relations Director Management Assistant I/II+ Total Full-Time 154 35 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 18 1.83 18 1.83 16 1.83 16 1.83 100 26 1 3 0.58 4 0.58 1 3 0.58 4 0.58 1 3 0.58 4 0.58 1 3 0.58 4 0.58 114 153 104 45 45 26 23 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 0.00 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 0.00 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 0.65 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 0.65 10 0.00 10 0.00 10 0.65 10 0.65 2 7 2.1 2 7 2.1 2 7 2.1 2 7 2.1 Community Relations Department Total Full-Time Community Relations Department Total Temp FTE* 1310 1410 1411 CITY CLERK City Clerk Executive Assistant 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 Executive Assistant Court Interpreter Court Interpreter** (Position funded by State Fill the Gap Grant) Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Criminal Division Court Services Supervisor Court Services Specialist I/II+ COE* 29 18 Cost Center Position 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Range Actual Budget Revised Budget Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 1412 Civil Division Court Services Supervisor Court Services Specialist I/II+ COE* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 29 18 City Court Department Total Full-Time City Court Department Total Perm FTE** City Court Department Total Temp FTE* 1710 3115 9 2.1 9 2.1 9 2.1 9 2.1 3 11 2.1 14 2.1 3 11 2.1 14 2.1 3 11 2.1 14 2.1 3 11 2.1 14 2.1 33 0.00 4.20 33 0.00 4.20 33 0.65 4.20 33 0.65 4.20 1 1 1 0 4 5 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 0.75 0.62 21 0.75 0.62 1 1 4 0.75 0.62 21 0.75 0.62 1 0 4 0.75 0.62 21 0.75 0.62 0 2 1 3 0 2 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 24 0.75 0.62 24 0.75 0.62 24 0.75 0.62 24 0.75 0.62 CITY ATTORNEY Legal Services City Attorney 114 1 Deputy City Attorney 60 1 City Prosecutor 57 1 Sr. Assistant City Attorney 56 0 Assistant City Attorney 300 4 Prosecutor I/II+ 47 5 Paralegal II+ 29 1 Legal Executive Assistant 28 1 Administrative Support Supervisor 25 0 Paralegal I+ 25 1 (1 position 60% funded by General Fund / 40% by Victim's Rights Grants) Legal Specialist I/II+ 19 1 Senior Legal Assistant 19 1 Legal Assistant 16 4 Paralegal** 0.75 Law Intern* 0.62 Total Full-Time 21 Total Perm FTE** 0.75 Total Temp FTE* 0.62 City Attorney/Water Sr. Assistant City Attorney Assistant City Attorney Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time City Attorney Department Total Full-Time City Attorney Department Total Perm FTE** City Attorney Department Total Temp FTE* 56 300 16 Cost Center Position 1810 1812 2621 1831 1832 FINANCIAL SERVICES Administration Financial Services Manager Executive Assistant 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 Claims Officer - Liability Risk Management Specialist Administrative Assistant II Administrative Assistant II** Workers Compensation Rep** Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Accounting Accounting Administrator Accounting Supervisor Cash Management Specialist Senior Accountant Accountant Payroll Supervisor Payroll Specialist Financial Services Technician I/II+ Accounting Assistant* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Tax and Licensing Tax and License Administrator License & Collections Supervisor Tax Audit Supervisor Tax Auditor I/II+ Specialty Licenses Coordinator Tax Audit Analyst Revenue Compliance Officer I/II Financial Services Technician I/II+ Total Full-Time 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Range Actual Budget Revised Budget 165 26 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 158 42 39 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 4 48 35 20 16 16 15 1 1 0 1 0 0.5 3 0.5 1 1 0 1 0 0.5 3 0.5 1 1 1 0 0.5 0 3 0.5 1 1 1 0 0.5 0 3 0.5 51 42 39 37 32 32 20 18 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 0.63 11 0.63 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 0.63 11 0.63 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 4 0.63 10 0.63 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 4 0.63 10 0.63 49 42 42 32 31 27 25 18 1 1 1 5 1 1 3 4 17 1 1 1 5 1 1 3 4 17 1 1 1 5 1 1 3 4 17 1 1 1 5 1 1 3 4 17 Cost Center Position 1841 1851 1852 Customer Services Deputy Financial Services Manager Customer Services Administrator Customer Services Office Supervisor Customer Services Field Supervisor Financial Services Technician I/II+ Water Meter Reader Tech Water Meter Reader Total Full-Time Central Services/Purchasing Central Services Administrator Procurement Officer 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 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Range Actual Budget Revised Budget 158 48 35 32 18 13 10 1 1 1 1 9 1 6 20 1 1 1 1 9 1 6 20 1 1 1 1 9 1 6 20 1 1 1 1 9 1 6 20 49 34 18 16 1 2 3 1 0.62 7 0.62 1 2 3 1 0.62 7 0.62 1 2 3 1 0.62 7 0.62 1 2 3 1 0.62 7 0.62 22 14 8 2 1 1 4 2 1 1 4 2 1 1 4 2 1 1 4 68 0.50 1.25 68 0.50 1.25 67 0.50 1.25 67 0.50 1.25 163 157 45 43 43 26 1 0 0 1 1 1 0.00 4 0.00 1 0 0 1 1 1 0.00 4 0.00 1 1 1 0 0 1 1.00 4 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 153 40 39 36 35 16 1 0 1 1 2 1 0.49 1 0 1 1 2 1 0.49 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Financial Services Department Total Full-Time Financial Services Department Total Perm FTE** Financial Services Department Total Temp FTE* 1870 4410 Economic Development Economic Development Manager Dep Economic Development Manager Technology Development Specialist Economic Development Specialist Retail Recruiter Executive Assistant COE* Economic Development Division Total Full-Time Economic Development Department Total Temp FTE* Economic Development - Rio Salado Deputy Economic Development Manager Rio Salado Financial Analyst Senior Planner Community Relations Coordinator Management Assistant I/II+ Administrative Assistant II COE* Cost Center Position 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Range Actual Budget Revised Budget Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE * 4413 Rio Salado Park Administrative Assistant I Total Full-Time 6 0.49 6 0.49 6 0.49 0 0.00 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 8 0.49 8 0.49 8 0.49 0 0.00 163 155 44 40 34 29 26 22 22 16 1 1 1 4 0 0 1 1 6 1 0 0.5 16 0.5 1 1 1 4 0 0 1 1 6 1 0 0.5 16 0.5 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 0 0.5 16 0.5 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 3 1 0.5 0.0 15 0.5 48 35 10 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 3 18 0.5 18 0.5 18 0.5 18 0.5 163 157 26 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 4 47 39 33 1 1 6 8 1 1 6 8 1 2 5 8 1 2 5 8 10 Rio Salado Division Total Full-Time Rio Salado Division Total Temp FTE* 1911 1920 HUMAN RESOURCES Human Resources -Administration Human Resources Manager Deputy Human Resources Manager Employee Benefits Administrator Sr./Human Resources Analyst + Sr./Benefits Coordinator + Human Resources Specialist Executive Assistant Benefits Specialist Human Resources Technician I/II+ Administrative Assistant II Human Resources Technician I/II+** Human Resources Analyst I/II+** Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Tempe Learning Center Org Development Administrator Management Assistant I/II+ Administrative Assistant I Total Full-Time Human Resources Department Total Full-Time Human Resources Department Total Perm FTE** 1981 1982 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Information Technology/Administration Information Technology Manager Deputy Information Tech Manager Executive Assistant Total Full-Time Information Technology/Customer Support PC Services Supervisor Sr. PC Services Consultant PC Services Consultant I/II+ Total Full-Time Cost Center Position 1983 1984 1985 Information Technology/Technical Services System Network Supervisor Data Center & Network Operations Supervisor Sr. Enterprise Network Engineer Sr. Tech Support Technical Support Analyst Enterprise Network Engineer I/II+ Production Control Coordinator Senior Data Center Support Specialist Data Center Support Specialist Total Full-Time Information Technology/Application Services Application Services Supervisor IT Project Coordinator Business Analyst (1 position funded by Water/Wastewater) Database Administrator Webmaster Customer Support Supervisor 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+ Total Full-Time Information Technology/Telecommunications Telecommunications Supervisor Enterprise Network Engineer II Telecommunications Operations Supervisor Management Assistant I/II+ Sr Communication Network Technician Communication Network Technician Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Range Actual Budget Revised Budget 49 48 45 44 41 41 33 27 23 1 1 2 0 0 5 1 1 3 14 1 1 2 0 0 5 1 1 3 14 1 1 1 2 3 4 1 1 3 17 1 1 1 2 4 4 1 1 3 18 51 50 49 1 1 8 1 1 8 1 1 8 1 1 8 48 48 47 47 3 2 1 9 3 2 1 9 3 2 1 9 2 2 1 10 42 6 6 6 6 39 31 1 5 37 1 5 37 1 5 37 1 5 37 46 41 40 35 31 28 16 1 3 1 0 1 3 1 10 1 3 1 0 1 3 1 10 0 0 1 1 1 3 0 6 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 5 73 73 72 72 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 1 0 1 4 Information Technology Department Total Full-Time 2710 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Development Services - Administration Development Services Manager Principal Planner Senior Planner Management Assistant I/II+ Planner I/II+ Executive Assistant Total Full-Time 165 47 39 35 34 26 Cost Center Position 2721 2722 2723 2724 2725 Building Safety and Permits Deputy Dev Services Manager-BS Plan Check Administrator Bldg. Inspection Superintendent Senior Plan Check Engineer Sr Building Inspector Plan Check Engineer Permits Center Supervisor Plans Examiner Building Code Complaint Investigator Building Inspector I/II+ Executive Assistant Sign Code Inspector Planning Code Inspector I/II Dev Services Specialist I/II + Administrative Assistant II Dev Services Specialist I/II + * Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Range Actual Budget Revised Budget 157 45 40 39 36 35 36 32 31 31 26 25 25 22 16 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 6 1 1 1 5 1 1 29 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 6 1 1 1 5 1 1 29 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Planning/Building Safety-Administration Deputy Dev Services Manager-Dev. Administrative Assistant I/II+ Total Full-Time 157 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 5 1 4 5 Inspection Building Inspection Supt Sr. Building Inspector Building Code Complaint Investigator Building Inspector I/II+ Code Inspector I/II+ Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time 41 37 33 31 26 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 6 2 1 12 1 1 1 6 2 1 12 47 39 34 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 3 7 1.86 12 1.86 2 3 7 1.86 12 1.86 35 22 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 5 1.00 6 1.00 1 5 1.00 6 1.00 Current and Advanced Planning Principal Planner Sr. Planner Planner I/II+ COE* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Customer Service Counter Permit Center Supervisor Development Services Specialist I/II+ Dev Services Specialist I/II+* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Cost Center Position 2726 2731 2732 2733 2734 2741 27612779 Plan Check Plan Check Administrator Sr. Plan Check Engineer Plan Check Engineer Plans Examiner Total Full-Time 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Range Actual Budget Revised Budget 47 41 37 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 2 9 1 2 4 2 9 45 39 34 16 2 4 7 3 1.86 16 1.86 2 4 7 3 1.86 16 1.86 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 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 40 32 27 26 16 8 1 1 1 8 1 1 13 1 1 1 8 1 1 13 1 1 1 8 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Redevelopment/Special Projects Principal Planner Senior Planner Planner I/II+ Total Full-Time 45 39 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 7 0 0 0 0 Redevelopment/Revitalization Administrative Assistant II Administrative Assistant I Total Full-Time 16 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 157 45 39 1 3 3 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 16 3 1 11 3 1 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 157 40 32 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 Planning Principal Planner Senior Planner Planner I/II+ Administrative Assistant II COE* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 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+ Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time Housing Services Division Dep Dev Svs Manager - Housing Srvs Housing Services Supervisor Accountant Cost Center Position 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Range Actual Budget Revised Budget Homeless Coordinator Rehabilitation Specialist Family Self Sufficiency Specialist Housing Services Specialist (CDBG & HOME) Housing Services Specialist (Section 8) Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time 31 27 27 25 21 16 1 0 1 3 5 1 14 1 0 1 3 5 1 14 1 3 2 0 6 1 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 2.86 84 2.86 86 2.86 48 2.86 167 44 35 31 26 21 16 16 10 300 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 12 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 12 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 12 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 29 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 6 1 5 19 5 2 1 40 1.0 1 1 6 1 5 19 5 2 1 40 1.0 1 1 6 1 5 19 5 2 1 40 1.0 1 0 6 1 0 20 5 0 0 33 0.0 1 6 36 1 6 36 1 6 36 1 6 38 43 43 43 45 Development Services Department Total Full-Time Development Services Department Total Temp FTE* 2210 2222 2231 2232 POLICE Office of the Chief Police Chief Fiscal-Research Administrator Management Assistant II Crime Analyst I/II+ Executive Assistant Alarm Coordinator Administrative Assistant II Police Records Clerk II Administrative Assistant I Assistant City Attorney Total Full-Time RICO Police Officer - CIB Detective (Funded through FY 06-07) Total Full-Time Detention Facility Operational Support Administrator Police Identification Supervisor Detention Supervisor Police Property Supervisor Police ID Technician Detention Officer Police Property Technician Fingerprint Technician Detention Officer** Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** 48 31 29 28 22 19 18 17 Communications Bureau Police Communications Administrator 42 Police Communications Shift Supvr. 32 Police Communications Dispatcher I/II+ 22 (2 overhires are non-recurring through FY 05-06) Total Full-Time Cost Center Position 2233 2235 2236 2241 2242 2243 Records Bureau Records Administrator Senior Police Records Clerk Police Records Clerk II Administrative Assistant I Police Records Clerk I COE* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Range Actual Budget Revised Budget 42 24 16 10 8 1 3 15 1 8 1.00 28 1.00 1 3 15 1 8 1.00 28 1.00 1 3 15 1 8 1.00 28 1.00 1 3 15 1 8 1.00 28 1.00 Identification Unit Police Identification Supervisor Police ID Technician Fingerprint Technician Total Full-Time 31 22 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 8 Crime Prevention Police Sergeant Crime Free Multi-Housing Coordinator Police Officer Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time 37 29 29 16 1 1 5 1 8 1 1 5 1 8 1 1 5 1 8 1 1 4 1 7 160 54 37 29 25 20 16 16 1 1 6 39 1 3 3 1 1.26 55 1.26 1 1 6 39 1 3 3 1 1.26 55 1.26 1 1 6 39 1 3 3 1 1.26 55 1.26 1 1 6 38 1 3 3 1 1.26 54 1.26 54 37 29 16 10 10 1 5 25 1 1 7 40 1 5 25 1 1 7 40 1 5 25 1 1 7 40 1 5 25 2 0 7 40 54 37 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 Investigations/Criminal Investigations Assistant Police Chief Police Commander Police Sergeant Police Officer Administrative Support Supervisor Police Community Service Officer Police Investigative Asst. Administrative Assistant II COE* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Investigations/Traffic Investigations Police Commander Police Sergeant Police Officer Administrative Assistant II Administrative Assistant I Traffic Enforcement Aide Total Full-Time SEU Police Commander Police Sergeant Cost Center Position 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Range Actual Budget Revised Budget 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 2251 2258 2259 2271 31 29 1 22 1 22 1 22 1 23 20 16 16 1 1 1 32 1 1 1 32 1 1 1 32 1 1 1 33 54 37 29 26 1 3 16 1 21 1 3 16 1 21 1 3 16 1 21 1 3 13 1 18 160 54 37 35 34 1 1 8 1 2 1 1 8 1 2 1 1 8 1 2 1 1 8 1 2 31 29 29 16 10 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 5 1 2 1 0.7 23 0.7 Rio Salado - Park Rangers Park Ranger Total Full-Time 13 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Rio Salado - Sworn Police officer Total Full-Time 29 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 160 54 37 29 16 10 1 1 2 1 2 2 0.16 2.5 1 1 2 1 2 2 0.16 2.5 1 1 2 1 2 2 0.16 2.5 1 0 2 1 2 2 0.16 2.5 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* Patrol-Administration Assistant Police Chief Police Commander Police Sergeant Police Officer Administrative Assistant II Administrative Assistant I Police Reserves* Service Aide* Cost Center Position 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Range Actual Budget Revised Budget COE* 0.63 9 3.29 0.63 9 3.29 0.63 9 3.29 0.63 8 3.29 54 37 29 20 5 23 137 10 175 5 23 137 10 175 5 23 137 10 175 6 24 140 10 180 37 2 2 2 1 13 9 11 9 11 9 11 9 10 8 8 8 12 8 8 8 12 515 1.0 6.25 515 1.0 6.25 515 1.0 6.25 524 0.0 6.25 165 158 48 16 1 1 3 1 6 1 1 3 1 6 1 1 3 1 6 1 1 3 1 6 49 35 22 16 1 7 2 1 0.0 11 0.0 1 7 2 1 0.0 11 0.0 1 7 2 1 0.0 11 0.0 1 7 2 1 1.0 11 1.0 30 33 62 30 33 74 125 137 Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 2272 2273 2274 Patrol Police Commander Police Sergeant Police Officer Police Community Service Officer Total Full-Time City Security Team Police Sergeant (.5 funded by Rio Salado Fund) Park Ranger Total Full-Time Recruits Police Officer 29 (4 Police Officers non-recurring through FY 05-06) Total Full-Time Police Department Total Full-Time Police Department Total Perm FTE** Police Department Total Temp FTE* 2310 2330 2340 FIRE Administration Fire Chief Assistant Fire Chief Fire Battalion Chief Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time Fire Prevention Fire Marshal Fire Inspector I/II+ Fire Education Specialist Administrative Assistant II Unclassified Temporary* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Fire Emergency Services Fire Captain 35 30 30 Fire Engineer 30 33 33 Firefighter 26 62 62 (12 overhires authorized through FY 05-06) (57 Firefighter, Engineer or Captain positions are paramedic assignment) Total Full-Time 125 125 Cost Center Position 2350 2363 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** 2361 (2364) Support Services - Administration Fire Battalion Chief Fire Services Inventory Technician Fire Support Services Technician Service Aide ** Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** 2370 Medical Services Fire Battalion Chief Fire Captain - Paramedic-Assgt. Emergency Medical Services Coordinator Medical Transport Contract Supervisor Total Full-Time 2380 Special Operations Fire Battalion Chief Haz Mat Program Specialist (Position funded by Water/Wastewater) Fire Captain - Paramedic-Assgt. Total Full-Time 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Range Actual Budget Revised Budget 48 37 16 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 33 28 16 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 16 1 1 1 0.50 3 0.50 1 1 1 0.50 3 0.50 1 1 1 0.50 3 0.50 1 1 1 0.50 3 0.50 48 38 33 28 1 1 1 0 3 1 1 1 0 3 1 1 1 0 3 1 1 1 1 4 48 37 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 35 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 156 1.00 0.00 156 1.00 0.00 156 1.00 0.00 169 1.00 1.00 1 1 1 0.52 3 0.52 1 1 1 0.52 3 0.52 1 1 1 0.52 3 0.52 1 1 1 0.52 3 0.52 Fire Department Total Full-Time Fire Department Total Perm FTE** Fire Department Total Temp FTE* 2410 COMMUNITY SERVICES Administration Community Services Manager Volunteer Coordinator Executive Assistant Unclassified Temporary* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 165 31 26 Cost Center Position 2421 Recreation/Administration Dep Comm. Svs. Mgr. - Parks & Rec Management Assistant II+ Recreation Coordinator Community Services Registration Tech Administrative Assistant II Administrative Assistant II** Unclassified Temporary* Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Total Temp FTE* 2422 (2483) Recreation/Community Events Community Services Supervisor Recreation Coordinator Assistant Recreation Coordinator Unclassified Temporary* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 2423 Recreation/Special Populations Senior Recreation Coordinator Asst. Recreation Coordinator Administrative Assistant II Unclassified Temporary* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 2424 2425 2426 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 Social Services Coordinator Recreation Coordinator Unclassified Temporary* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Recreation/Adult Sports Community Services Supervisor Recreation Coordinator Unclassified Temporary* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Range Actual Budget Revised Budget 159 35 31 19 16 1 1 1 1 3 1.50 0.22 7 1.50 0.22 1 1 1 1 3 1.50 0.22 7 1.50 0.22 1 1 1 1 3 0.75 0.22 7 0.75 0.22 1 1 1 1 3 0.75 0.22 7 0.75 0.22 39 31 23 1 1 1 1.18 3 1.18 1 1 1 1.18 3 1.18 1 2 1 1.18 4 1.18 1 2 0 1.18 3 1.18 35 23 16 1 1 1 2.87 3 2.87 1 1 1 2.87 3 2.87 1 2 1 2.87 4 2.87 1 2 1 2.87 4 2.87 39 31 23 1 3 0 1.93 4.72 4 6.65 1 3 0 1.93 4.72 4 6.65 1 2 0 1.93 4.72 3 6.65 1 2 1 1.93 4.72 4 6.65 31 31 0 2 3.84 2 3.84 0 2 3.84 2 3.84 1 1 3.84 2 3.84 0 2 3.84 2 3.84 39 31 1 2 3.89 3 3.89 1 2 3.89 3 3.89 1 2 3.89 3 3.89 1 2 3.89 3 3.89 Cost Center Position 2427 2429 2431 2432 2433 2434 2435 Recreation Resources Recreation Coordinator Unclassified Temporary* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Recreation/Diablo Stadium Operation Senior 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* 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Range Actual Budget Revised Budget 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 35 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 2 1 1.75 0.75 0.50 18.46 5 1.75 19.71 1 1 2 1 1.75 0.75 0.50 18.46 5 1.75 19.71 1 2 2 2 0.75 0.75 0.50 18.46 7 0.75 19.71 1 1 2 2 0.75 0.75 0.50 18.46 6 0.75 19.71 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 39 31 27 21 1 1 1 1 18.08 4 18.08 1 1 1 1 18.08 4 18.08 1 1 1 1 18.08 4 18.08 1 1 1 1 18.08 4 18.08 35 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 27 1 2.41 1 2.41 1 2.41 1 2.41 1 2.41 1 2.41 1 2.41 1 2.41 Recreation/Kiwanis Concession Unclassified Temporary* Total Temp FTE* Recreation/Aquatics Community Services Supervisor Recreation Coordinator Swimming Pool Maint Mechanic Swimming Pool Maint Technician Unclassified Temporary* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Adapted Recreation Senior Recreation Coordinator Total Full-Time Recreation/Kiwanis Batting Cage Batting Cage Coordinator Unclassified Temp* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Cost Center Position 2440 2486 2451 2457 Library Dep Comm Svcs Mgr - Library Library Supervisor Librarian I/II+ Recreation Coordinator Catalog Services Coordinator Circulation Services Coordinator Library Specialist I/II+ Administrative Assistant II Administrative Assistant 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 Administrative Assistant II** Unclassified Temporary* Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Total Temp FTE* Social Services/Diversion Social Services Supervisor Social Services Counselor I/II+ Social Services Counselor** Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Social Services/KID ZONE Community Services Supervisor Social Services Coordinator Social Services Specialist Assistant Recreation Coordinator Administrative Assistant II Inventory Services Specialist Unclassified Temporary* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Range Actual Budget Revised Budget 158 39 32 31 31 28 17 16 10 8 1 4 11 1 1 1 9 1 0 5 0.50 1.00 3.25 9.84 34 4.75 9.84 1 4 11 1 1 1 9 1 0 5 0.50 1.00 3.25 9.84 34 4.75 9.84 1 4 11 1 1 1 9 1 1 3 0.50 1.00 4.50 9.84 33 6.00 9.84 1 4 11 1 1 1 9 1 1 3 0.50 1.00 4.50 9.84 33 6.00 9.84 159 35 16 1 1 4 0.00 0.85 6 0.00 0.85 1 1 4 0.00 0.85 6 0.00 0.85 1 1 3 1.00 0.85 5 1.00 0.85 1 1 3 1.00 0.85 5 1.00 0.85 40 35 1 3 0.65 4 0.65 1 3 0.65 4 0.65 1 3 0.65 4 0.65 1 3 0.65 4 0.65 39 31 27 23 16 16 1 5 0 11 1 1 65.93 19 65.93 1 5 0 11 1 1 65.93 19 65.93 1 5 3 9 0 1 65.93 19 65.93 1 5 3 9 0 1 65.93 19 65.93 Cost Center Position 2485 2487 2481 2484 (2445) Social Services/Partnerships Social Services Supervisor Social Services Counselor II Youth Employment Coordinator Social Services Coordinator Crisis Intervention Specialist Unclassified Temporary * Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Social Services/Escalante Community Services Supervisor Social Services Coordinator Recreation 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* 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Range Actual Budget Revised Budget 40 35 31 31 27 2 1 0 2 1 7.43 6 7.43 2 1 0 2 1 7.43 6 7.43 2 1 1 1 1 7.43 6 7.43 2 1 1 1 1 7.43 6 7.43 39 31 31 23 16 1 2 0 2 1 0.75 0.75 7.28 6 1.50 7.28 1 2 0 2 1 0.75 0.75 7.28 6 1.50 7.28 1 2 1 2 1 0.75 0.75 7.28 7 1.50 7.28 1 2 2 2 1 0.75 0.75 7.28 8 1.50 7.28 0 1 1 1 2 1 0.50 0.95 0.36 6.01 4 0.50 7.32 1 2 1 0.00 0.95 0.36 6.01 5 0.00 7.32 1 2 1 0.00 0.95 0.36 6.01 5 0.00 7.32 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 Cultural Services - Administration Dep Comm Svcs Mgr - Cultural Services 158 0 (50% funded by General Fund, 50% by Performing Arts Fund) Community Services Supervisor 39 1 Fine Arts Coordinator 32 2 Administrative Assistant II 16 1 Dep Comm Svcs Mgr - Cultural Services** 0.50 Recreation Leader III* 0.95 Recreation Leader IV* 0.36 Unclassified Temporary* 6.01 Total Full-Time 4 Total Perm FTE** 0.50 Total Temp FTE* 7.32 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* 39 32 27 16 1 4 1 1 0.5 0.7 7 0.5 0.7 Cost Center Position 3310 3311 3610 Cemetery Administration Executive Assistant Administrative Assistant I** Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Cemetery Maintenance Groundskeeper I Total Full-Time Performing Arts - Administration Cultural Facilities Administrator Management Assistant II Technical Director Gallery Coordinator Fine Arts Coordinator Facility Automation Tech Custodial Supervisor Asst. Tech Director - Lighting Asst. Tech Director - Audio Box Office Manager Facility Technician II Box Office Assistant Manager Administrative Assistant II Groundskeeper I/II Custodian Dep Comm Svcs Mgr - Cultural Services** Unclassified Temp* Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Total Temp FTE* 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Range Actual Budget Revised Budget 26 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.50 1 0.50 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 53 35 32 32 32 29 28 27 27 27 23 16 10 8 5 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.50 0.00 3 0.50 0.00 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.50 0.00 3 0.50 0.00 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 3 0.00 0.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 0.00 13.27 19 0.00 13.27 Community Services Department Total Full-Time Community Services Department Total Perm FTE** Community Services Department Total Temp FTE* 2810 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Community Development - Admin Community Development Manager Dep Comm Dev Manager - Economic Dev Technology Development Specialist Principal Planner Planner I/II+ Executive Assistant COE* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 126 126 130 148 11.65 11.65 11.15 11.65 167.22 167.22 167.22 180.49 165 157 45 45 34 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 6 1.00 Cost Center Position 2811 2812 2813 28612869 4410 4413 Neighborhood Enhancement Code Enforcement Administrator Senior Code Inspector Specialist Neighborhood Enhance Program Coord Code Inspector I/II+ Total Full-Time Redevelopment/Special Projects Principal Planner (1 position funded by Federal Grant) Senior Planner (1 position funded by Federal Grant) Planner I/II+ (1 position 50% funded by Federal Grant) Total Full-Time Redevelopment/Revitalization Administrative Assistant II Administrative Assistant I Total Full-Time Housing Services Division Dep Dev Svs Manager - Revitalization & Redev (50% funded by General Fund) Housing Services Administrator Accountant Homeless Coordinator Rehabilitation Specialist Family Self Sufficiency Specialist Housing Services Specialist Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time Community Development - Rio Salado Deputy Community Development Manager Rio Salado Financial Analyst Senior Planner Community Relations Coordinator Management Assistant I/II+ 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* 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Range Actual Budget Revised Budget 40 32 29 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 8 11 45 0 0 0 2 39 0 0 0 3 34 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 7 16 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 157 0 0 0 1 40 32 31 28 27 21 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 2 6 1 16 157 40 39 36 35 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.49 6 0.49 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 8 0.49 Cost Center Position 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Range Actual Budget Revised Budget Community Development Department Total Full-Time Community Development Department Total Temp FTE* 3210 3221 3222 3223 3225 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 50 1.49 166 35 26 1 1 1 0.49 3 0.49 1 1 1 0.49 3 0.49 1 1 1 0.49 3 0.49 1 1 1 0.49 3 0.49 Engineering/Admin. Support/Contract Admin. Deputy PW Manager-Engineering Senior Management Assistant Contract Administrator Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time 160 40 31 16 1 1 1 2 5 1 1 1 2 5 1 1 1 2 5 1 1 1 2 5 Engineering/Construction Mgt. & Quality Assurance Principal Civil Engineer Senior Civil Engineer+ Engineering Permit Inspection Coordinator Utility Infrastructure Coordinator Senior Engineering Associate+ Engineering Associate+ Total Full-Time 44 41 36 33 31 27 1 0 1 0 3 1 6 1 0 1 0 4 1 7 1 1 1 1 4 0 8 1 1 1 1 4 0 8 44 41 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 36 33 31 1 1 3 8 1 1 3 8 0 0 4 7 0 0 4 7 46 37 36 33 24 18 1 1 1 4 4 1 12 1 1 1 3 4 1 11 1 1 1 3 4 1 11 1 1 1 3 4 1 11 34 0.49 34 0.49 34 0.49 34 0.49 PUBLIC WORKS Administration Public Works Manager Management Assistant II Executive Assistant COE* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Engineering/Plan Review/Project Development Principal Civil Engineer Senior Civil Engineer+ (One position funded by Water/Wastewater) Civil Engineer + Utility Infrastructure Coordinator Senior Engineering Associate+ Total Full-Time Engineering/Information & Technical Services Engineering Services Administrator Engineering Systems Supervisor Real Estate Property Specialist Senior Engineering Associate+ Engineering Technician I/II+ Survey Technician II+ Total Full-Time Admin & Engineering Division Total Full-Time Admin & Engineering Division Total Temp FTE* Cost Center Position 3231 3241 3250 3271 3272 3273 3274 3252 Field Services/Administration Deputy PW Manager-Field Services Senior Management Assistant Management Assistant I/II+ Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Range Actual Budget Revised Budget 160 40 35 16 1 1 1 2 5 1 1 1 2 5 1 1 1 2 5 1 1 1 2 5 44 32 29 26 24 1 1 1 1 15 0 19 0 1 1 1 1 15 0 19 0 1 1 1 1 15 0 19 0 1 1 1 1 15 0.5 19 0.5 24 5 4 34 0.49 38 0.49 4 34 0.49 38 0.49 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 Field Services/Custodial 1 Custodial Supervisor Custodian Total Full-Time 24 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 11 1 10 11 Field Services/Custodial 2 Custodial Supervisor Custodian Total Full-Time 24 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 9 1 8 9 Field Services/Custodial 3 Custodial Supervisor Custodian Total Full-Time 24 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 8 1 7 8 24 5 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 9 0.49 10 0.49 1 11 0.49 12 0.49 44 34 1 3 1 3 1 3 0 0 Field Services/Facility Maintenance Administration Asst. Field Serv. Director-Facility Management Facility Maintenance Supervisor Facility Automation Technician Facility Electrician Facility Technician I/II+ Facility Technician I/II+ ** Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Field Services/Custodial Services Custodial Supervisor Custodian Custodian* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Field Services/Custodial 4 Custodial Supervisor Custodian Custodian* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Field Services/Parks Maintenance Asst. Field Services Director Park/Golf Course Maintenance Parks and Golf Course Supervisor Cost Center Position 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Range Actual Budget Revised Budget Parks Facility Maint. Wkr. I/II+ Senior Groundskeeper Parks & Golf Course Mechanic Equipment Operator II Sprinkler Sys. Maint. Worker I/II+ Equipment Operator I Groundskeeper I/II+ Groundskeeper* Unclassified Temporary* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 3212 3213 3214 Central Parks and Rio Salado District Parks and Golf Course Supervisor Senior Groundskeeper Sprinkler Sys. Maint. Worker I/II+ Pest Control Technician Groundskeeper I/II+ Groundskeeper* Unclassified Temporary* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* North Parks District Parks and Golf Course Supervisor Parks Facility Maint. Wkr. I/II+ Senior Groundskeeper Parks & Golf Course Mechanic Equipment Operator II Sprinkler Sys. Maint. Worker I/II+ Pest Control Technician Equipment Operator I Groundskeeper I/II+ Groundskeeper* Unclassified Temporary* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* South Parks and Sports Complex Parks and Golf Course Supervisor Parks Facility Maint. Wkr. I/II+ Senior Groundskeeper Equipment Operator II Sprinkler Sys. Maint. Worker I/II+ Pest Control Technician Equipment Operator I Groundskeeper I/II+ Groundskeeper* Unclassified Temporary* 23 21 21 19 17 11 8 2 7 1 6 7 4 15 2.62 2.5 46 5.12 2 7 1 6 7 4 15 2.62 2.5 46 5.12 2 8 1 5 7 4 15 2.62 2.5 46 5.12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.00 34 21 17 17 8 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 1 2 1 1 4 0.88 0.84 9 1.72 34 23 21 21 19 17 17 11 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 3 0.87 0.83 15 1.70 34 23 21 19 17 17 11 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 1 4 3 3 2 3 8 0.87 0.83 Cost Center Position 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Range Actual Budget Revised Budget Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 3253 3254 3255 3256 3257 3258 3712 3713 3714 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 25 1.70 34 21 8 1 2 5 0.56 8 0.56 1 2 5 0.56 8 0.56 1 2 5 0.56 8 0.56 1 2 5 0.56 8 0.56 21 8 1 1 0.1 2 0.1 1 1 0.1 2 0.1 1 1 0.1 2 0.1 1 1 0.1 2 0.1 Field Services/Landscape Maintenance Contract Parks and Golf Course Supervisor Total Full-Time 34 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Field Services/Pest Control Senior Pest Control Worker Pest Control Technician Total Full-Time 23 17 1 4 5 1 4 5 0 4 4 0 0 0 Field Services/Rio Salado - CFD Groundskeeper I/II+ Total Full-Time 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Double Butte Cemetery Groundskeeper I/II+ Total Full-Time 8 1 1 1 1 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 47 31 22 16 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 Field Services/Solid Waste Residential Refuse Solid Waste/Recycling Supervisor Solid Waste Equipment Operator II Total Full-Time 31 19 1 19 20 1 19 20 1 19 20 1 19 20 31 22 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 Field Services/Baseball Facility Parks and Golf Course Supervisor Senior Groundskeeper Groundskeeper I/II+ Groundskeeper* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Field Services/Rio Salado Senior Groundskeeper Groundskeeper I/II+ Groundskeeper* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* Field Services/Solid Waste Commercial Refuse Solid Waste/Recycling Supervisor Senior Equipment Operator Cost Center Position 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Range Actual Budget Revised Budget Solid Waste Equipment Operator II Total Full-Time 3715 3716 3718 2511 2512 Field Services/Roll Off Tilt Frame Senior Equipment Operator Solid Waste Equipment Operator II Total Full-Time Field Services/Solid Waste Support Services Lead Solid Waste Technician Solid Waste Equipment Technician Wash Bay Attendant** Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Field Services/Solid Waste Uncontained Refuse Solid Waste/Recycling Supervisor Solid Waste Equipment Operator II Total Full-Time Field Services/Rolling Hills Golf Parks & Golf Course Supervisor Senior Groundskeeper Parks & Golf Course Mechanic Equipment Operator II Sprinkler Systems Maint. Worker I/II+ Equipment Operator I Groundskeeper I/II+ Groundskeeper I/II+* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 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 I/II+ Groundskeeper I/II+* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 19 15 16 15 16 15 16 13 16 22 19 3 0 3 3 0 3 3 0 3 1 2 3 22 19 1 3 0.5 4 0.5 1 3 0.5 4 0.5 1 3 0.5 4 0.5 1 3 0.5 4 0.5 31 19 1 15 16 1 15 16 1 15 16 1 15 16 34 21 21 19 17 11 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1.07 10 1.07 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1.07 10 1.07 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1.07 10 1.07 0 1 1 1 1 1 4 1.07 9 1.07 34 21 21 19 17 11 8 1 1 1 2 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 1 1 1 2 1 1 5 1.35 12 1.35 212 0.5 8.69 212 0.5 8.69 211 0.5 8.69 211 1.0 8.69 1 1 1 1 Field Services Division Total Full-Time Field Services Division Total Perm FTE** Field Services Division Total Temp FTE* 3261 Fleet Services/Fleet Management Fleet Director 148 Cost Center Position 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Range Actual Budget Revised Budget Fleet Analyst Automotive Parts Supervisor Equipment Control Coordinator Senior Auto Parts Specialist Auto Parts Specialist Administrative Assistant II Auto Parts Messenger* Total Full-Time Total Temp FTE* 3262 Fleet Services/Fleet Maintenance Equipment Maint. Supervisor Equipment Control Coordinator Lead Equipment Mechanic Equipment Mechanic Equipment Paint & Body Repair Worker Equipment Service Worker II Total Full-Time 35 32 30 23 16 16 1 1 1 1 2 1 0.5 8 0.5 1 1 1 1 2 1 0.5 8 0.5 1 1 1 1 2 1 0.5 8 0.5 1 1 1 1 2 1 0.5 8 0.5 33 30 28 25 22 14 3 1 2 14 1 4 25 3 1 2 14 1 4 25 3 0 3 14 1 4 25 3 0 3 14 1 4 25 33 0.50 33 0.50 33 0.50 33 0.50 1 1 1 1 3 19 1 1 1 1 3 19 1 27 1 27 Fleet Services Division Total Full-Time Fleet Services Division Total Temp FTE* 3813 3821 3822 Streets & Traffic Operations/Street Maintenance Street Maintenance Superintendent 45 1 1 Senior Civil Engineer + 43 1 1 Street Maintenance Supervisor 31 1 1 Senior Pest Control Technician 23 0 0 Senior Equipment Operator 22 3 3 Street Maintenance Worker I/II 19 20 20 (2 positions funded by Solid Waste for Alley Management Program) (4 positions funded by Water/Wastewater for Street sweeping-stormwater program) Administrative Assistant II 16 0 0 Total Full-Time 26 26 Streets & Traffic Operations/Administration Deputy Public Works Manager - Transportation Assistant to PW Manager Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time 160 42 16 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 2 Transportation/Studies & Design Traffic Engineering Supervisor Intelligent Trans. System Coordinator Senior Civil Engineer+ Senior Transportation Planner Traffic Engineering Analyst Traffic Engineering Technician+ Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time 45 45 43 40 34 27 16 1 0 1 1 4 0 0 7 1 0 1 1 4 0 0 7 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 9 Cost Center Position 3823 3824 3825 3911 3914 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Range Actual Budget Revised Budget 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 45 30 23 18 16 16 1 1 2 1 1 4 10 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 Management Assistant I/II+ Lighting Systems Coordinator Total Full-Time 35 29 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Streets and Traffic Operations/Signal System Intelligent Trans. System Coordinator Traffic Signal Supervisor Traffic Signal Technician I/II+ Underground Utilities Coordinator Traffic Signal Service Worker I/II+ Total Full-Time 45 35 26 22 21 1 1 3 1 5 11 1 1 3 1 5 11 0 1 3 1 5 10 0 1 4 1 5 11 160 47 45 46 43 40 40 35 37 37 36 36 32 32 32 26 20 18 16 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0.5 20 0.5 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0.5 20 0.5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.0 4 0.0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.0 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 Transportation/Transit Deputy Public Works Manager Principal Planner Transit Administrator Principal Civil Engineer Sr Civil Engineer+ Senior Transportation Planner + Transportation Financial Analyst Management Assistant I/II Transit Operations Supervisor Transit Finance Specialist Transportation Planner + Community Outreach & Marketing Coordinator I/II+ Transit Operations Coordinator Alternative Modes Specialist Transit Information Specialist Transit Support Services Supervisor Transportation Support Specialist Transit Operations Technician Administrative Assistant II Management Intern** Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Transit Operations Transit Administrator Sr. Transit Operations Cooordinator 45 37 Cost Center Position 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Range Actual Budget Revised Budget Transit Operations Coordinator I/II + Transit Operations Technician Total Full-Time 3915 3916 3917 3921 3922 3923 32 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 2 0 4 Transportation/Transit Store Financial Services Technician I/II+ Total Full-Time 18 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Marketing and Public Information Community Outreach & Marketing Supervisor Community Outreach Marketing Coordinator I/II+ Alternative Modes Specialist Transit Information Specialist Total Full-Time 40 36 32 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 3 1 2 0 0 3 Transportation/Bus Stop Maintenance Transportation Operations Worker I/II+ Total Full-Time 16 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 51 44 40 36 26 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1 1 0 1 0.50 4 0.50 1 1 1 1 1 0.00 5 0.00 Transportation Systems Sr Civil Engineer+ Total Full-Time 43 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 Operations/Transportation Principal Planner Sr. Transportation Planner + Total Full-Time 47 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 2 2 4 87 0.5 87 0.5 88 0.5 91 0.0 366 1.0 9.68 366 1.0 9.68 366 1.0 9.68 369 1.0 9.68 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CP/EV Light Rail Project LRT Project Manager Principal Civil Engineer Senior Transportation Planner + LRT Transportation Planner Transit Support Services Supervisor Management Intern** Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Transportation Division Total Full-Time Transportation Division Total Perm FTE** Public Works Department Total Full-Time Public Works Department Total Perm FTE** Public Works Department Total Temp FTE* 3002 WATER UTILITIES Water Utilities - Administration Water Utilities Dept. Manager Deputy Water Utilities Manager - Operations Principal Infrastructure Engineering Planner 165 157 43 Cost Center Position 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Range Actual Budget Revised Budget Senior Management Assistant Planning and Research Analyst 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 40 40 35 33 26 16 1 1 1 1 1 2 0.49 10 0.49 1 1 1 1 1 2 0.49 10 0.49 1 1 1 1 0 2 0.49 9 0.49 1 1 1 1 0 2 0.49 9 0.49 Water Utilities Warehouse Warehouse Supervisor Inventory Services Specialist Distribution Clerk Total Full-Time 25 16 8 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 2 0 3 1 2 0 3 Water Utilities Security WUD Security Coordinator Water Utility Security Guard Total Full-Time 35 15 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Water Quality - Administration Plant Operations Administrator Total Full-Time 49 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 37 28 26 1 4 4 9 1 4 4 9 1 4 4 9 1 4 4 9 36 26 24 1 1 7 1 1 7 1 1 8 1 1 9 24 2 11 2 11 2 12 3 14 36 26 24 1 1 5 1 1 5 1 1 4 1 1 5 24 2 9 2 9 2 8 1 8 49 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Johnny G. Martinez Water Plant Plant Team Leader Plant Electrician (SBP) Plant Operator I/II+ (6 SBP) (1 position funded through FY 08/09 only) Plant Mechanic (SBP) Total Full-Time South Tempe Water Plant Plant Team Leader Plant Electrician (1 SBP) Plant Operator I/II+ (4 SBP) (1 position funded through FY 08/09 only) Plant Mechanic (SBP) Total Full-Time Distribution System Services - Administration Transmission and Collection Administrator Total Full-Time Cost Center Position 3022 3024 3025 3027 3028 3029 3031 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Range Actual Budget Revised Budget Distribution System Maintenance Utility Services Supervisor Utility Services Team Lead Utility Services Tech I/II+ (SBP) Total Full-Time 37 27 17 1 2 10 13 1 2 10 13 1 2 10 13 1 2 10 13 Irrigation Water Systems Supervisor Water Systems Coordinator Irrigator Total Full-Time 33 24 8 1 1 7 9 1 1 7 9 1 1 7 9 1 1 7 9 Technical Support Team CMMS Tech II Engineering Tech II Underground Utilities Coordinator Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time 24 24 22 16 4 2 2 1 9 4 2 2 1 9 4 2 2 1 9 4 2 2 1 9 49 42 37 33 31 28 1 1 3 1 2 1 0.5 9 0.5 1 1 3 1 2 1 0.5 9 0.5 1 1 3 1 0 1 0.5 7 0.5 1 1 3 1 0 1 0.5 7 0.5 Environmental - Pretreatment Sr. Environmental Investigator Environmental Investigator I/II+ Environmental Technician I/II+ Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time 35 31 22 16 1 4 4 2 11 1 4 4 2 11 1 6 4 2 13 1 6 4 2 13 Environmental Health & Services Environmental Haz. Mat. Supervisor Industrial Hygienist Water Utility Safety & Training Coordinator Hazardous Material Safety Specialist Environmental Investigator I/II+ Total Full-Time 42 33 33 33 31 1 1 0 0 1 3 1 1 0 0 1 3 1 1 1 1 0 4 1 1 1 1 0 4 Wastewater Services - Administration S.R.O.G Program Administrator Total Full-Time 47 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Environmental Environmental Services Administrator Environmental Program Supervisor Environmental Quality Specialist Sr. Cross Connection Control Inspector Environmental Investigator+ Cross Connection Control Inspector Administrative Assistant II** Total Full-Time Total Perm FTE** Cost Center Position 3033 3034 3035 3041 3051 3052 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Range Actual Budget Revised Budget 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 Kyrene Water Reclamation Plant Plant Team Leader Plant Electrician Plant Operator I/II+ (SBP) Plant Mechanic+ (SBP) Total Full-Time 36 26 24 24 1 0 1 1 3 1 0 1 1 3 1 0 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 5 Field Facilities - Wastewater Plant Team Leader (SBP) Plant Mechanic+ (SBP) Total Full-Time 36 24 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Laboratory Services - Administration Laboratory Supervisor Senior Chemist Chemist I/II+ Water Quality Technician Administrative Assistant II Total Full-Time 43 38 32 22 16 0 1 5 1 1 8 0 1 5 1 1 8 1 0 5 1 1 8 1 0 5 1 1 8 Water Resources - Administration Water Resource Administrator Water Resources Hydrologist Total Full-Time 47 43 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 31 20 1 1 2 130 0.50 0.49 1 1 2 130 0.50 0.49 1 1 2 130 0.50 0.49 1 1 2 134 0.50 0.49 Water Conservation Water Conservation Coordinator Water Resources Technician Total Full-Time 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 *Temporary Full-Time Equivalent 1,643 1,643 1,645 1,693 16.90 16.90 17.55 16.55 195.97 195.97 196.97 211.24 ( )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 Risk Management Fund Special Revenue Funds HURF Transit Rio Salado Performing Arts CDBG/Section 8 Enterprise Funds Golf Cemetery Water/Wastewater Solid Waste Grand Total 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Actual Budget Revised Budget 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 14 3 14 3 16 3 16 3 17 17 19 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 18 18 20 21 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 Actual Budget Revised Budget 1,272 3 1,272 3 1,272 3 1,296 3 54 28 19 3 14 54 28 19 3 14 54 28 19 3 16 55 30 19 19 16 22 1 162 65 1,643 22 1 162 65 1,643 22 1 162 65 1,645 21 3 166 65 1,693 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. Adopted Budget - The financial plan of revenue and expenditures for a fiscal year as approved by the governing entity. Annexation - Is the legal merging of some territory into another. A city might annex unincorporated areas or a county might annex other disputed territories. Also used to refer to mergers of countries. 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. Balance Sheet - A financial statement showing the assets, liabilities, and net worth of an entity as of a specific date. Balanced Budget -A balanced budget arises when the government entity estimates the same amount of money from revenue collection as it is appropriating for expenditures. Benchmarking-The process of comparing a entities performance against the practices of other leading entities -in or outside of an industry -for the purpose of improving performance. Entities also benchmark internally by tracking and comparing past performance. 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 Rating - Is the measure of the quality and safety of a bond. It indicates the likelihood that a debt issuer will be able to meet scheduled repayments, and dictates the interest rate paid. Bond Refinancing -The payoff and re-issuance of bonds, to obtain better interest rates and/or bond conditions. Budget -A plan of financial operation for a specified period of time (fiscal year). The annual Budget authorizes, and provides the basis for control of, financial operations during the fiscal year. Capital Budget -A Capital 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 efficiency of services. Typical measures collected might include average emergency response time for fire or cost per manhour of garbage collection. Program Budget -A budget that focuses upon broad functions or activities of an agency or jurisdiction rather than upon its organizational budget units or object classes of expenditure. The City's programs: (1) General Services; (2) Development Services; (3) Public Safety; (4) Environmental Health; (5) Community Services; and (6) Public Transportation. Budget Adjustment -A procedure to revise a budget appropriation either by City Council approval through the adoption of a supplemental appropriation ordinance for any interdepartmental or interfund adjustments or by City Manager authorization to adjust appropriations within a departmental budget. Budget Calendar -The schedule of key dates or milestones which the City follows in the preparation, adoption, and administration of the budget. Budget Document -The instrument used by the budget-making authority to present a comprehensive financial program to the City Council. Budget Group - A fun group of hard working employees responsible for budget preparation, benchmarking, forecasting, and financial analysis. Budget Message - The opening section of the budget which provides the City Council and the public with a general summary of the most important aspects of the budget, changes from the current and previous fiscal years, and recommendations regarding the financial policy for the upcoming period. Budgetary Basis - This refers to the form of accounting utilized throughout the budget process. These generally take one of three forms: GAAP, Cash, Modified Accrual or some type of statutory form budgets are adopted on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) except that (a) encumbrances are considered to be an expenditure chargeable to appropriations, (b) no depreciation is budgeted for in enterprise funds, (c) investments in supply inventories and assets restricted for self-insurance purposes are not considered to be appropriable, (d) revenue 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 revenue. Capital Budget - The appropriation of bonds or other revenue for improvements to facilities and other infrastructure. Capital Expenditures - Expenditures approved in the Capital Budget related to the acquisition, expansion or rehabilitation of an element of the government's physical plant. Capital Improvements - 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 five-year capital program for City Council approval. Capital Outlay- Expenditures which result in the acquisition of or addition to fixed assets. to Full Value; (3) Debt to Personal Income; and (4) Debt Services to Revenue. Cash Basis - A basis of accounting in which transactions are recognized only when cash is increased or decreased. 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. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) - Program authorized by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 in place of several community development categorical grant programs. CDBG provides eligible metropolitan cities and urban counties (called "entitlement communities") with annual direct grants that they can use to revitalize neighborhoods, expand affordable housing and economic opportunities, and/or improve community facilities and services, principally to benefit low and moderate income persons. 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. Department Goal - Specific intended result of a strategy; used interchangeably with objective. The term "goal" is used in a wide variety of ways in planning; e.g. as a strategic result or outcome; an objective, a measure, a target, etc. 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 related to 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 Direct Debt - The sum of the total bonded debt and any unfunded debt (e.g. short-term 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 revenue (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 revenue 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. Effective Measure - Degree to which an activity or initiative is successful in achieving a specified goal. Also, the degree to which activities of a unit achieve the unit's mission or goal. Efficiency Measure - Degree of capability or productivity of a process, such as the number of cases closed per year or tasks accomplished per unit cost. 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. Franchise Fees - Annual fees paid by utilities (electricity, telephone, cable TV, natural gas) for the use of the city's public rights-of-way, or that are granted a service monopoly that is regulated by the city (garbage collection). The franchise fee is typically a set percentage of gross revenue within the city. Full Faith and Credit - A pledge of a government’s taxing power to repay debt obligations. Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) - There are three types of classifications: (1) Full-time - works 40 hrs/week (full-time) and is benefitted; (2) Permanent FTE - works more than 19.5 hours per week and less than 40 hrs/week, is not seasonal, is not of specific limited duration, and is not for educational training; and (3) Temporary FTE - works less than 40 hrs/week, is seasonal, and is of specific limited duration, or is for educational training. Fund - A set of inter-related accounts to record revenue and expenditures associated with a specific purpose. Fund structure consists of Governmental Funds (e.g., General Fund, Special Revenue Fund, Debt Service Fund), Proprietary Funds, and Fiduciary Funds (See previous section on "Financial Structure and Operations" for complete description of funds). Governmental Funds Capital Projects Fund - Capital Projects Funds are used to account for financial resources to be used for the acquisition or construction of major capital facilities (other than those financed by Proprietary Funds and Trust Funds). Debt Service Fund - Debt Service Funds are set up to receive dedicated revenue used to make principal and interest payments on City debt. They are used to account for the accumulation of resources for, and the payment of, general obligation and special assessment debt principal, interest and related costs, except the debt service accounted for in the Special Revenue Funds, and Enterprise Funds. General Fund - The General Fund is the general operating fund of the City. It is used to account for all activities of the City not accounted for in some other fund. Special Revenue Fund - Special Revenue Funds are set up as accounts for Federal or State grants legally restricted to expenditures for specific purposes. Our Special Revenue Funds include the Highway User Fund, the Local Transportation Assistance Fund, the Performing Arts Fund, the Community Development Fund, and the Housing Assistance Fund. Proprietary Funds Enterprise Funds - Enterprise Funds are used to account for operations including debt service (a) that are financed and operated in a manner similar to private businesses - where the intent of the government body is that the costs (expenses, including depreciation) of providing goods or services to the general public on a continuing basis is financed or recovered primarily through user charges; or (b) where the governing body has determined that periodic determination of revenue 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, the Cemetery and the Golf Course Fund. Fund Balance - The difference between revenue and expenditures. The beginning fund balance represents the residual funds brought forward from the previous year (ending balance). Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) - Uniform minimum standards for financial accounting and recording, encompassing the conventions, rules, and procedures that define accepted accounting principles. Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) - An accounting standards board formed in 1984 by the Financial Accounting Foundation (FAF) to develop accounting standards for state and local governmental entities. General Governmental Revenue - The revenue of a government other than those derived from and retained in an enterprise fund. General Governmental revenue include those from the General, Debt Service, and Special Revenue Funds. General Obligation Bonds - Bonds that finance a variety of public projects such as streets, buildings, and improvements; the repayment of these bonds is usually made from secondary property taxes, and these bonds are backed by the "full faith and credit" of the issuing government. Goal - A long-term, attainable target for an organization–its vision of the future. Grant - A contribution by the State or Federal government or other organization to support a particular function. Grants may be classified as either categorical or block depending upon the amount of discretion allowed the grantee. Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF)Special revenue fund to account for the receipts and expenditures of highway user monies. Arizona cities/towns are entitled to receive a portion of the highway user revenue collected by the state. The highway user revenue consist of the gasoline and diesel fuel taxes as well as other transportation related fees. One half of the money is distributed on the basis of the' population of an incorporated city/town as a percentage of the total of all incorporated cities/ towns in the state. The remaining half of the money is distributed based on the level of gasoline sales in the county in which the municipality is located and the population of each city or town in the county. Highway user revenue funds may only be used for street and highway purposes. Indirect Cost - A cost necessary for the functioning of the organization as a whole, but which cannot be directly assigned, such as administrative support, facility maintenance or custodial services. Levy - To impose taxes for the support of government activities. Line-Item Budget - A budget prepared along departmental lines that focuses on what is to be bought. Long-Term Debt - Debt with a maturity of more than one year after the date of issuance. Interfund Transfer - The movement of monies between funds of the same governmental entity. 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. Internal Services Charges - The charges to user departments for internal services provided by another government agency, such as data processing, fleet services and communications. Mandate - Is a binding obligation issued from an inter-governmental organization for example the state to a county which is bound to follow the instructions of the organization. Infrastructure - The basic facilities, services, and installations needed for the functioning of a community or society, such as transportation and communications systems, water and power lines, and public institutions including schools, post offices, and prisons. Modified Accrual Basis - Refers to the accrual basis of accounting, which recognizes increases and decreases in financial resources only to the extent that they reflect near-term inflows or outflows of cash. Thus, under modified accrual basis of accounting, then, amounts are recognized as revenue when earned, only so long as they are collectible within the period or soon enough afterwards to be used to pay liabilities of the current period. Intergovernmental Revenue - Funds received from federal, state and other local government sources in the form of grants, shared revenue, and payments in lieu of taxes. Liability - Amounts owed for items received, services rendered, expenses incurred, assets acquired, construction performed, and amounts received but not as yet earned. Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF) - Special revenue fund to account for the receipts and expenditures associated with LTAF monies. This state shared revenue is generated by the state lottery. Distribution is based upon the population of the city/town in relation to the total population of all cities/ towns. Each city/town is entitled to receive a minimum of $10,000. A maximum of $23 million (if that amount is generated by the lottery) is distributed each year to cities/towns. The principal use of these funds is for transportation purposes. Municipality - An urban district having corporate status and powers of self-government. Objective - A specific measurable and observable result of an organization's activity which advances the organization toward its goal. Operating Expenses - The cost for personnel, materials and equipment required for a department to function. Operating Revenue - Funds that the government receives as income to pay for ongoing operations, including such items as taxes, user fees, interest earnings, and grant revenue. Operating revenue is 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 revenue rather than through borrowing. Per Capita - Applies to a unit of population or a person and shows how much each would have if a commodity/expense was divided equally. 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. Performing Arts Fund - Used to account for the receipts and expenditures of Performing Arts monies. This tax is for the construction and operation of the performing and visual arts center. 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, Community Development, 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- Solid Waste; and Development Services – Code Enforcement. (5) Community Services consist of: Community Services – Recreation/Library/ Social Services; Public Works – Park Maintenance; and Cemetery. (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 revenue and interest income. Source of Revenue - Revenue are classified according to their source or point of origin. 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. Tax Levy - The resultant product when the tax rate per one hundred dollars is multiplied by the tax base. Reserve - An account used to indicate that a portion of a fund's assets are 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 revenue, fund transfers, and beginning balances. Revised Budget - A revised budget is a revision of the adopted budget previously submitted and authorized by a governing board. Right-of-Way - The land used by a public utility, road, or railroad. Rio Salado Fund - Special revenue fund to account for the receipts and expenditures of miscellaneous monies used to foster the development of Rio Salado. Rio Salado - Spanish for Salt River was a project to re-introduce water into a dry riverbed. In 1999, Tempe Town Lake was filled and it extends about 5.5 miles in length and one mile in width. Rio Salado Community Facilities District Fund- Special revenue fund established in 1987, under the laws of the State of Arizona. The purpose is to account for the receipts and expenditures associated with Tempe Town Lake. Risk Management - An organization goal to protect a government's assets against accidental loss in the most economical method. R.O.W. - Abbreviated form, see Right-of-Way. 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, revenue, 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 Cecilia Velasco-Robles Deputy Financial Services Manager Debbie Bair Lead Budget & Research Analyst Michelle Caruso Budget & Research Analyst Tom Mikesell Budget & Research Analyst Anita Erspamer Executive Assistant